RE: virus: Re: inconsistent worldviews

carlw (
Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:47:18 -0600

>From WWWebster:

Main Entry: phi·los·o·phy
Pronunciation: f&-'lä-s(&-)fE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -phies
Etymology: Middle English philosophie, from Old French, from Latin philosophia, from Greek, from philosophos philosopher Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts (2) : the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology <a doctor of philosophy> (3) : the 4-year college course of a major seminary b (1) archaic : PHYSICAL SCIENCE (2) : ETHICS c : a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology 2 a : pursuit of wisdom b : a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c : an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs 3 a : a system of philosophical concepts b : a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought <the philosophy of war> <philosophy of science>
4 a : the most general beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group b : calmness of temper and judgment befitting a philosopher

> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> []On Behalf
> Of Sodom
> Sent: Friday, February 19, 1999 9:20 AM
> To:
> Subject: RE: virus: Re: inconsistent worldviews
> Jake, I love your tenacity and genuinely agree for the most
> part with your
> materialistic and rational worldviews, but, I think you are painting
> yourself into a corner here. Just the basic assumption that a
> person has the
> right to happiness argues against this worldview stance.
That is because we have overloaded the word "right" and the concept as it is translated here.
If somebody in Africa is starving while dying of aids and tubercolosis, what does their "right to happiness" avail them? And who should pay for them to implement the "right"? And how is it to be delivered?

> We are not
> computers (as we have now) that can only deal in 0 or 1,
> right or wrong, on
> or off. We can keep many views which conflict with each other
> if for no
> other reason than to trigger brain candy. It does not
> automatically lead to
> psychosis, and may lead to delusion - which is not
> necessarily bad - after
> all, we all like to think of Santa as real when we are
> little, and I don't
> see kids going crazy over it (except for the next morning).

I'd say that kids who are not loaded down with illusions, not to say delusions, about fat, elderly men, who invite them to sit on their laps and who offer them sweeties, are not only happier but also much safer.

> I think you might say that it is still meaningless - I don't
> think so - I
> suspect it is our "base" or "natural" state. The starting
> point from which
> to work

What is "it" that is meaningless? And is that "it" also the "it" which is our "base" or "natural" state? And what is a "base" or "natural" state when it is at home.

> As we all obviously dabble in Philosophy, and hold ourselves
> to concepts of
> rationality, we are a somewhat unique grouping of people.

No. Philosophy is about rationality or used to be last time I looked. And "Philo" <- "Phileo" = "lover of" and "Sophy" <- "Sophia" <- "Sophos" = "wisdom". Hardly unique I think. Except in so far as modern education has failed.

> We
> seriously wish
> to have an open and accurate single worldview. An admirable
> goal with little
> possibility of success. No one of us has anywhere near the
> knowledge we need
> to create a single - functioning worldview that explains all.

Do we absolutely need this? I suspect that the answer is not really.

> I do agree that so far, the materialist viewpoint is the most
> accurate and
> successful, but I need to understand how to fit the abstract into the
> worldview - and as you see, we cant get anyone to agree on
> how.

Betram Russell described this problem quite well in "Meaning and Truth" I believe. While discussing the problem in English, we cannot solve the problem. For meta-problems you need a meta-language. So unless you are prepared to learn and use the symbols of an appropriate calculus, this discussion isn't going anywhere. I have never found a "real" problem which the "materialist viewpoint" failed to address. Despite the deficiencies of modern education, "materialist" is not the dirty word that too many people on this list seem to imagine it to be.

> There are
> holes in the material worldview, or we would have definitive,
> verifiable
> proof. Doesn't our method require this?

Did Godel live in vain? What is a "hole" in this context?

> That is where our problem with Robin comes from. She has
> always maintained
> that the intangibles are beyond the materialists viewpoint,
> and I believe
> she is wrong, but right now the evidence stands against us, I
> think. I NEED
> MORE KNOWLEDGE dammit. Ill have to dedicate myself to non
> stop thinking and
> collectiong from now on! Hehe

No, the "evidence" does not stand against you. What "evidence"? According to the "immaterialists" or perhaps "quasi-materialists", "evidence" does not seem to matter. If you refuse to allow words to be overloaded then the problem will go away. For example, what does "inconsistent" mean in the phrase "Worldviews A and B are completely inconsistent with one another." and while thinking about it, consider the meaning of "Worldview" too. It is almost certainly overloaded.

Main Entry: in·con·sis·tent/Pronunciation: -t&nt/Function: adjective/Date: 1646
lacking consistency: as a : not compatible with another fact or claim <inconsistent statements> b : containing incompatible elements <an inconsistent argument> c : incoherent or illogical in thought or actions : CHANGEABLE d : not satisfiable by the same set of values for the unknowns <inconsistent equations> <inconsistent inequalities>

If they really are inconsistent (and I deny that the example given is such an example) then I don't see how they are to be analysed without incoherence :-)

TheHermit (smiling grimly)

> Bill Roh
> Sodom
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [] On Behalf Of
> Sent: Friday, February 19, 1999 9:50 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: virus: Re: inconsistent worldviews
> << Prof. Tim asks :
> Worldview A works best for achieving result A'.
> Worldview B works best for achieving result B'.
> Worldviews A and B are completely inconsistent with one another.
> You desire both result A' _and_ result B'.
> Can you get both results? If so, how?
> >>
> The desiring for a particular result does not happen in a
> worldview vaccuum.
> This scenario leaves out important information without which,
> any answer
> would
> be meaningless.
> stephen fleming:
> >>Ignoring the point as to whether it is possible for two
> worldviews to be
> completely inconsistent, . . .<<
> That is a VERY profound point to be ignoring. Without
> addressing it as
> well,
> the "answer" would be likewise meaningless. Despite your
> disclaimer, your
> answer didn't "ignore it", as you chose to concentrate on individual
> beliefs,
> as opposed to "completely inconsistent worldviews". I wise
> decision IMO.
> >>For example, the two worldview components (beliefs)<<
> conclusion.
> >>The supposed level 3 thinker may hold worldviews that appear
> inconsistent on the surface that are resolved on a deeper level.
> Or something :)<<
> I think the word "supposed" is crucial to this conclusion.
> Some wish to
> maintain here that that they genuinely, and in fact
> intentionally, hold
> "inconsistent worldviews." If this is genuine, then I have
> no respect for
> it.
> If this is an extension of theater, perhaps a magician's
> performance, then I
> applaud it. Just don't expect me to attribute honesty to it.
> -Jake