Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

General philosophy discussions. If you are not sure where to place your thread, please post it here. Share favorite quotes, discuss philosophers, and other topics.

Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby BadgerJelly on July 1st, 2016, 10:12 am 

Syamsu -

maybe it would help if you told us what you mean by "choosing" in terms of causation? That used to be something you struggled to get through to anyone.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Watson on July 1st, 2016, 10:18 am 

Syamsu » Fri Jul 01, 2016 6:14 am wrote:
Serpent » June 30th, 2016, 10:16 pm wrote:As long as creationism stays in its own right and out of the public schools, I don't care.


If a school doesn't teach creationism, then it means there is no esteem for people's emotions in the school, because subjectivity is a creationist concept. Of course there will still be some support for subjectivity from common discourse, but basically what they would be teaching in class is that all that subjectivity is just a bunch of malarkey, and that only facts is where it's at.


Sorry dude the more you say, the less sense you make. I always thought that creationism was based strictly on subjective beliefs. Now you claim to be all about the facts? No wonder I was confused earlier if you are changing the meanings of words.
User avatar
Watson
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4611
Joined: 19 Apr 2009
Location: Earth, middle of the top half, but only briefly each 24 hours.


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Syamsu on July 1st, 2016, 10:18 am 

Watson » June 30th, 2016, 11:13 pm wrote:
In creationism objectivity and subjectivity are each validated in their own right

This is the first I've heard that creationism had anything to do with language or the meaning or intent of the words. I suppose I should read what you have written as suggested, but I must admit I have lost some interest in this subject.


Think about a sad 6 year old boy, and 6 year old girl, out there. They are sad because nobody is paying attention to subjectivity. Their emotions ignored, they are so sad. Only you can save them from their sadness by having the academic community accept the validity of subjectivity. That should motivate you. Otherwise you might also take a cup of coffee or something to get going.
Syamsu
 


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Lomax on July 1st, 2016, 11:16 am 

Syamsu,

The pathologically emotional have art, and morality, which will always necessarily involve values. They can take drama class if crying about their feelings is what they are good for. When they are on stage, everybody will pay attention to their subjectivity. They will simply have to get over the fact that science and mathematics are not emotional matters, even if we may find beauty or ugliness in them. Had we spent the last few millennia refusing to face unpleasant facts, we would not even be living in mud huts, let alone debating epistemology, thousands of miles apart from each other, using the magic of electricity.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3712
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Lomax on July 1st, 2016, 11:19 am 

By the way, I'm all for school teaching the argument over Creationism. Just as long as Sunday School is accountable for teaching it too.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3712
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Lomax on July 1st, 2016, 11:29 am 

Syamsu » July 1st, 2016, 11:52 am wrote:
Eclogite wrote:Perhaps I am being very stupid,


Parodixically your intelligence seems devoted to being stupid.

Voltaire once wrote to Rosseau: "Never before has such intelligence been used in the service of making us all stupid."

You are sullying his good name by plagiarising the quip here, but nevermind. I am thinking of another tale of Voltaire. When he was on his deathbed, he was visited by a clergyman, who said to him "It's not too late. Won't you take this one last chance to renounce the devil?"

"My dear", Voltaire replied, "this is no time to be making enemies."

In the same spirit, stepping into unfamiliar territory, you are evidently determined to make life difficult for yourself.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3712
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Eclogite on July 1st, 2016, 11:35 am 

Syamsu » Fri Jul 01, 2016 2:00 pm wrote:Did you not sense an intellectual rejection of the validity of subjectivity there?
Subjectivity was appropriately disregarded in regard to strictly technical issues, but celebrated in respect of matters of art, literature, music, sport, etc.

Syamsu » Fri Jul 01, 2016 2:00 pm wrote:That emotions of people were systematically ignored because of the fact that emotions cannot be measured?
I saw nothing that looked remotely like that. Emotions were evaluated on the basis of how appropriate they were to the situation. Inappropriate emotions were certainly not ignored, but efforts were made to control them through guidance, counseling, or - where necessary - disciplinary action. Positive emotions were encouraged and acknowledged.

