Adelphiasophism
Adelphiasophist Correspondence: Your Views, Our Replies 2
Abstract
© 1998 The Adelphiasophists and AskWhy! Publications. Freely distribute as long as it is unaltered and properly attributed
Contents Updated: Friday, 24 December 2004
Platinum Kitten 22
I have a critique of your review Wise Women’s Words on Criticisms of Science:
Externalism. Since scientists work within a culture or society, their findings reflect that society and are conditioned by the common forces in it but external to science.
-False. If that were true then scientists would still be arguing that the earth was flat, as that was what ‘society believed’.
Therefore, the preoccupations and prejudices of a society are found in its science as in its art and so on. Science and scientists have been racist, misogynist, sexist, anthropomorphist, jingoist, mercantilist, and so on.
-Sorry, but gravity still makes things fall to earth whether the thing dropped is dropped by a homosexual or a homophobe. Concepts such as those you have listed are all founded upon unreality. Science is not based upon unrelality, but on objective reality. It makes no sense whatsoever to say that science is subjective- did molecules only begin to exist when we discovered them ?
Subjectivism. Science is a human construct, not a system of objective knowledge.
-Wrong. Science is objective because it accurately describes reality. Gravity is not a human construct. Neither is chemistry. Neither is reality. All of those are scientific concepts.
Scientists have constructed a belief system, not discovered objective truth by objectively analysing Nature. Meaning exists only in language, and the question is whether words like truth have objective meaning. Deconstructionists try to free a discipline’s language from its concepts and referents to reveal hidden, subjective meanings. They conclude that knowledge or belief systems are unavoidably personal and subjective…
-The deconstructionalists might very well do, but the scientists do nothing of the sort. E=mc2 today, E will still equal mc2 tomorrow. Science is not subjective. In fact, the vast majority of this topic consists of postmodernism blaming scientists for the mis-interpretation of their discoveries by non-scientists. The fault here lies with the non-scientists.
…and scientists create their understanding of Nature by imposing their a priori, subjective beliefs, biases, assumptions, and presuppositions on to Nature, not by disinterestedly investigating Nature to discover what is there.
-This is the basis of science; to explore nature and interpret it correctly. There is no ‘belief’ system.
Relativism. Postmodernists object to scientists’ claim to be approximating to objective truth precisely because of the way scientific truth changes.
-No it doesn’t. The laws of physics do not change and cannot be changed.
One theory replaces another when a paradigm becomes insupportable and is overthrown in a scientific revolution.
-Only when scientific objectivism replaces an irrational, subjectivism, such as the worship of gods or godesses who posess the the contradictory characteristics of omnicence and omnipotence.
Saviour Shirlie
You seem to have missed the point. You are criticising me, but I am making the same sort of criticisms of these Postmodernist views that you seem to think are mine. I list the three criticisms that they make about science then, as you do, refute them. You do not seem to have read far beyond the three points and seem to think they are my points suggesting that you did not read the first paragraph either. So, your criticisms are criticisms of the people I am featuring in order to criticise!
We can disagree legitimately on your last two points, where you seem to have dipped into the points I am making…
This is just what happened when the religion of ignorance—Christianity—took over the world from the religions of reason—Paganism.
There is no such thing as a “religion of reason”. If the existance of god could be proven, then it would annihilate religion. God would just be another point on a scientist’s graph. Religion is a system of beliefs and faith, i.e. they are subjective and opposed to objectivism.
You are too dogmatic. The point of the pages you have dipped into is to refute this very belief. What rational grounds have you for asserting “religion”—implying all religions—is necessarily subjective?
Why are you not a Christian? Why are you not a Muslim? Why is a Hindu not a Jew? Why is a Jew not a Hindu? Or a Pagan? There are no rational answers to these questions, as none of these religions can be proven to exist. They rely on faith.
The rational answer to why people hold to their religion is that most were brought up to it by their parents and the society in which they live. Mostly, they are not given the chance of choosing.
