But when you first experience anything, where did that come from? — Caldwell
As a young child, what did you experience and how did you articulate it? — Caldwell
Why is it that when scientists make arguments against certain philosophical approaches they "pontificate", yet when people like Heidegger write what many consider to be meaningless nonsense, they are great thinkers? — Pseudonym
I don't yet have a clear understanding of that. — Pseudonym
maybe for some reason a religious belief in science is reprehensible but a religious belief in God is OK? — Pseudonym
Where is there in science a commitment to the sacredness of every individual life, — Wayfarer
Do you think there are scientific reasons why one ought to treat people equally, or care for the poor and sick? — Wayfarer
it shows that Dawkins thinks from the unquestioned premise of Empiricism, and having no insight on Phenomenology — Nop
if you could refrain from appealing to authority
That said, I don't think my criticism of Heidegger relies on equating meaning with propositional content. I expect propositional content from a text claiming to impart some useful theory. Maybe you read Heidegger as poetry, in which case I've no complaints, but it's rarely taken that way, it's presumed that Heidegger is imparting some insight, so I expect to read a proposition there and I find none, hence the words have no meaning relative to their intent.
So why is Dawkins' empiricism such a problem?
Maybe he's decided that phenomenology is an unnecessary part of his model of the world?
With science though, it's not telling us we should, it's telling us that we do (together with defining the causes of those rare circumstances where people don't). — Pseudonym
This seems like a silly thing to say, when you make claims to authority yourself: — Nop
I'd like us to be a little cautious with the use of the term Empiricism here. 'Isms' are always a worry, aren't they?That fine and a respectable view. But this is not Dawkins, since Dawkins doesn't engage with phenomenology: he thinks from the premise of Empiricism, and accepts and rejects things based on this assumed premise. — Nop
The history of philosophy is so blindly aimless that to suggest there is some canon of work leading incrementally up to the positions held nowadays in some subject is stretching the point. — Pseudonym
Yes, and so is the history of art, literature and most worthwhile human endeavours. — andrewk
Why do you think a belief that science can answer questions about, for example, morality is religious, but a belief that it cannot is not? — Pseudonym
Do you think, then, that the pejorative use of the term is something which should be admonished, or that it's OK to treat any religious belief within derision. Or maybe for some reason a religious belief in science is reprehensible but a religious belief in God is OK? — Pseudonym
The overarching aim has always been to understand the human situation. — Janus
the understanding of philosophy so far demonstrated by pseudo is so poverty stricken that it's hard to take much of what is said here seriously at all - not to speak of science itself. — StreetlightX
There's no apparent evidence that science can answer any moral questions — Noble Dust
Religion gave birth to science, broadly. — Noble Dust
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.