This is meant to be a "light" post - a break from the fairly serious and lengthy discussions instigated by the previous two.
First, a personal note: the last couple of posts led to discussions which were strangely intense for me, so I have taken a break from blogging the last few days.
After a lifetime of searching and countless hours in and out of the classroom studying philosophy and religion, I thought myself capable of a little more detachment than I demonstrated in the last thread. I've become acutely conscious of some insecurities I have regarding my atheism. Now that I have learned a lesson in self-control, I am eager to continue the discourse and work through these things. I think and hope that others have also found the conversation fruitful, in different ways.
I would like to thank everyone for keeping the discussion polite and reasoned and, more importantly, for showing concern for each other. I am proud to find myself among upstanding people and I'm sure we will have more to talk about soon. There were a lot of subjects raised, and I have yet to decide how best to follow up.
In the meantime - so as not to break from the subject of religion, but not to get too entrenched in formal argumentation just now, either - I want opinions on a new belief system I discovered on the web today called The Church of Virus.
This belief system is self-described as an "atheistic religion," which to me sounds like a self-contradiction. They believe in memetics* (although I don't know whether they represent it accurately), and that their belief system leads to a meaningful life and immortality, among other things.
I am extremely skeptical of memetics, and I am even more skeptical of this new religion. What do you guys think?
* Memetics is the study of memes and their social effects. A meme is a unit of cultural information, such as a cultural practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another. Memes purportedly "compete" for survival in the environment of minds and cultures just as organisms "compete" for survival in the physical environment of the world.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
46 comments:
wow... memes were described to me as more analogically located to genes... except memes were ideas... and genes were well a pair of pants worn by bikers........
right..
no but i like your explanation of memes better... now i need to read about this new religion...
Arglor, I think that's a good way of stating the basic idea behind the meme.
If we observe that cultural information is transmitted between people, and then hypothesize a unit of transfer and arbitrarily call it a meme, then I guess there's not a lot to argue with. I guess where my skepticism comes into play is that they draw a lot of analogies between a biological model and a socio/psychological one. I'm curious about it. Haven't quite formed an opinion, but I see it's gaining popularity.
Danica, Thanks for visiting. Please drop by again and join in the discussion.
• I've become acutely conscious of some insecurities I have regarding my atheism.
I appreciate your openness about this, Snaars.
• If we observe that cultural information is transmitted between people, and then hypothesize a unit of transfer and arbitrarily call it a meme, then I guess there's not a lot to argue with.
I think memetics is a big "so what?" We've known for a long time that ideas and culture are transmitted from one population to another. The precise mechanism has been investigated and speculated about for many years. I don't understand what memetics adds to our knowledge of this subject.
I did a little research at Wikipedia, and came across this comment: "principal criticisms of memetics include the claim that memetics ignores established advances in the fields (such as sociology, cognitive psychology, social psychology, etc.) most relevant to the claims and methodologies of memetics."
As you comment, they draw a lot of analogies between a biological model and a socio/psychological one. It began with Dawkins' analogy between "memes" and genes, positing that both are self-replicating. I don't see this as adding anything to previously acquired knowledge. However, insight sometimes emerges when people approach a subject from a different starting point.
As for the religion, the whole enterprise seems cynical to me, as one who does practice a religion. It suggests that religion is entirely naturalistic in its origins. It suggests that God is a dispensible element of religion. And it suggests that truth is of no consequence: the popularity (or communicability) of ideas is all that counts.
I even find the name offensive, the church of virus. I know, it's based on the aphorism that language is a virus. But I wonder if there's an implicit critique of religion, that religion is also a virus (i.e., a disease).
Finally, the whole project is unbearably self-aggrandizing. Presumably the founders want to see it take off just so they can say that they founded a popular religion.
But I shouldn't be reticent about my opinion. "Yes, Q", I'm sure you're saying, "but tell us what you really think."
On balance, after careful consideration of the pros and cons, I'm against it.
Q
p.s. Danica is a little hottie, whose interests include boobs, knockers, breasts, pubic, porn, tits, nipples, titties, and exhibitionism.
I doubt she's serious about debating philosophy. But, if she is, I'd prefer to discuss it with her in the flesh.
So to speak.