Please answer my questions. Why should I believe you any more or less than I should believe a Christian? If your philosophies are not based upon mysticism, then prove it. Give evidence. Don’t appeal to ignorance.
You are successfully proving that our appeal is not to the ignorant. Adelphiasophists are not in any of the religions you list because they reject them as lies and contrickery. We base our outlook on the real world not on beliefs in imaginary fathers that never come home, but on Nature as the womb of our being.
And you are trying to tell me you are not religeous in any way? So what was all of that about paganism?
Listen, if you are so short of comprehension, you should practice concentrating on what others are saying before you jump to conclusions. I have repeatedly explained that Adelphiasophism is NeoPagan. It is a religion or a world view according to how you want to take it. Most religions are supernatural world views that are not based on reality. Adelphaisophsim is.
Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the senses (not intuition).
More dogma. The difference between reason and intuition is not that intuition does not “identify and integrate the material provided by the senses” but that it does it unconsciously while reason attempts to do it consciously. Reason is only secure when the chain of reasoning is complete. If it is not, and is known not to be, approximations based on frequency can be used but do not guarantee the right answer. Intuition does this unconsciously based on a lifetime’s experience. Like statistical reasoning, intuition is not guaranteed to come up with a “right answer” in any particular situation, but it comes up with an answer when reason has none. It is up to people to decide whether they will follow their intuition or not, but it is far from valueless. It is what brought us to where we are except for the last few thousand years.
Faith is the acceptance of ideas or allegations without sensory evidence or rational demonstration. “Faith in reason” is a contradiction in terms.
More dogma. Faith is a perfectly good word without being attached to any religious beliefs. It means assent or trust. “Faith in reason” is only a contradiction to someone so dogmatic that they can only see one meaning in the word faith.
You mean faith is only what each of us percieve? (Subjectivism?)
Now you are blaming me because the English language has definitions that you do not like. You are a few currants short of being an Eccles cake, my friend.
I am doing nothing of the sort. You should chose your words more carefully. “Faith” is a concept that possesses meaning only in contradiction to reason. The concept of “faith” cannot antecede reason, it cannot provide the grounds for the acceptance of reason—it is the revolt against reason. If you disagree, then by what means can you prove you are right and I am wrong? If paganism, or indeed any other religion is objective then prove it. Give me a rational demonstration or evidence to prove your viewpoint.
Why should I want to disagree with what you say about “religious” faith? I have over a hundred pages that you say you have read, but do not seem to have understood, saying that Christianity is bunk, and that we should put any faith, that has to be placed, in Nature. I do not recollect saying that Pagansim was objective either. I am saying that Adelphiasophism, a modern NeoPaganism, attempts to base itself on Nature not on imaginary fathers. So, far as I can tell, you profess to have the same view. So, what are you arguing about?
It says so on your website.
This is just what happened when the religion of ignorance—Christianity—took over the world from the religions of reason—Paganism.
Now you are saying it is not a religion and it is not based on reason.
So, I did not say it was objective. Why not read what I have already said before you make more thoughtless assertions…
Adelphiasophism is a natural religion, or world view, if you object to the word religion, or want to keep your dogmas uncluttered. It is based on accepting that science is the way that Nature reveals herself to us. We think of Nature metaphorically as a woman—a Goddess—for the same reason that the ancients did—Nature procreates, something males cannot do. For we sophisticates, it is a metaphor, but who am I to stop simpler folk from believing it to be literally true. It is a better mistaken belief than believing in an imaginary father.
If it does not come up with the right answer then it is not objective. A wrong answer is a flaw in your premises meeting head on with reality. i.e. it is contradictory to reality. Contradictions cannot and do not exist. If reason is contradictory, then it is not reason and not objective.
Well, I have explained how reason can give wrong answers. It stands to reason that reason can only give the right answer with the right premises. Is reason therefore unreasonable? Should we abandon reason because we use it with meticulous care yet get the wrong answer. This must confuse you greatly as someone with all your faith in reason.