Syamsu » Fri Jul 01, 2016 2:00 pm wrote: That people there were generally coldhearted and calculating?
There were the usual range of human characters, but I cannot recall any teacher who I would describe as coldhearted. The only calculating ones were the maths teachers, but that was their job.

It seems as if you had a singularly bad, and I would suggest, atypical experience. It is not usually productive to extrapolate from personal experience to a universal condition.
Eclogite
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Location: Around and about


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Syamsu on July 1st, 2016, 11:37 am 

BadgerJelly » July 1st, 2016, 9:12 am wrote:Syamsu -

maybe it would help if you told us what you mean by "choosing" in terms of causation? That used to be something you struggled to get through to anyone.


Choosing is defined as making an alternative future the present, or, to make a possibiltiy, which is in the future, the present or not.

How this figures with cause and effect....creationism says that cause and effect belong togehter as 1 thing chosen. So if you pull the trigger on a gun, you are in fact choosing the cause of pulling the trigger together with all the effects that has.

There are no causes without effects, nor effects without causes, there are only causes with their accompany effects.

And if you really get down into the deep shit of the issue, then cause and effect is about the law of nature, that the totality of the universe can only equal 0. An action has an equal and opposite reaction, totalling 0.

Creatio ex nihilo, and, ex nihilo nihil fit. Creation from nothing, and from nothing comes nothing.
Syamsu
 


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Watson on July 1st, 2016, 11:46 am 

Syamsu » Fri Jul 01, 2016 9:18 am wrote:
Watson » June 30th, 2016, 11:13 pm wrote:
In creationism objectivity and subjectivity are each validated in their own right

This is the first I've heard that creationism had anything to do with language or the meaning or intent of the words. I suppose I should read what you have written as suggested, but I must admit I have lost some interest in this subject.


Think about a sad 6 year old boy, and 6 year old girl, out there. They are sad because nobody is paying attention to subjectivity. Their emotions ignored, they are so sad. Only you can save them from their sadness by having the academic community accept the validity of subjectivity. That should motivate you. Otherwise you might also take a cup of coffee or something to get going.


If someone, a child is misguided in there thinking, even if emotionally crippled by their beliefs, I would not be doing them any favor by encouraging them. And it would be socially backward to have it validated in schools.
I'm not sure what the last line means, but it is not the first line of text I found confusing.
User avatar
Watson
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4611
Joined: 19 Apr 2009
Location: Earth, middle of the top half, but only briefly each 24 hours.
Lomax liked this post


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Lomax on July 1st, 2016, 11:47 am 

Syamsu » July 1st, 2016, 4:37 pm wrote:And if you really get down into the deep shit of the issue, then cause and effect is about the law of nature, that the totality of the universe can only equal 0. An action has an equal and opposite reaction, totalling 0.

Creatio ex nihilo, and, ex nihilo nihil fit. Creation from nothing, and from nothing comes nothing.

From nothing comes nothing indeed. Never a better demonstration was given.

For those wondering how the possible finitude of the universe reconciles with Newton's Third Law, I recommend this engaging talk by Lawrence Krauss.

A Universe From Nothing
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3712
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK
Watson liked this post


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Watson on July 1st, 2016, 4:30 pm 

Informative and entertaining. Worth listening to again.
User avatar
Watson
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4611
Joined: 19 Apr 2009
Location: Earth, middle of the top half, but only briefly each 24 hours.


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby BadgerJelly on July 2nd, 2016, 3:09 am 

Maybe instead of talking about validity of subjectivity we could discuss the validity of objectivity and what we mean by "validity".

From my position the heart of the problem is probably in this area irrespective of personal beliefs.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Syamsu on July 3rd, 2016, 6:44 am 

You all have 0 credibility on acceptance of the validity of subjectivity. That means when you say whom to love, it lacks credibility.
Syamsu
 


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby BadgerJelly on July 3rd, 2016, 8:59 am 

Syamsu » July 3rd, 2016, 6:44 pm wrote:You all have 0 credibility on acceptance of the validity of subjectivity. That means when you say whom to love, it lacks credibility.


