Why I am an athiest

@FBM,

No, i was addressing you. I see them as arguing for argument's sake, and not because they either have a point, or the rhetorical ability to contest what you're saying.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

I got the same impression. It's like playing chess with beginners who haven't learned yet how the pieces can and can't move but insist they're right, regardless.

2 Replies

@FBM,

Do you see a difference between your Pyrrhonism and Fallibilism and if so why?

1 Reply

@igm,

Pyrrhonism isn't mine. Wink

It's pretty much an orphan these days.

If fallibilism justifies holding beliefs, then it's in conflict with Pyrrhonism as I understand it. Pyrrhonism is the practice of ridding oneself of beliefs in order to achieve a state of ataraxia. In that sense, it's a practical philosophy, not one that makes metaphysical truth statements. Immediate experience isn't denied, but responded to according to conventions for the sake of avoiding difficulties. Short-range necessary inferences are used (such as a scar implies a previous wound, cf Sextus Empiricus), but not metaphysical speculation about absolute truths. Fallibilism seems to justify holding beliefs through metaphysical speculations, even while accepting that they may be wrong. I see a difference.

1 Reply

@FBM,

I see.

Couldn't it be argued that it doesn't add anything to the older philosophical school of Prasangika-Madhyamika and is therefore unnecessary?

Are you using Pyrrhonism to experience 'Ataraxia' and if so, historically, how long does it take to accomplish generally if this is known?

1 Reply

@igm,

Unnecessary in what respect? I don't see it as necessary for anyone, strictly speaking. Wink

Have you read Kuzminski? He went into considerable depth with regards to the similarities between Pyrrhonism and Madhyamaka Buddhism. http://www.amazon.com/Pyrrhonism-Reinvented-Buddhism-Comparative-Philosophy/dp/0739125079

I haven't run into any account about how long it takes to experience ataraxia, sorry. I could only offer my own anecdote, and anecdotes don't count for much as evidence, I'm afraid.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

No, i was addressing you. I see them as arguing for argument's sake, and not because they either have a point, or the rhetorical ability to contest what you're saying.

What specifically did you disagree with, in what I said?

0 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

It's like playing chess with beginners who haven't learned yet how the pieces can and can't move but insist they're right, regardless.

In reality, it was like me trying to teach chess to 3 yr old you. Who cried "straw man!" as soon as you took him a piece... Very Happy

Let's try and play with non-beginners then. What did you agree with in what Searle said in that video? Like when he raises his harm to prove causality, do you understand and agree with the point made? Did you understand the hammer example about higher levels of structuration functionning in a causal way?

He explains these complex issues like he would to a 3-yrs-old, so you guys should be able to understand him. Also he is a scholar, and you guys should thus respect him more than you respect me... Smile

Though of course I am precisely on his line of thinking.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Yet another ad hom fallacy? Have you learned nothing during all this? Are you completely incapable of formulating even the most basic hypothetical syllogism? State your case for your belief and let's have a look at it.

1 Reply

@FBM,

I did that for several days now and you never ever understood anything I was saying, either out of lack of rhetorical skills on my side, as Setanta implies, or lack of comprehension skill on your side, or both.

Let's try another track. Let's try discussing John Searle's philosophy. You posted that video. What did you like in it?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Also, try and write a few posts in a row withouth whining about falla-ci falla-ça... It will show courage on your side, and better self-control. I am patient with the people who insult me, but it doesn't mean I don't notice.

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Unnecessary in what respect?

It was just my way of pointing out that Pyrrhonism may have just taken some of Prasangika Madhyamika and introduced it to the Greeks as original thinking because in Greece at the time, few would have known its true origins.

FBM wrote:

I don't see it as necessary for anyone, strictly speaking.

To me it's important not to hold mistaken views about the true nature of reality if at all possible and if one has to, then they should be a subtle as possible. It’s a way of life for me; presumably from your comment it is only a hobby for you.

