Yeah, I've learned so much in college compared to what I was taught in public school that it is ridiculous. I tend to prefer English/Phil classes, as I have. a major in English and a minor in Philosophy. Just so all of you know, I do tend to lean more towards materialism and science over mysticism, however, I do not entirely discredit mysticism. There is a certain level of truth that can be found in mystical works that are on a higher level than straight fact or direct relation. I did not used to always be this way, however. I used to think that religion, mysticism, etc, were all hogwash, but now I see the other side of things. I read some works by Karen Armstrong (The Case for God) and Robertson Jr. (The Loss and Recovery of Transcendence), and I had never considered this fact: The scientific method fails at passing it's own criterion for truth. You see, something is considered empirically verifiable if observation statements logically imply the truth of the claim. If actual observation statements do imply the claim, then it is verified, so for instance the statement that "This sheep is white" verifies the statement that "There are white sheep." Now, taking verifiablity a step further, Popper insisted on falsifiablity as well. What this means is that for universal claims, if for any reason at any point in time I come upon a black sheep, or a blue sheep, then the universal claim that all sheep are white has come crashing down like a house of cards. On the surface, this set of standards seems to be quite a solid criterion for locating truth, but let's test the definition to itself. Science claims that if something is not falsifiable or verifiable, then it is meaningless. So, now let's run that statement through the grind. We cannot, indeed, verify whether or not the claim that "In order for something to be meaningful it must be verifiable," is true, and we cannot falsify the claim, so in actually, the foundations for modern science are pretty much on the same foundations as religion. Now, don't get me wrong, I am a strong advocate for science, and I love the life and luxury that science has provided me. I just wanted to make those of you who were not aware, that science cannot pass it's own criterions of meaning.
After pointing this fact out to me, I felt even more lost then before. You mean, both science and religion are still founded on bullshit!? This put me in a state of distress, however Robertson provides a solution. Since we are able to determine that the parts of reality that we experience are real and meaningful, then via modus ponens, the Whole is meaningful. If the Whole is meaningful, and not at all based on a nihilistic model of reality, then mankind has a responsibility to aspire for fellowship, community, transparency, and perfection. Perhaps this last bit is a jump in logic, and hell, maybe even idealistic, but it's better for me to think this than it is for me to lie down and cry like a baby at my inability to come to an understanding of my reality, isn't it? :) On Jul 22, 9:01 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > Welcome aboard! I think literature is a "poor man's" philosophy- what > do you think? Diluted further would be great theater and movies and a > few lyrics.//My major was Engl. Lit- B.A. and most of a an M.A. > program but I honestly preferred Classics/myth and Humanities survey > courses- the latter to counteract a Catholic education and enlighten > me about the rest of humanity- we were raised in such a glass bubble- > so sheltered- it was ridiculous. > > On Jul 21, 9:40 pm, pindleton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi everyone! This may be un-proper of me, since I will admit I > > haven't taken the time to read through all of the posting rules, but I > > just wanted to take the time to introduce myself. My name is Dustin, > > I'm a 23 year old college student studying English, and I love to talk > > about Philosophy! > > > Some of you may have already met me from Mind's Eye @ Gravity (Orn, > > Kierke, Darkwater, etc.) so I'm glad I could join you. > > > Anyway, I look forward to posting some convos and participating in the > > debate, see you guys around!
