Phantasms do not need of existence by definition, an attribute which is not of concern to them. In order to learn about phantasms you dont care about existence, To say they do not exist do not end them as objects.
Attributes rational and irrational are to knowledge the same as existence to phantasms. I do not see any difference between something being "empirically verifiable" and/or "lacking empirical verification", goodness or badness are as well attibutes like above. Knowledge does not care about ethics as well. It goes beyond distances and usually does not like limits like good, bad, existent, rational or irrational, I believe We have to admit yes that lately there is a preference for irrationalism against rational positions, which is as biased as the opposite position. What about beauty? There is beauty in "E = mc2" and there is beauty as well in: "We the unwilling, led by the unqualified, doing the unnecessary, for the ungrateful"." Beauty is also a source of knowledge, and may be one of its attributes, much more to me than its verification side, or pretended irrationalism, Rational/Irrational are the useless ending points of a cord with many intermediate positions On 20 dez, 11:45, Georges Metanomski <[email protected]> wrote: > Science, Philosophy, Music, Skiing do not exist, but are reified phantasms. > So are Scientists, Philosophers, Musicians and Skiers. > What exists are humans whose existential modalities encompass certain > activities called for convenience science, philosophy, music and skiing. We > shall use the reified terms as linguistic shortcuts, always > remembering their above signification. Thus we shall call "scientist" > a person exercising occasionally "scientific" activities. > > Some activities may be qualified with respect to various criteria like > elegance, clarity, coherence or efficiency but all of them fall into > two classes: > > 1.Rational, i.e. empirically verifiable, which we shall call "good", > > 2.Irrational, i.e. lacking empirical verification, or "bad". > > Irrationality stems usually from the "common sense" and from the > laziness to overcome it. > > A beginning "skier" traversing a steep slope perceives the depth as > danger and the wall as security. His "common sens" tells him to incline > the upper body away from the depth and close to the wall. His weight > passes on the upper foot, he skids and falls. > He stays now on crossroads. He may choose to stay irrational, i.e.to be > too lazy to overcome his "common sense" and "natural reactions". > In that case his skiing will stay bad, clumsy and inefficient. > But he may choose the rational attitude, acknowledge the factual > falsification of his "common sens" and invest a lot of effort to > overcome it and to become a good "skier". > > A "scientist" may conceive good or bad philosophy, with certain bad > tendency to transpose uncritically his scientific concepts to the > more general philosophical inquiry. The quality of his philosophy > will be anyway intrinsic and independent of his science. The same > applies, vice versa, to "philosophers". > > However, unlike "scientists", who cannot afford to be lazily > irrational, many "philosophers" elevate laziness to their principal > virtue and exalt their elucubrations for being irrational - not > verifiable empirically. This attitude is additionally boosted by > the establishment, where professional "philosophers" have to > "publish or perish" and publishing of a rational paper would indispose > the lazy boss. > > Georges -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