What did I say about “faith in reason” in my earlier post?
I know what you said, but if I were to believe it, you would have no faith in reason, would you?
No scientist, male or female, rejects intuition.
Intuition is judgement without reason. i.e. it is not objective. I hope that clarifies things.
Again, you assert without reasoning. The only way that intuition can be shown to be not objective is by testing its products against reality, in the way that any other scientific fact is established. I have cited a few examples, like Kekule, on my pages but it seems too obvious to need pressing. There are few people that will deny the value of intuition. That “Fortune favours the prepared mind” shows intuition at work. Archimedes is said to have cried, “Eureka” when sitting in the bath. That is intuition. Is that something to be disparaged by science or religion?
You appear to have a serious flaw in the entire argument. You are relying upon a stolen concept: You tear an idea from its context and treat it as though it were a self sufficient, independent item, when you do this, you invalidate the thought process involved. If you omit the context, or even a crucial aspect of it, then no matter what you say it will not be valid.
You are talking in riddles. What concept has been stolen? What idea has been torn from its context? Why is intuition not to be regarded in its own right as a phenomenon of Nature, but gratuitously discarded because of some pre-held dogma? What context are you talking about?
What Archimedes cried eureka because he percieved reality using his senses, he did not require intuition in order to see the water level had rose in the bath. i.e there was sensory evidence to prove his theory. It didn’t just come to him.
If Archimedes called out “Eureka” only because he perceived reality, why was he not calling it out every second of his life? He did not call it out because he did what he always did—receive input from the external world via his senses—but because his subconscious mind revealed to him the solution of a problem he had been pondering—why things floated. He did not have a theory until intuition revealed it to him. It did not “just” come to him because he had prepared his mind by considering the problem and wondering why. Thousands of people had climbed into baths and Archimedes probably had done hundreds of times without even wondering what the significance of the rising water level was, because it was not a problem anyone had in mind.
If you are asserting that the only way intuition can be shown not to be objective is by testing its products against reality, then that is a contradiction too. If intuition does not coincide with reality then it is not real and therefore non-objective.
You are really losing me here. Intuition is like thought, it cannot reveal itself at work except by its outcome. You conclude it is an empty fancy because it does not always produce the right answer, but then nor does reason, as I have said above, when all the logic is not present.
To claim that intuition is objective and is an acceptable way of apprehending reality and then admiting that it does not always produce the right answer is to claim that reality is not always real.
You are just not thinking again. It means that there is not enough information to make a correct inference. It also might mean that human beings are not yet gods—except in your case of course.
I know that A=A. It doesn’t take a god to work that out does it ? It doesn’t take intuition either.
You only know that equation is true as long as you have perfect knowledge about what constitutes both As. If I had incomplete information about what the As constituted I could not come to a fully reasonable conclusion. As soon as you have imperfect knowledge, you begin to make errors when you make judgements and decisions whether based on reason or intuition, but some decision might have to be made nevertheless. I might, if forced, as for example if deciding that I was faced with a tiger, have to use intuition as to whatever was lurking in the jungle was.
Intuition is the subconscious working of the mind. It is a faculty that evolved to allow animals to survive by giving them solutions to problems without logic or reason because the creatures had not got so far as to be able to reason, and often had to make quick decisions as a matter of life or death. There are sufficient examples of intuition working, like the ones I have cited, to accept it as a real phenomenon. You have made up your mind that it is just reading tea leaves and dogmatically reject it without proper thought.
What you have ignored is that man is a volitional being whereas no other animal is. And man’s basic decision is to think or to evade thinking.
I shall refrain in this instance from making the obvious riposte.
So is man a volitional being or not? Answer the question.