FBM wrote:

Have you read Kuzminski? He went into considerable depth with regards to the similarities between Pyrrhonism and Madhyamaka Buddhism. http://www.amazon.com/Pyrrhonism-Reinvented-Buddhism-Comparative-Philosophy/dp/0739125079

No, but I’m not surprised that someone else spotted the similarities. By the way Madhyamaka comes in various flavours and Prasangika is one of them. Technically it’s the Rangtong view and not the Zhentong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhentong

FBM wrote:

I haven't run into any account about how long it takes to experience ataraxia, sorry. I could only offer my own anecdote, and anecdotes don't count for much as evidence, I'm afraid.

If you want to share your anecdote please do.

2 Replies

@igm,

igm @ FBM wrote:

To me it's important not to hold mistaken views about the true nature of reality if at all possible and if one has to, then they should be a subtle as possible.

I would agree with the idea that the essence of things is not accessible to us. Which does not mean it does or does not exist, but it's beyond our grasp. The essence of anything is impossible to conceptualise and express through language.

igm @ FBM wrote:

It’s a way of life for me; presumably from your comment it is only a hobby for you.

True.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

I would agree with the idea that the essence of things is not accessible to us. Which does not mean it does or does not exist, but it's beyond our grasp. The essence of anything is impossible to conceptualise and express through language.

I hope you don't mind me asking:

Can you give the prerequisite characteristics needed for something to exist e.g. must it have at least some duration?

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Can you give the prerequisite characteristics needed for something to exist e.g. must it have at least some duration?

I would say yes, if we both agree that there exists something called duration.

Does duration need to endure in order to exist? Or is its existence something we can simply postulate?

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Hey, guys, scientists have already determined "duration." What more evidence/fact do you guys need? What I'm observing is the many statements you are making that conflicts with your existence on this forum.

You're trying to inform us that you don't exist?

It must be nice to be able to remove yourself from what we call "reality."

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Not really ci... it's a technique... something like examining both sides of the coin and if one side is false then the other side can't remain as it depends on the existence of its counterpart... think of it as a technique e.g. if everything is impermanent then nothing can be permanent therefore there is no duration. Think of the need for electrons to spin.. they can't stop... so the building blocks of matter have no duration they don't remain the same even momentarily.... it's that kind of thing I'm talking about... it's a technique... on a macro level things seem to have duration.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Does duration need to endure in order to exist?

Duration has to endure... if you can't prove duration then you can't prove existence because to say that something exists but it doesn't last for any time whatsoever is a contradiction.. to me anyway.

But are phenomena non-existent... no because they appear.

Do you agree?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Re: Olivier5 (Post 5332102)
Hey, guys, scientists have already determined "duration." What more evidence/fact do you guys need? What I'm observing is the many statements you are making that conflicts with your existence on this forum.

You're trying to inform us that you don't exist?

It must be nice to be able to remove yourself from what we call "reality."

I agree, it must be fun.

My point is that for any discussion to happen, there need to be some prior agreement about what exists and what doesn't. It's like in mathematic: you have to start with a few axioms about what you're talking about. "There exist a space called X, with elements structured so and so." and then you go on with exploring that space and what it can do for you. But unless you postulate the existence of a few stuff, inckuding duration, you can't have a discution about it.

I am a realist and assume the world, myself, yourself, conscience, free will, and time to exist, but not too sure about anybody else. Except you. Thanks for being here.

0 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

@Olivier5,
Duration has to endure... if you can't prove duration then you can't prove existence because to say that something exists but it doesn't last for any time whatsoever is a contradiction.. to me anyway.

I postulate the existence of duration (aka time?), but I can't prove it. Nobody can, IMHO. But I would agree that the very notion of existence implies a duration, however short.

Quote:

But are phenomena non-existent... no because they appear.

Do you agree?

I agree that phenomena cannot be doubted, except in certain, well known-circumtances such as dreams, hybriation, shock, etc.

Though one could say even a dream exists, at the perception level, the referent is not the usual one. A man in a dream can represent more than just a man. He can "code" for your father or some body else dear to you, for instance, so one can say dreams refer to something, but not in the usual way which implies being awake and aware of one's real environment, including one's real father.

1 Reply

Why I am an athiest

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know