Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 2:50 am
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 2:22 am
I made the mistake of thinking you were sincerely interested in understanding my view.
Well, I was sincerely interested in knowing whether or not your view could be right, too. And that means that I wanted to see if it was cogent. If it is self-contradictory, the "mistake" is not in my interest level, nor in my sincerity, but rather in the explanation -- or in the theory itself. And it seems to me, it's the latter.
You have convinced me your only interest is in promoting your own superstitious agenda.
This I have not done here, whatever you think of my alleged "agenda." All I've done is ask you to explain yours. I've not offered mine in return.
You pay no attention anything I say, no matter how often I explain something is not my view, you plow ahead accusing me of what I never said, implied, or believe.
Actually, I paid very close attention. And I found basic faults in the logic, as you explained it to me. So I certainly wasn't asleep on that.
If it makes you feel good to call me names, like, "dualist," go right ahead.
It's not a "name," or insult, and it's not so I can "feel good." Rather, it seems to me the inevitable label for your theory as you describe it, since you insist you believe both in physical and non-physical realities. Again, that's on you, not me.
I certainly distinguish between the ontological (all that exists independent of human minds) and the epistemological (all that only exists in and as the product of human minds, like language, mathematics, logic, history, literature, philosophy, and science.) You can call that dualism, if you like, but I certainly don't see how it helps your case.
It's not about "my case," RC. I'm simply trying to figure out what you are. And though you repeatedly use the word "one" to describe your beliefs, as if you were a Monist of some kind, when you turn to explaining them, you inevitably assert some sort of Dualism -- of the material and the immaterial in reality.
There is no epistemology, language, mathematics, logic, history, literature, philosophy, or science, without the living physical organisms that produce them, human beings.
I can't see why you think that's true. I mean, if you use those words only to describe them as distinct disciplines, I can. But if you mean that, say logic or mathematical operations are reflective only of human imaginings, I think that's manifestly wrong. Mathematics works because the objective world is mathematical in nature. And logic works because the empirical world is logical in structure. Science works because of the empirical nature of reality, which was exactly the way physics or biology or chemistry still worked before F. Bacon discovered the scientific method.
There were tortoises in Galapagos before Darwin arrived...that is, unless you think they magically materialized when his foot first hit the beach.
Your assumption is like saying, "There was no North America until it was inhabited." The truth is that there might have been nothing
by that name, but the thing to which the name refers
pre-existed the naming of it. Reality is not dependent on human cognition; rather, human cognition is always working madly to try to catch up with what's
already there.
Humans don't just
invent knowledge. Sometimes they also
discover things. What that means is that find out
how the world already works, in some way. But it would work that way whether any human had discovered it did or not.
(You see? I didn't even have to introduce the premise that God has knowledge, or that ontology is established by Him. The objection works, even if you don't share my worldview.)
The primary difference between the ontological and epistemological is, the ontological is about all there is that can be known, the epistemological is about knowing all there is.
Not quite. The ontological is about what exists to BE known (or not yet known), and the epistemological is only a description of what we happen to know about it at a given time and place -- which is never more than partial and flawed.