Man is a self initiator in consciousness just as animals are self initiators in mobility. The effect upon a man who refuses to reason is, ultimately, the same as an wild animal that refuses to move. For man, to think means to live, to evade means to die. All of the other animals have some means of survival: some can fly, some have sharp claws, some have thick coats of fur to keep warm, some are fast, and some are strong. Man excels in none of these physical areas. Man’s means of survival is thinking and, more particularly, thinking with abstractions. But unlike animals our means of survival is not automatic. Man is the only animal that can evade its means of survival, i.e. man can discard his means of survival and try to live and think at the level of animals, as you wish us to, which means to act self-destructively by evading reality.
Is that you speaking? Are you still there or has someone else started typing? My implication that all people do not think properly, answers your question.
-It’s me again. I have a few other comments to make:
Though, the planets might have subtle effects on our natures and various earthly cycles they are unlikely to have any important effect on our individual destinies. What is true though is that an astrological reading should be personally interpreted allowing one’s intuition to work.
-This is essentially a subjectivist statement. Intuition is not based upon objective reality, but on feelings and beliefs.
I have answered this dogma above. You have no objective basis for claiming that intuition is valueless, because it plainly is not. Basing yourself on objective reality is a proper position to take, but you do not take it. You ignore reality in favour of your own false beliefs.
You have no objective basis for claiming that intuition is valid. Prove it.
You again begin to sound like a Christian but not a scientist. Proof is a luxury that only exact sciences like mathematics can enjoy. Christians are fond of asking their critics to prove negatives such as that God or Jesus did not exist. The burden of proof is on them. In less exact sciences like sociology and psychology, proof is based on the balance of evidence. The balance of evidence is overwhelmingly that the brain works subconsciously and intuition is an example of it.
Quite the opposite. There is no evidence—if there is, then state it.
Oh you are back. Perhaps you never went away. I thought I had given a good deal of evidence—Archimedes. Do You Remember?—but you choose to ignore it, so I’ll not add more for you to ignore as well. You can get more examples in most books about the history of science and a few are mentioned on my pages, as I have already said. Perhaps I ought to write a whole page about it, but it would be useful to such a small minority of uncomprehending people that it seems hardly worth it.
That is not a valid example. He did not discover displacement by “using his imagination”.
Let us assume that everyone before Archimedes that had entered a bath had discovered displacement, because it is only, according to you, observing that the water rises as the person enters it. Why then did Archimedes cry, “Eureka”? It was not because he observed it, but because he understood how it explained his problem of why ships floated. I have already said this carefully enough, but you cannot seem to get it.
The sun signs of the daily papers seem to be incredibly accurate because we read into them something about ourselves, or what we would like to be true about ourselves. It is the psychological act of interpretation which is important, not the phony act of making a reading.
-So is this one.
Which one? Perhaps you are now disparaging psychology. There is reason to question much psychological theory but I cannot see how it can be contradicted that only people can ever know themselves. Who can know my psyche better than me? This is the basis of allowing the mind to work on its own problems, and its relationship to intuition is self evident—in the actual material world. Why have you missed it?
The subconscious mind throws up the answer.
-And this one.
More unargued assertion. You should be a Christian.
Since men are unquestionably bigger, stronger and more aggressive than women, justice has to take account of these factors. The answer is of course that women have to be the rulers and men have to be restricted up to a point because of their bad characteristics.
-So much for equality ! Some are clearly more equal than others. I don’t think this is really a fair statement… surely it is no better than reverse fascism. Call it whatever you like, that’s what it looks like. I doubt if any of your philosophies will produce anything better than patriarchy, without a legitimate veiwpoint based upon objectivism, your philosophies will merely lead us towards another form of statism, such as the one that is seizing control of the world at the moment.
Well, at least you are beginning to argue rather than just state. Nature is not equal. Anyone grounded in the real world can see that. This first sentence summarises the inequality of men and women. Surely justice does have to take into account these factors. Are you disputing this? Are you disputing that men have bad characteristics that ought to be restrained if the world is to be a better place? Do you know what fascism is? Why does it look like it? It looks like common sense to me. I suggest you try being objective. Begin by reading these replies and working out who is more objective. Adelphiasophism is based in the real world and is scientific. Your slogans do not constitute an objective philosophy, and you show little understanding of what it means. Despite your pseudonym, I suspect that you are a man not a woman.
