July 18, 2007
Rape of the Truth-The Second Pillar of Secular Humanism

Truth, according to Realism, is not a subjective touchy feely process of dialectical thinking like our progressive friends have convinced themselves that it is. The traditional classical definition of truth is a correspondence between our subjective thoughts, and objective existence or reality. Our thoughts are not identical to reality and shouldn't be confused with reality itself. However, our progressive counterparts, for the most part, believe that reality is entirely subjective, with all of reality being inside the brain of the perceiving subject with nothing independent of it. This philosophy is also known as Empiricism.

To read more of this informative and educational piece go to:
No Compromises when it comes to being Right!

Posted by TracyOetting at July 18, 2007 12:43 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Guys: If this counts as "informative and educational" then conservative thought has slipped off the rails.

Tracy: There is no usage of "empiricism" in English that corresponds to this:

"However, our progressive counterparts, for the most part, believe that reality is entirely subjective, with all of reality being inside the brain of the perceiving subject with nothing independent of it. This philosophy is also known as Empiricism."

This is solipsism and is regarded as the antithesis of empiricism.

Adler's book was written in 50s and has thus missed much of significance in the development of philosophical thinking over the last half century. Adler also indulged his prejudices quite freely and his book should not be mistaken for a systematic (let alone consistent) approach to serious philosophy.

I haven't read Sire, but IVP is generally not a reliable publisher when it comes to philosophy.

If you really want to understand philosophy, I strongly recommend Metaphysics: An Introduction by Michael Loux or Metaphysics by Peter Van Inwagen. Inwagen is a Christian so that you may be more comfortable with him. Loux is a bit more rigorous. Neither of these are easy reading. However, given the complexity and significance of the issues, they deserve serious attention. You might also find Robert Audi's Epistemology: An Introduction of interest.

The correspondence theory of truth that you talk about is quite problematic in many ways. The American philosopher Hilary Putnam examines this in great (some might say excruciating) detail. Putnam is not what you would call postmodernist. His essay "Language and Meaning" in his collected papers would be the best place to begin thinking through the issues. Any of his books touch on this at some point.

All of this presupposes, of course, that you're actively interested in thinking through the issues rather than throwing things together into a club with which to beat up people whose politics you dislike.

Posted by: Biff Magma on July 18, 2007 05:58 PM
2. Magma: Guys: If this counts as "informative and educational" then conservative thought has slipped off the rails.

TO: You get to judge what's informative and educational? By what standard are you judging what is "informative and educational?"

Magma: Tracy: There is no usage of "empiricism" in English that corresponds to this:

"However, our progressive counterparts, for the most part, believe that reality is entirely subjective, with all of reality being inside the brain of the perceiving subject with nothing independent of it. This philosophy is also known as Empiricism."

This is solipsism and is regarded as the antithesis of empiricism.

TO: The definition of Empiricism is; "The doctrine which denies or doubts the validity of all intellectual knowledge and admits only the certainty of sense-knowledge." The definition of Solipsism is: "The skeptical attitude, in which the thinker is certain only of his own personal internal states of mind." Both of these definitions fit the essay that was submitted today. With empiricism nothing is certain except subjective sense experience. There is nothing outside of the subject that is real.

Magma: Adler's book was written in 50s and has thus missed much of significance in the development of philosophical thinking over the last half century. Adler also indulged his prejudices quite freely and his book should not be mistaken for a systematic (let alone consistent) approach to serious philosophy.

TO: Oh, brother!!! Are you kidding? What you are talking about is the Great Books which contain 52 volumes of which I personally own. This book that I resourced at the bottom of the essay was written in the year 2000.

You have made another generalized statement that no reader would be able to evaluate. Us readers just have to take your conclusion by faith. The "development" that you talk about that I have seen has only been in terms of monistic, postmodern, and subjectivistic idealistic philosophy, which happens to be the true antithesis of dualistic, classical, objective realist philosophy according to Plato and Aristotle. Have I made the distinction clear enough for you? I am not aware of any recent significant development of Objective Realism in the past 50 years. If there has been such development that builds up on the scholastic foundation of Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, and Leibniz, I would be very interested in that. I am aware of the works of G.E. Moore, Bertrand Russell, and Arthur Lovejoy who have done good work defending dualism and objective realism.

Modern philosophy started going down hill with Nominalist, Okham--14th Century, to Decartes--17th century, continuing with Locke, Berkley, and Hume--all 17th Century, further descending with Cant, Hegel, Marx and Nietzsche--18th and 19th Century. Locke is not an extreme empiricist, but he started down the empiricist road that Berkley and Hume further trod. If this is called developing philosophy, No thanks!

Magma: I haven't read Sire, but IVP is generally not a reliable publisher when it comes to philosophy.

TO: Puhleeeeeze. Guilt by association. A broad brush. Not specific. Whatever. Non-evaluable general conclusions lacking supporting premises necessary for evaluation. You are asking us to accept your conclusions a priori by faith.


Magma: "If you really want to understand philosophy,"

TO: Is Plato and Aristotle inadequate for one to be able to "really understand philosophy"?

Magma: I strongly recommend Metaphysics: An Introduction by Michael Loux or Metaphysics by Peter Van Inwagen. Inwagen is a Christian so that you may be more comfortable with him. Loux is a bit more rigorous. Neither of these are easy reading. However, given the complexity and significance of the issues, they deserve serious attention. You might also find Robert Audi's Epistemology: An Introduction of interest.

