Cheerskep should address my arguments directly instead of making up little stories that first of all distort my argument and then,secondly, are employed to refute my argument as if his stories are accurate analogies. Analogy has its lmits and one of them is likely impossibility of parallelism between the things or statements being analogized.
Whether or not Cheerskep believes in God is not the issue. The issue is not does God exist independently of one's belief. The issue can be addressed as being about belief itself. I am proposing that belief precedes all opinions, reasoned arguments, etc. My point is we have no choice except to say that we believe... anything at all, including the existence of God. Similarly, if I say such and such is, that it exists independently of my belief, I cannot raise the question without believing that it in fact exists. It makes no difference whatsoever with respect to the "truth" of our beliefs whether or not they actually represent things independent from us. I may believe the speeding car will not jump the curb and hit me or I may believe it will...and I have no choice but to believe one or the other event will occur despite whatever evidence I can gather. Back to ontological stuff: If I believe that art exists out there as something identifiable independent of me, so what? How is that any different from my believing it is fused with me? We objectify art because doing that enables us to imagine it as a stable object. It is a make believe that happens to work for us far more efficiently than a puirely subjective make-believe. In the end it's pragmatic to believe in the separate existence of things and ideas. Truth becomes a workable belief. This God problem is easily confused with a belief in an afterlife but the two ideas are not necessarily linked. There may or may not be a God. There may or may not be an afterlife. The former idea does not require the latter and the latter does not require the former. The interesting thing is that if we could get beyond belief, which I say we can't, and could know that God does not exist, then we are not yet forced to believe that there's no afterlife. So, yes God= yes afterlife; No God=no afterlife; Yes God=no afterlife; No God= yes afterlife. Take your pick and it's still a belief, a make-believe objectified. To argue for or against God is a total waste of intellectual effort because no argument gets at the existence or non-existence of belief. Even if we say there's no belief, it's a belief statement. Cheerskep's argument against the IS is dissolved when we persue it to its root. Is and not Is rely equally on belief and we can't demonstrate the absence of belief in any conscious way. WC --- On Thu, 9/11/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: "What IS xxx?" "IS xxx a yyy?" > To: [email protected] > Date: Thursday, September 11, 2008, 10:46 AM > William, you have it the wrong way around. What's > narcissistic and > quasi-solipsistic is your notion that the way YOU think, > and the notions YOU > have are > universal to everyone. You think you is we. > > "We pretend that there's art and we pretend that > there's illustration. We > can't think in any other way." > > Wrong. E,g, I don't think that way. > > "We always pretend to objectify our thoughts. We > can't do otherwise. We > can't. We just pretend that we can. That's what > brains do. We can't get > past > that." > > Similarly wrong. Your assertions remind me of those of my > Catholic friends > after I "left the faith". "You CAN'T > believe there's no God -- I KNOW you > can't." It took me a bit to realize they assumed > it was literally impossible > for me > to believe there is no god. "But I DO believe there is > no god!" "No you > don't," they'd reply with a comfortable > surety. "You may say it, but you don't > really believe it." > > I've spent far, far more time than you pondering such > mental blunders as the > reification of abstractions (what you call > "objectifying our thoughts"). I've > pondered long enough so that, just as I can do that > "impossible" thing of > believing there is no god, I don't reify my notions > the way I did as a > youngster. When a "thought" comes into my mind, I > realize it is solely > notional, I > don't "objectify" it. Moreover, I realize > it's a notion that will morph > "before my > eyes" because all notion is to a dgree transitory -- > and indeterminate, > indefinite and multiplex. > > When Wittgenstein asserted that "meaning" is not > a "thing" inhering in each > word but merely a way of using a tool, there were smart > people around him who > sincerely believed he'd gone a bit insane. They felt it > was impossible for a > sane person not to realize that meanings are things that > "words have". > > I'll say this for you, William, you don't look your > age. It is very youthful > of you to believe that everyone MUST think the way you do. > > > > > > In a message dated 9/11/08 10:42:40 AM, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > Cheerskep drives home his point again.....like those > circus people who > > pound nails up their noses. It's an illusion. If > he were to become dictator > he's > > insist on solipsism as a constitutional ammendment. > We always pretend to > > objectify our thoughts. We can't do otherwise. > We can't. We just pretend > > that we can. We pretend everything through our > consciousness. That's what > > brains do. We can't get past that. So we go on > make-believing everything. > The > > argument he makes is clinical and thoroughly moot. It > makes no difference > to > > anything we say or do. We pretend that there's > art and we pretend that > > there's illustration. We catagorize in order to > pretend an order to our > > consciousness. We can't think in any other > way...unless we want to wallow > in separate > > self-delusional narcissism and solipsism. And > that's madness. > > > > WC > > > > > > --- On Thu, 9/11/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Subject: Re: "What IS xxx?" "IS > xxx a yyy?" > > > To: [email protected] > > > Date: Thursday, September 11, 2008, 9:14 AM > > > Chris, encourage us -- tell us you don't miss > > > Sendak's point. It's not the > > > 'mere' that pains him -- it's the > > > 'illustrator', the fact that he considers > > > himself not an 'artist'. Sendak > deludedly > > > believes there "exist" two > > > distinct > > > "real", ontic categories of visual > creators -- > > > artists and illusrators -- and > > > he > > > himself classifies illustrators as > "mere". > > > > > > But I'll accept there's little chance > that > > > you'll get MY point. > > > > > > ***** > > > The question "What is xxx?" is a > necessary > > > platform for loads of eloquent > > > theorists -- all of whom are deluded by the > assumption that > > > external-to-the-mind > > > "categories" exist, and that every > object either > > > IS or ISN'T a member of a > > > given alleged category no matter what any mind > thinks. > > > Expressed in Platonic > > > terms, this error assumes that each object either > has or > > > has not (or > > > "participates in") the required > categorizing > > > "quality" -- of "artness", > > > "conceptual > > > artness", "abstract artness", etc. > > > > > > Many listers pay lip-service to this argument -- > > > "Well, of course, everyone > > > knows that, that's a dead horse" etc -- > and in the > > > next breath use the word > > > 'art' in a way that betrays that they DO