Firstly, you are now saying that science is valid so long as it is based on intuition (refuted above).
Are we reading the same words? Where did I say that? The most that I have said, on the pages you claim to have read, is that intuition should not be treated the way you treat it—as if it did not exist. I clearly say that discovery requires both reason and intuition. Another word for intuition is creativity. The one throws up possible solutions by integrating a mass of evidence that conscious thinking cannot easily handle. The conscious mind can then test the potential solutions revealed.
So creativity is now a valid means of apprehending reality? This is subjectivism by definition.
How do you suppose then that people ask questions to begin a process of intellectual exploration? They wonder about something, then ponder possible solutions. That is creativity at work.
That is not creativity. 1+1=2… is that being creative? It is apprehending reality, but it is not being creative. Same goes for the archimedes argument.
Your whole world seems to be based on unfounded assumptions. Your equation shows immense creativity. It is symbolic thought with no precedent in Nature until some creative beings invented it. You seem to think that apprehending Nature is not creative in itself. To apprehend is to understand, not merely to perceive. Most creatures perceive Nature one way or another, but so far as we know, only human beings understand it. It is the act of apprehending that is creative. It is astonishing that your view of human understanding is simply one of perceiving Nature, yet you can only give symbolic proofs of it such as algebraic equalities, entirely the creation of human understanding.
Secondly, you appear to have stolen the concept of objectivism while denying the philosophical foundation upon which objectivism depends. What politics? What ethics?
Your mind seems to be wandering.
No, this is a valid point. On what ethics is it based? What politics does objectivism lead to?
Why also do you say that I have stolen concepts that are in the public domain as if you own them?
Oh no you don’t: You are stealing a concept from someone else’s philosophy and attempting to apply it to your own whilst at the same time denying that concepts necessary roots; there is no “public domain”. For example, let’s take the self-contradictory argument: “property is theft”. Theft is a concept that depends on the antecendent concept of “rightfully owned property”—and refers to the act of taking property without the owner’s consent. If no property is rightfully owned, that is, if nothing is property, there can be no such concept as “theft.” Thus, the statement “All property is theft” is a contradiction: to use the concept “theft” while denying the validity of the concept of “property,” is to use “theft” as a concept to which one has no right to—that is, as a stolen concept.
Well, the exclusiveness of your arguments defeats me. Most people would say that “property is theft” is a use of hyperbole to make a clever point. What strikes the attention about it is its self-contradiction, yet the points are validly made on reflecting on this witiicism that there could be no theft of property if it were not privately owned in the first place, that private ownership of property came about by a few taking what was once free for all, and that the new sin of theft was only created by the original sin of property acquisition from the common weal. A dogmatist might say that anyone who did not believe in private ownership should not use the word theft at all, and I guess that is what you are saying. Most of us take the bricks that constitute the language we speak and use them, but some prefer their own divers brands of political correctness, no doubt. I cannot see how any concept has been stolen in all this, except in this politically correct way. I do not subscribe to it however. The technical words I do use are scientific words. I repeat, you do not own them and nor does your philosophy, if that is what it is.
The ethical base of Adelphiasophism is simply expressed as “Do not offend the earth, directly or indirectly”. I thought you had read the Adelphiasophism pages? Because our Goddess is Nature itself, Adelphiasophists give every consideration to the effects their actions have on the earth directly or indirectly. It is a stringent test that is true because Nature exists objectively—to use your favourite word. Since we are part of Nature and depend upon her entirely, it is utterly foolish to damage her with our conceit.
I have read the majority of your articles and it all points to the same altruism-faith-collectivism axis as found in statist politics, such as communism and fascism, both of which are based upon non-objective laws.
Well doubtless “altruism-faith collectivism axis” means something to you, but it sounds German to me. Are you foreign?