TO: You might be right. I will investigate. Thank you.

Magma: The correspondence theory of truth that you talk about is quite problematic in many ways.

TO: Okay, this good. Yes, I can understand how you would think it's problematic if you start with a basic premise that everything is to be doubted such as Decartes then you have a serious challenge to the correspondence theory of truth, but such radical skepticism is unreasonable. The Correspondence theory of truth necessarily depends upon the a priori belief of external objects that exist independent of subjective empirical sense data.

Magma: The American philosopher Hilary Putnam examines this in great (some might say excruciating) detail. Putnam is not what you would call postmodernist. His essay "Language and Meaning" in his collected papers would be the best place to begin thinking through the issues. Any of his books touch on this at some point.

All of this presupposes, of course, that you're actively interested in thinking through the issues rather than throwing things together into a club with which to beat up people whose politics you dislike.

TO: Another rabbit trail. What does this have to do with philosophy and objective knowledge which is what we are seeking and discussing here?

Posted by: TracyOetting on July 18, 2007 08:45 PM
3. Magma: Guys: If this counts as "informative and educational" then conservative thought has slipped off the rails.

TO: You get to judge what's informative and educational? By what standard are you judging what is "informative and educational?"

Magma: Tracy: There is no usage of "empiricism" in English that corresponds to this:

"However, our progressive counterparts, for the most part, believe that reality is entirely subjective, with all of reality being inside the brain of the perceiving subject with nothing independent of it. This philosophy is also known as Empiricism."

This is solipsism and is regarded as the antithesis of empiricism.

TO: The definition of Empiricism is; "The doctrine which denies or doubts the validity of all intellectual knowledge and admits only the certainty of sense-knowledge." The definition of Solipsism is: "The skeptical attitude, in which the thinker is certain only of his own personal internal states of mind." Both of these definitions fit the essay that was submitted today. With empiricism nothing is certain except subjective sense experience. There is nothing outside of the subject that is real.

Magma: Adler's book was written in 50s and has thus missed much of significance in the development of philosophical thinking over the last half century. Adler also indulged his prejudices quite freely and his book should not be mistaken for a systematic (let alone consistent) approach to serious philosophy.

TO: Oh, brother!!! Are you kidding? What you are talking about is the Great Books which contain 52 volumes of which I personally own. This book that I resourced at the bottom of the essay was written in the year 2000.

You have made another generalized statement that no reader would be able to evaluate. Us readers just have to take your conclusion by faith. The "development" that you talk about that I have seen has only been in terms of monistic, postmodern, and subjectivistic idealistic philosophy, which happens to be the true antithesis of dualistic, classical, objective realist philosophy according to Plato and Aristotle. Have I made the distinction clear enough for you? I am not aware of any recent significant development of Objective Realism in the past 50 years. If there has been such development that builds up on the scholastic foundation of Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, and Leibniz, I would be very interested in that. I am aware of the works of G.E. Moore, Bertrand Russell, and Arthur Lovejoy who have done good work defending dualism and objective realism.

Modern philosophy started going down hill with Nominalist, Okham--14th Century, to Decartes--17th century, continuing with Locke, Berkley, and Hume--all 17th Century, further descending with Cant, Hegel, Marx and Nietzsche--18th and 19th Century. Locke is not an extreme empiricist, but he started down the empiricist road that Berkley and Hume further trod. If this is called developing philosophy, No thanks!

Magma: I haven't read Sire, but IVP is generally not a reliable publisher when it comes to philosophy.

TO: Puhleeeeeze. Guilt by association. A broad brush. Not specific. Whatever. Non-evaluable general conclusions lacking supporting premises necessary for evaluation. You are asking us to accept your conclusions a priori by faith.


Magma: "If you really want to understand philosophy,"

TO: Is Plato and Aristotle inadequate for one to be able to "really understand philosophy"?

Magma: I strongly recommend Metaphysics: An Introduction by Michael Loux or Metaphysics by Peter Van Inwagen. Inwagen is a Christian so that you may be more comfortable with him. Loux is a bit more rigorous. Neither of these are easy reading. However, given the complexity and significance of the issues, they deserve serious attention. You might also find Robert Audi's Epistemology: An Introduction of interest.

TO: You might be right. I will investigate. Thank you.

Magma: The correspondence theory of truth that you talk about is quite problematic in many ways.

TO: Okay, this good. Yes, I can understand how you would think it's problematic if you start with a basic premise that everything is to be doubted such as Decartes then you have a serious challenge to the correspondence theory of truth, but such radical skepticism is unreasonable. The Correspondence theory of truth necessarily depends upon the a priori belief of external objects that exist independent of subjective empirical sense data.

Magma: The American philosopher Hilary Putnam examines this in great (some might say excruciating) detail. Putnam is not what you would call postmodernist. His essay "Language and Meaning" in his collected papers would be the best place to begin thinking through the issues. Any of his books touch on this at some point.

All of this presupposes, of course, that you're actively interested in thinking through the issues rather than throwing things together into a club with which to beat up people whose politics you dislike.

TO: Another rabbit trail. What does this have to do with philosophy and objective knowledge which is what we are seeking and discussing here?

Posted by: TracyOetting on July 18, 2007 08:47 PM
4. I'm very sorry for posting twice. The window came up as an error so I thought it didn't post.

Posted by: TracyOetting on July 18, 2007 08:49 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?