I guess the problem we have is knowing what you mean by what you say. Me at least.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Syamsu on July 4th, 2016, 4:02 pm 

BadgerJelly wrote:
I guess the problem we have is knowing what you mean by what you say. Me at least.


No that's just cognitive dissonance mixed with debating tactics on your part. You are actually aiming towards being confused about subjectivity.

If you think about it, you are responding in a very odd way, responding as if subjectivity is none of your business. That you have no critical understanding of it. For sure you will run up to defend some fact of evolution theory about what supposedly happened millions of years ago, but you don't care one way or the other what people understand about subjectivity. You play fast and loose with it, subjectivity is just whatever.

It's an odd thing that everybody can talk in subjective terms, and free will, but people don't know what logic they use with those terms. I'm not talking about the science of how things work with synapses in the brain or something, I am talking about the logic that is engrained in common discourse which everybody uses in daily life. You know how to use words such as beautiful and choosing in daily life. Yet intellectually your understanding is absent.

The reason for this cognitive dissonance are deeply psychological, and I explain it on my website.

Having issues understanding creationist philosophy:

If you read the website and you are basically drawing a complete blank on understanding what is written, then the issue you are having in understanding it is very, very, probably caused by the definition of the word decision that you are using.

Everywhere in society the message is hammered home to do your best. Whether it is government, school, parents, your own ideals, the pressure to do your best is enormous. This pressure can lead to defining choosing in terms of sorting out the best result, where the facts about good and evil are used to sort out a course of action.

But that doesn't work as a fundamental definition of choosing, because then the result of the decision is FORCED by the facts about good and evil, which means that then a decision could not turn out several different ways. It is basically like a chesscomputer calculating the next move.

To do your best means to first choose about what is good, by expression of emotion with free will, which then results in an opinion, and then you can use that opinion to sort out a course of action. Only the original forming of the opinion is the act of choosing, the consequent sorting is not choosing.

For example, first one decides one likes to get to the top of the mountain, consequently the options are sorted in terms of that opinion, meaning that all the options which contribute to going to the top of the mountain are good, and all the options which lead away from the top are bad.

Essentially the goodness or evil of any decision is not in the result of the decision, but in the agency of a decision, which makes the decision turn out the way it does.

People are extremely insistent on defining choosing in terms of sorting out the best result. Also because that when choosing is defined in such a way, it means that anytime you make a choice then you did the best by definition. Think about it, if choosing means to sort out the best result, then when you have made a choice, the definition of choosing says that you did the best. Then your ego is boosted, drugs are released in the brain, the way of thinking is highly addictive.

So if you don't understand creationist philosophy, then you should spend a lot of time considering the definition of choosing that you use. Experience tells me that in 100 percent of cases this is the problem in failing to understand creationist philosophy.
Syamsu
 


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Lomax on July 4th, 2016, 5:05 pm 

Syamsu » July 4th, 2016, 9:02 pm wrote:To do your best means to first choose about what is good, by expression of emotion with free will, which then results in an opinion, and then you can use that opinion to sort out a course of action. Only the original forming of the opinion is the act of choosing, the consequent sorting is not choosing.

For example, first one decides one likes to get to the top of the mountain, consequently the options are sorted in terms of that opinion, meaning that all the options which contribute to going to the top of the mountain are good, and all the options which lead away from the top are bad.

This is Aristotlean virtue ethics, and note that the blitzkrieg was very effective for achieving its end. I put it to any audience we may have, whether that would qualify it as "good" in the ethical sense.

But you are still ducking the obvious point. That we choose to win a game of chess and then do what we need to do to win it, by no means implies that we may choose the age of the earth and then do what we need to do to make it so. This is the simple and vital distinction between values and facts, which is taught to schoolchildren and in no sense refuted by anything you have said here, however much you may whinge about the feelings of schoolchildren or the psychology of those of us who cannot make sense of this white noise.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3712
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Syamsu on July 4th, 2016, 7:32 pm 

Lomax » July 4th, 2016, 4:05 pm wrote:
Syamsu » July 4th, 2016, 9:02 pm wrote:To do your best means to first choose about what is good, by expression of emotion with free will, which then results in an opinion, and then you can use that opinion to sort out a course of action. Only the original forming of the opinion is the act of choosing, the consequent sorting is not choosing.