This article…
To control society and particularly to confine women to confinement and motherhood rather than more diverse lives, patriarchs have imposed on us their core idealogies of the Church (God is the Father), the State (we must be Patriotic) and the private enterprise system of economic production (selfishness, greed, aggression embodied in a male dominated system of ownership). If we do not concur that these constitute a veritable heaven on earth we are labelled as atheistic, traitorous, psycho-social deviants, in short, communists!…
says it all.
By which I understand that you agree with the sentiments criticised in it. You are a nationalist, Christian male who considers those that disagree with your dogmas as “atheistic, traitorous, psycho-social deviants, in short, communists!” Yet I thought you were in favour of equality, for so you implied above.
Straw man argument, try again. Did I ever say I was a Christian? Have I not already given a critique of Chrisitianity? Nationalism is nothing more than tribalism i.e. collectivism. I have not claimed to support it. What made you think I supported that? Was it your intuition?
’Fraid not, it was my reason. I deduce you agreed with these because you disapproved of Adelphiasophist criticism of them, which “said it all!” You implied that you agreed with, and approvingly quoted, what I said as expressing the view that I am criticising. As for giving a critique of Christianity, I did not hear it except that you seem to think all “religion” depends on faith. You will find a full and argued case against it on my pages—the pages that you think you have read.
Instead of labelling people, ideas and philosophies and filing them in your simplistic categories, you should begin to think a little. To criticise capitalism might mean the critic is a communist but most critics of capitalism are captialists that realise it is seriously faulty.
You believe that you are living in a capitalist society? A person who critiques capitalism is not a capitalist, but an advocate of something other than capitalism. i.e. statism.
There you go again. If not this then that! Black and white. What a dunce you are.
So it is “ad hominem” now is it ? If it’s not white, then it’s non-white. If it’s black then it’s non-black. Am I wrong by saying that?
By the way, was that a “yes” to the “do you live in a capitalist society” question?
Or, if you sound like a dunce am I wrong to say that? “Ad hominum” arguments are attempts to distract from the argument by irrelevant insults. If the argument is private, I cannot see how any insult could be an “ad hominum” attack, and if it is public, I do not see how any statement based on the content of the argument can be ““ad hominem.”” As for black and white, your point was exactly that—those who criticise capitalism are statists. Capitalists cannot criticise their own system in your narrow world.
By the way, what is this thing you seem to dislike so much?
You have never heard of statism? And you are claiming to be an objectivist? Look it up.
Did I claim to be an objectivist? If so, it was not in the way you mean it. Adelphiasophists try to be objective, as science does, but no doubt we fail because it is rather like being free of sin in Christianity. We cannot escape our upbringing, however hard we try. Nevertheless, we do, for the same reason that we value truth. So, as we try to be objective, we might be called objectivists, but you have some hidebound definition of your own. I doubt that we are that, to judge by your arguments.
You sound like an anarchist, but anarchy is a carefully thought out philosophy, proving it is not yours. You think you can define the world to be how you want it to be.
You now, out of desperation, resort to personal attacks. Anarchy is hardly “well thought out”—if it even qualifies as a philosophy.
Dogmatism again. Anarchism is extremely well thought out, unlike your own viewpoint. If it is your viewpoint, how can I avoid being personal about it?
Although you may have rejected the church and the state, you have done nothing more than replaced it with another church and another state. Abandoning private enterprise and property will only lead to some variant of statism, as the quote rightly suggests.
You sound like a child who will not try tapioca because you do not like how it looks. Our systems are failing and all you can do is bleat that any alternative will be just like the other. Learned helplessness, I think.
This is deliberate Kant-style self delusion. I don’t know where you got the idea that your philosophies were objective. Exactly how much objectivism i.e. Rand, Piekoff etc. have you read?
Name dropping now, eh? If reading more of them means sounding like you I am thankful not to have done. I have not read much of Wilhelm Reich, Rudolf Steiner, Madam Blavatsky or L Ron Hubbard, either. It is a shame you do not actually think instead of regurgitating half digested wall scrapings and cabbage leaves. Life is not long enough to waste time on utter garbage.
