I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm merely pointing out that reality as we understand it can be framed theologically. I'm not seeing the conflict with rationality here. With a theological framing, reason is the worship of reality, by trying to understand it's nature.
-
-
Replying to @higherOrderNet @NegarestaniReza and
By mindless I don't mean blind, I'm walking back my statement from possibly being misconstrued as an assertion of pan-consciousness.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @higherOrderNet @Baalren and
My apologies. Sure that's something we can tentatively agree on. But I wouldn't call it theology. Because when we talk about theology a lot of extrinsic factors creep in.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @Baalren and
The reason I do this is to derive is from ought. Christ's God/Allah may have been a mirage, but ultimate reality certainly isn't, and it's worthy of the same level of devotion because it's even more terrifying.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @higherOrderNet @Baalren and
You see that's when we should draw the line. For science, there is no ultimate reality. Ultimate reality is just another word for mystery or natural secrets. We shouldn't confuse our theoretical ignorance with the idea that nature is mysterious. That's not the business of science
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @Baalren and
Nature exists but our ability to perceive it is limited, so we have to use models to infer things about it.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @higherOrderNet @Baalren and
The existence of particular entities are co-constitutive with our models. We can't treat them separately.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @Baalren and
But isn't that an assertion that our models are infallible?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @higherOrderNet @NegarestaniReza and
Just go and read Sellars if you want to get what Reza's saying, instead of continuing this unproductive back and forth.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Psychonothing1 @higherOrderNet and
I know exactly what he's saying, it's just incorrect. It pretends to be new. Is in fact pre-Socratic. Stone age sophistry dressed up all fancy.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
My dear friend, in the spirit of earnestness, you should elaborate this.
-
-
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @Psychonothing1 and
Nice trap. -Very- nice. But I'm an idiot and a quack, right? What could I possibly have to say? I should probably merely recommend a book to read. Sadly none of Protagoras' direct writings haven't survived.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Baalren @Psychonothing1 and
Now I you are not an idiot. Stop this victumologic trend. Start the conversation.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.