For example, first one decides one likes to get to the top of the mountain, consequently the options are sorted in terms of that opinion, meaning that all the options which contribute to going to the top of the mountain are good, and all the options which lead away from the top are bad.

This is Aristotlean virtue ethics, and note that the blitzkrieg was very effective for achieving its end. I put it to any audience we may have, whether that would qualify it as "good" in the ethical sense.

But you are still ducking the obvious point. That we choose to win a game of chess and then do what we need to do to win it, by no means implies that we may choose the age of the earth and then do what we need to do to make it so. This is the simple and vital distinction between values and facts, which is taught to schoolchildren and in no sense refuted by anything you have said here, however much you may whinge about the feelings of schoolchildren or the psychology of those of us who cannot make sense of this white noise.


As before, objectivity is also validated in creationist philosophy, besides subjectivity.
Syamsu
 


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Lomax on July 4th, 2016, 8:17 pm 

Syamsu » July 5th, 2016, 12:32 am wrote:As before, objectivity is also validated in creationist philosophy, besides subjectivity.

So you would not deny that

Syamsu » June 29th, 2016, 3:28 am wrote:when the earth was created

is a matter of objective fact?
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3712
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Serpent on July 5th, 2016, 12:29 am 

Okay, here's a thought.

If a meme is a thought-packet or idea that originates in an individual and is passed into the cultural meme-pool, there to be replicated, spread and perpetuated.... Is it? That's my current understanding of what a meme is supposed to be.

Then what would you call an idea or thought-packet that keeps arising spontaneously in many individuals, in many different cultures and times? Like, how every teenager, some little while after they learn about macrocosm and microcosm think "Hey! What if our whole solar system is just an atom in the thumbnail of a giant?" Would that be a teme? (I left the h out for conformity to the pattern.)

At some time, at various distances in the human past, in disparate places and under different circumstances, a whole lot of people came up, independently, and they believed, originally, with the idea: "Hey! What if the world and us and everything was made by somebody just like us, only waaaay bigger?"
It's a teme. People just carry it without any reason or purpose.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3800
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby BadgerJelly on July 5th, 2016, 1:01 am 

Syamsu -

I have always found the way you term "decision" and "choosing" interesting.

Is it possible for you to go into more detail in regards to using terminology such what is ontic, ontological and teleological?

I understand these terms may very well be contradictory to what you wish to say. If you can though please try and apply them in a loose analogical sense.

Thank you
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Eclogite on July 5th, 2016, 2:36 am 

Syamsu » Mon Jul 04, 2016 8:02 pm wrote:
BadgerJelly wrote:
I guess the problem we have is knowing what you mean by what you say. Me at least.


No that's just cognitive dissonance mixed with debating tactics on your part. You are actually aiming towards being confused about subjectivity.
The moment you tell people how they are thinking you lose any right to be taken seriously. This, by the way, is true objectively and subjectively.
Eclogite
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Location: Around and about


Re: Creationist philosophy - validity of subjectivity

Postby Syamsu on July 5th, 2016, 1:09 pm 

Lomax » July 4th, 2016, 7:17 pm wrote:
Syamsu » July 5th, 2016, 12:32 am wrote:As before, objectivity is also validated in creationist philosophy, besides subjectivity.

So you would not deny that

Syamsu » June 29th, 2016, 3:28 am wrote:when the earth was created

is a matter of objective fact?


Yes everything about the creation is a matter of fact issue, and everything about the creator (agency of a decision) is a matter of opinion.

That's why creationist philosophy is the best, because it validates both subjectivity and objectivity with 2 domains.
Syamsu
 


Previous

Return to Anything Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests