Reciprocating Bill
Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006
|
| Quote (Louis @ Sep. 24 2008,13:17) | | Quote (Louis @ Sep. 24 2008,08:46) | |
| Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 24 2008,00:36) | Now that that current round of Ftkdoodle has run its course, some thoughts.
First, I think Ftk formulates an interesting question that could provoke some interesting answers when she asks, rather desperately, "Right here, right now, I want you to tell me about your philosophical beliefs. How do you think this little molecule of life could have been responsible for everything we observe in nature today."
I haven't responded to this question myself largely because Ftk has lately elected to ignore my comments. However, such a response might be worth sharing, if not with Ftk in particular, then with others here, if there is interest. I'd expect considerable diversity in philosophical outlook. For example, Louis, in my view, goes a bridge too far when he states that belief plays no role in fixing his, well, beliefs. This suggests that science is akin to an automated fact machine that runs independently of, and produces products that stand apart from, human belief. I don't see it that way, and that might be worth exploring some time. I'd expect there are other differences of perspective to be found here on sane street.
[SNIP] |
AHEM!
| Quote | I'm extremely interested. I'm always up for an opportunity to learn something new. Let's have at it!
Separate thread? What do you want to call it?*
Could I ask one tiny favour, please? I think a lot of this will hinge on various definitions of words like "belief", so if we could get a series of (perhaps personal) definitions out of the way first, I think it would seriously help us out. It might be a bit dull, but I reckon that once we know what tools we are working with, the conversation will be several orders of magnitude more productive. Sound fair?
Louis
ETA: * Bill and Louis' Existential Adventure? |
I'll assume you're unresponsive because either:
a) I am too far beneath you/mean/ugly/atheist on a daily basis for you to reply.
b) I am too much of an elitist prick wasting all his time on some message board when I could be talking to folks like you, ignoring the fact that I AM talking to folks like you.
c) You are ignoring the question because it is too difficult.
d) All of the above.
e) None of the above.
We're waitinngggggggggg.
{taps foot}
Louis
P.S. We could skip it, agree (of course you must know you're right) and go back to persecuting trying to get some sense out of FTK. Personally I'd prefer to have a discussion with you. It might make my brain hurt less and I am guaranteed to learn something new and interesting. |
Sorry Louis - not ignoring you, but rather busy putting food on my family. I'm thinking at the outset that we could do this here (rather than start a new thread), as it is somewhat responsive to Ftk's question vis individual philosophies (including epistemological allegiances). But that could change, and I'm amenable to a separate thread if that seems best, or the discussion is swamped with other Ftkdoodlisms.
So I might take a day or so to whip up a few paragraphs reflecting on the topic and also demonstrating what I had in mind in proposing this (<- confession that this isn't yet a well-formed proposal).
Other takers?
--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace
"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington
|
