Reality is Inaccessible

[Vitruvius]

Some people repress science and promote religion in order to get wealth and power. Other people use science and repress religion in order to get wealth and power. Neither actually care about the world and end up destroying it, they only care about wealth and power. That science happens to be true, is just a side-issue.

That's not what you said. You said:

"Objectivists are also destroying the world, subjectivists are just better at it."

I can only assume you're talking about Dawkins et al. How is saying that objectively, religion is primitive politics - destroying the world?

Okay, so Dawkins sold some books, but are you really equating the wealth and power of the mediaeval Church - used to prosecute a 400 year long campaign against science, to Richard Dawkins modest success as an author?

[Atla]

Some people repress science and promote religion in order to get wealth and power. Other people use science and repress religion in order to get wealth and power. Neither actually care about the world and end up destroying it, they only care about wealth and power. That science happens to be true, is just a side-issue.

That's not what you said. You said:

"Objectivists are also destroying the world, subjectivists are just better at it."

I can only assume you're talking about Dawkins et al. How is saying that objectively, religion is primitive politics - destroying the world?

Okay, so Dawkins sold some books, but are you really equating the wealth and power of the mediaeval Church - used to prosecute a 400 year long campaign against science, to Richard Dawkins modest success as an author?

No I was talking about the state of pretty much the entire world since the industrial revolution.

[Vitruvius]

No I was talking about the state of pretty much the entire world since the industrial revolution.

What "objectivists" then?

Who?

What are they doing?

And how does their objectivism endanger the world?

[Atla]

No I was talking about the state of pretty much the entire world since the industrial revolution.

What "objectivists" then?

Who?

What are they doing?

And how does their objectivism endanger the world?

How does subjectivism endanger the world? You can be a subjectivist and live a fairly peaceful and environment-friendly life.

[Vitruvius]

How does subjectivism endanger the world? You can be a subjectivist and live a fairly peaceful and environment-friendly life.

You and I are not operating on the same level, so if you could refrain from responding to my posts in future that would be great. It's not your fault - it's mine. I saw "philosophy forum" and immediately thought this would be a place where university educated people have intelligent discussions about important things in an elevated manner. Clearly I was mistaken. This is a chat forum for adolescent know nothings, and that so - your comment is perfectly apposite.

[Atla]

How does subjectivism endanger the world? You can be a subjectivist and live a fairly peaceful and environment-friendly life.

You and I are not operating on the same level, so if you could refrain from responding to my posts in future that would be great. It's not your fault - it's mine. I saw "philosophy forum" and immediately thought this would be a place where university educated people have intelligent discussions about important things in an elevated manner. Clearly I was mistaken. This is a chat forum for adolescent know nothings, and that so - your comment is perfectly apposite.

Yet you somehow seem to have missed the fact that the global warming you're trying to fix was mainly caused by our technologicial civilization - driven by scientific advancements, which came with a scientific "objectivist" worldview.

[uwot]

I saw "philosophy forum" and immediately thought this would be a place where university educated people have intelligent discussions about important things in an elevated manner. Clearly I was mistaken.

It's a common enough mistake.

This is a chat forum for adolescent know nothings, and that so - your comment is perfectly apposite.

There are a few here who know what they are talking about, but while there are universities and universities, as someone who touts a 400 year war between science and religion, I presume you didn't major in philosophy.

[Sculptor]

Q: Do you know what a berk is?

Yes. It's a gentle insult that alliterates nicely with Bertrand. A berk called Bertrand! You're lucky his name wasn't Frank!

It's cockney rhyming slang. As you might know CRS corrupts a two word phrase. For example; Apples is for stairs because of apples and pears; cut and carried gives you married; duck and dive gives you hide; dustbin lid gives you kid (child); and "berk" comes from the phrase Berkely Hunt - I think you can guess what that means!!!

The point here about Veritas, is that he never understands to nuance. Russell never made that assertion, nor would he ever make it. In the normal way of all philosophers, Russell considers all possibilities in order that he can discuss them.

I don't care whether Russell said it or not, or in what context he said it either. It wasn't my example, and I'm not responding to that assertion in particular, but commenting on subjectivism in general.

As for humans and what they have evolved. They have by selection of random mutations succeeded in acquiring senses that give them enough information to successfully produce viable progeny. And to the extent, and ONLY to that extent that such senses assist them in that endevour do their senses provide an approximation or representation of what is really out there.

False. DNA is a very particular structure, shaped in relation to the reality of the environment. DNA strands split down the middle, and attract from the environment, chemicals that recreate the other half - to make two strands. DNA replicates in relation to the environment. The physiology of organisms, and the behaviours of organisms also, have to be correct to reality, or are rendered extinct. If a monkey swinging through the trees saw the next branch further away than it actually is, it would plummet to its death, and take all of its potential descendants with it. We don't see an approximation of reality - what we see is really there.

Your objection is completely irrelevant.
What a stupid Berk you are!

But the idea that such a process could lead to a fully comprehensive and unlimited view of reality is absurd,

Straw man. No one thinks that. And no one said that.

And science, in extending our senses to the macroscopic, the microscopic and to view such things beyind our views such as x-rays and other areas of the electromagnitic spectrum has demonstrated clearly just how LIMITED our own view of reality is..

Limited, sure! But that's different to inaccurate, or worse, hallucinatory! Subjectivist philosophy goes from 'mistakes a rope for snake' - to 'there is no spoon' with nothing substantial in between. It's false, and is a political philosophy designed to deny science the authority it rightfully owns as truth.

You are just making a fool of yourself now.
If our perceptions gave us reality why would we diagree about fundemental things?

THis is what Hume, Locke, Berkeley, Kant and many others are inviting us to consider.

And if they hadn't we would never have heard of them.

That is not to say that what we perceive in not part of reality, but it definitely demonstrates that our perceptions are partial. There is much more besides to show that we add things to our perceptions too, that are not real - but that is another discussion.

Why not waste our time now? Subjectivists have wasted 400 years, and driven the human species to the point of extinction thinking they know better than scientific truths about the nature of the universe. Another paragraph of your insanity won't make a great deal of difference! You've doomed us already!

Give the wooll over your eyes!
Clueless.
It's pointless continuing with someone so dense.

[Vitruvius]

Yet you somehow seem to have missed the fact that the global warming you're trying to fix was mainly caused by our technologicial civilization - driven by scientific advancements, which came with a scientific "objectivist" worldview.

Technology has not been applied as a scientific worldview suggests technology should be applied. Technology has been applied for the ideological ends of institutions based on pre-scientific religious authority, that only maintained power by denying science authority as truth.

So "Trump digs coal" - and you blame the existence of shovels!

No. It's science denial - a refusal to recognise science as an authoritative understanding of reality, dating back to the arrest and trial of Galileo - a position supported philosophically by subjectivism.

[Atla]

Yet you somehow seem to have missed the fact that the global warming you're trying to fix was mainly caused by our technologicial civilization - driven by scientific advancements, which came with a scientific "objectivist" worldview.

Technology has not been applied as a scientific worldview suggests technology should be applied. Technology has been applied for the ideological ends of institutions based on pre-scientific religious authority, that only maintained power by denying science authority as truth.

So "Trump digs coal" - and you blame the existence of shovels!

No. It's science denial - a refusal to recognise science as an authoritative understanding of reality, dating back to the arrest and trial of Galileo - a position supported philosophically by subjectivism.

The scientific worldview doesn't suggest how technology should be applied, that's not its job. And most technology totally wasn't applied based on religious authority, especially not in the last 100 years. (Or maybe we are living on different planets.)

You just had to make these things up, in order to be able to point to a removable obstacle, that's in the way of fixing global warming. The reality is much grimmer than that.

[Vitruvius]

There are a few here who know what they are talking about, but while there are universities and universities, as someone who touts a 400 year war between science and religion, I presume you didn't major in philosophy.

I got into philosophy via political theory - they're quite closely related. Many of the philosophers regularly mentioned here, are political theorists. Hume, Locke, Hobbes, Rawls, etc. I majored in political philosophy.

So, Galileo - arrested, tried, found grievously suspect of heresy, life imprisonment.
Newton - forced to hide his unconventional religious views to ascend to the Lucasian Chair.
Darwin - attacked by religionists, even unto this day.
Craig Venter - 2008, developed artificial life in the lab, condemned for 'playing God'
Every movie you see, mad scientist out to destroy the world, defeated by god loving, flag waving hero.

It's not a war between science and religion. It's a war waged by religion, against science.

[jayjacobus]

There are a few here who know what they are talking about, but while there are universities and universities, as someone who touts a 400 year war between science and religion, I presume you didn't major in philosophy.

I got into philosophy via political theory - they're quite closely related. Many of the philosophers regularly mentioned here, are political theorists. Hume, Locke, Hobbes, Rawls, etc. I majored in political philosophy.

So, Galileo - arrested, tried, found grievously suspect of heresy, life imprisonment.
Newton - forced to hide his unconventional religious views to ascend to the Lucasian Chair.
Darwin - attacked by religionists, even unto this day.
Craig Venter - 2008, developed artificial life in the lab, condemned for 'playing God'
Every movie you see, mad scientist out to destroy the world, defeated by god loving, flag waving hero.

It's not a war between science and religion. It's a war waged by religion, against science.

It is war, obviously. But there are a few agreements. If there is ever to be a peace, the agreements are the place to start.

[RCSaunders]

That is not to say that what we perceive in not part of reality, but it definitely demonstrates that our perceptions are partial.

If your perception is only partial, how did you come to know it? Perhaps it is your own inadequate perception that is making you believe that, but you cannot know it of anyone else.

[Atla]

There are a few here who know what they are talking about, but while there are universities and universities, as someone who touts a 400 year war between science and religion, I presume you didn't major in philosophy.

I got into philosophy via political theory - they're quite closely related. Many of the philosophers regularly mentioned here, are political theorists. Hume, Locke, Hobbes, Rawls, etc. I majored in political philosophy.

So, Galileo - arrested, tried, found grievously suspect of heresy, life imprisonment.
Newton - forced to hide his unconventional religious views to ascend to the Lucasian Chair.
Darwin - attacked by religionists, even unto this day.
Craig Venter - 2008, developed artificial life in the lab, condemned for 'playing God'
Every movie you see, mad scientist out to destroy the world, defeated by god loving, flag waving hero.

It's not a war between science and religion. It's a war waged by religion, against science.

Someone tell this guy that the war concluded like 150 years ago. Science has been dominating the planet since then, the religious ones are just making noise.

[RCSaunders]

How does subjectivism endanger the world? You can be a subjectivist and live a fairly peaceful and environment-friendly life.

You and I are not operating on the same level, so if you could refrain from responding to my posts in future that would be great. It's not your fault - it's mine. I saw "philosophy forum" and immediately thought this would be a place where university educated people have intelligent discussions about important things in an elevated manner. Clearly I was mistaken. This is a chat forum for adolescent know nothings, and that so - your comment is perfectly apposite.

"university educated," is an oxymoron.