2010/9/1 Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> > > > 2010/8/30 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> > > >> On 29 Aug 2010, at 21:20, Rex Allen wrote: >> >> On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Excellent topic and comments! Naturalism does seem to be a >>>> natural condition of humans given their predilection for supernatural or >>>> supranatural explanations of events that have no simplistic >>>> explanations, >>>> i.e. in terms of their common every day experiences which are limited by >>>> their socioeconomic conditions. I am not sure what Idealist >>>> Accidentalism >>>> would entail… Could you elaborate on this, Rex? >>>> >>> >>> By "idealist" I'm referring to metaphysical idealism...that what >>> fundamentally exists is mental, not physical. And by mental I mean >>> either consciousness or existing only as an aspect of consciousness. >>> For example, there is my conscious experience of a dream, and then >>> there are the things that appear in my dreams that I am conscious >>> of...houses and chairs and trees and people. Both categories of >>> things are mental. The trees that appear in my dreams only exist as >>> an aspect of the dream. >>> >>> And by "accidentalism" I mean the theory that nothing that exists or >>> occurs is caused. There is nothing that connects or controls the flow >>> of events. The only rule is that there are no rules to appeal to. >>> >>> So "idealist accidentalism"...the view that what exists is mental, and >>> that there is no underlying process that explains or governs this >>> existence. >>> >> >> If idealist accidentalism is correct then there is no theory at all. >> But idealist accidentalism is a theory (even if vague) >> So there is no theory, and there is one theory. >> So 0 = 1. >> Contradiction. >> So idealist accidentalism is refuted. >> > > I'm sorry bruno... but that is sophism... > > Regards, > Quentin > >
I should just add that "idealist accidentalism" is *exactly* as irrefutable as solipsism. Hence by that it has no value... but it's not refuted. Regards, Quentin > >> You may save it by insisting that idealist accidentalism is not a theory. >> It would be a mere philosophical injunction of the type "dont' ask, don't >> search". >> >> hmm... >> >> >> Bruno >> >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/> >> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> >> > > > -- > All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