You should take your own advice. Tell me what exactly it is about the two philosophers I have mentioned that you dislike so much. Dogmatic ignoramus are we? Perhaps you should read up on my philosophies before you start criticising on them. (Now where have I heard that before?) It would be advisable to look for and study a philosophy called “objectivism” before you begin proclaiming yourself to be objective.
The philosophies on which these systems of government were founded were based on subjectivism and relativism, not objectivism. I will be happy to prove this if you do not believe it.
I have discovered precisely what objective means by living in the world and being a student of the scientific method. I do not want to know any philosophy that thinks it owns words and ideas that have their own existence, and encourages its adherents into dogmatic and ill-thought out ways of thinking and presumably living. Your way of thinking must be like the foot and mouth—infectious. Wall scrapings and cabbage leaves are not for me, and what were the two philosophies that you mentioned? Perhaps I recognize what is supposed to be one in the word objectivism. That must be the cabbage leaves. What was the wall scrapings philosophy?
Do you include capitalism in this assertion? If so, as a believer in objectivism, what are you going to do about it?
No capitalism is not part of that assertion. Only statism is founded upon non-objective philosophies. If your assertions were true, that science is non-objective, then refute or call into question some scientific fact or law. If it science not based upon reality, as objectivism demands an objective value to be, then prove it wrong.
I find it difficult to understand whether you can read English. Are you foreign? On this page, if you read what I have been saying you will find it is that the basis of the Adelphiasophist world view is science. So what are you talking about? The acceptance of science and not irrational belief is the basis of our world view. Hello! Do You Understand?
This is after after writing a “criticism of science”?
You said I was using an “ad hominum” attack on you for calling you a dunce. I was merely describing you. This is proof enough. I have written no attack upon science. Adelphiasophism takes science to be a gift of the Goddess to allow human beings to understand her. Adelphiasophists are natural scientists. I have already pointed out that you utterly misunderstood my quoting a postmodern view of science as being my own view.
And your final thrust is to approve of capitalism, an economic system that plainly is failing, and even capitalist apologists will admit it. In your simple world TINA rules. That should be your pseudonym, not PK22.
You seem to think that you can have your cake and eat it. You cannot have a philosophy that does not recognise the rights of man whilst at the same time cursing the philosophy that promotes and defends them and expect to still have rights at the end of the day.
If you mean your own philosophy, you astonish me. You want to condemn humanity to a possibly terminally failing system based on your conception that anyone who criticises capitalism is its enemy, while claiming to defend them? And presumably you mean the rights of “men” not the rights of man, meaning humanity. We are far more interested in humanity than you seem to be. We are interested in preserving the world for our children. You are content to see it destroyed for your own dogma. If we seem to want to have our cake and eat it, it is because you lack comprehension. Adelphiasophism is urging people to venerate Nature, so that they will be content with smaller slices of cake, and be twice as happy in a more pleasant world. You seem content that personal greed should be the whole of the law. How does that defend a defenceless world?
As for making out that I am saying that science is non-objective, it proves you do not understand a word that I have written. That might be my fault, but you give me good reason to think it is not.
You could have fooled me.
Assuming that you are genuinely seeking a philosophy of life for today, I suggest you drop your slogans and read the AS pages with a desire for understanding. Read more. Actually read them and try to understand. Forget about your phony gurus and learn for yourself. You will find that there is something to be learned from it. Whatever you understand by objectivism, it is not objective in any scientific sense, and science is the basis of our understanding.
You sound like Jesus… please read some of my philosophies before replying.
Sorry to disappoint, I haven’t yet, but doubtless my curiosity will get the better of me. I do not doubt that you are seeking a scientific philosophy, but yours is not it.
Some Christians identify Jesus with Sophia, but the only hope for the world is to abandon Christianity all together. The only thing in common is that the Goddess is nailed on the cross, not Jesus.
Thank you for showing that some points are not clear. I shall consider indenting the postmodernist paragraphs.