Q
Philosophy is for everyone. Danica might be interested in the philosophy of ... er, sexuality. Besides, she thinks my blog is really cool! And she has blogs too! And she gave me kisses! (!!!!) She's welcome back.
Q, I think I understand your scorn for the idea of having a religion without God. Before becoming an atheist I would have felt the same. (How awkward those words seem ... "becoming an atheist" ... gotta find a better way to phrase that. Sort of makes me feel like I used to when people would ask me if I was "religious". Even when I was certain there was a god, and I was "born again", and attended church and synagogue, and hosted prayer and worship services in my own home, I never considered myself "religious". Oh well.)
The Church of Virus reminds me of Scientology because they both claim a basis in science and rationality, yet they make red-flag statements like "We can show you the path to immortality." Also, while scientology accommodates a belief in God, it's not a prerequisite (as far as I know - I could be mistaken).
From my point of view as an unbeliever, it makes sense to have a religion without god. As much as human beings try to be rational about everything we do, there is just not enough time. The world spins too fast, and our belief-forming process is not wholly rational. Many people look to religion as a means to structure their lives and achieve happiness and other goals. Non-religious organizations may not be comprehensive enough to fill all of a person's needs in this respect. Confucianism is a good example of this kind of thing.
... it suggests that truth is of no consequence: the popularity (or communicability) of ideas is all that counts.
I agree that this is suggested, and it concerns me too. The suvivability of an idea has little to do with it's truth-value.
"The survavability of an idea has little to do with it's truth-value."
If this is professed by the webpage in a part i did not read, then i agree the religion/belief structure is inherently flawed.
My interpretation is that Truth doesn't exist, but truthes do exist. There aren't absolutes, but truthes that work best within the pradigm of information, which happens to also be the purpose of science.
We learned this in Epistemology, there is nothing that we can understand which is absolute, and yet we still have truthes. I think they(my interpretation of their beliefs of course) believe in truthes that fit within memecomplexes. When i read about meme's i thought of the epistemolgocial argument produced by Wittgenstein about our knowledge of games (i'm sure you remember, what makes a game a game?) All of this reminds me of set theory also.
Now is it a good religion? I doubt it, because i think it leaves way to much up for the 'followers' to pick and choose, and thats not necessarily what people want from a religion. I think people want religion to tell them what is moral and what is immoral, what exists beyond the physical world, and even more importantly what makes them (and humankind in general) unique/special/meaningful. Of course this is a generalization, and therefore flawed in every possible manner in which generalizations are flawed. So i don't think it is goinng to be successful in any aspect as a relgion.
An intriguing attempt on my side of the situation. I've read a lot of relgious materials and find the church of the virus's claims no more egomanical then any other religion, cult, etc. So i would have to disagree completely with Q's hypothesis that they are "wishing to be founders of a religion". Its possible, but so is it possible for Jesus Christ, Sidhartha Buddha, Jochiom of Fiora, Mahammad, even Confucious (even if argued for a governmental form and not a religion). They could all have been simply wanting to be immortal by creating a belief structure that carried their names through time, and it worked.
On the other hand, the title does seem to be more effect then substance. You can argue all those different points about propogation etc, but Virus has to strong and potent of a negative connotation. It was purposefully chosen.
As a whole i'd have to say i'm undecided myself about the organization. I know for a fact i'd never join their religion, simply because i'm against any religious organization of individuals at this juncture in my life. Yet that doesn't make their religion wrong/bad/etc.
If this is professed by the webpage in a part i did not read, then i agree the religion/belief structure is inherently flawed.
The web site claims that one way to achieve immortality is by propagating one's memes so that parts of one's mind will live forever. The site also talks about propagating memes that enhance the survivability and evolution of the human species. The problem I have with it is that it is not clear that ideas that enhance survivability, etc., are necessarily true ideas or truth-conducive.
I agree that the name Virus was deliberately chosen to have a negative connotation. It's a little bit of a put-down to traditional religion, perhaps, and it's deliberately shocking. Sticks in the remembery.
I agree that their claims are not more egomaniacal than other religions. I do think that someone went to a concerted effort to give this movement momentum and organize it as a religion. That's not to say that whoever made the web site is insincere; maybe they are, maybe not. I think it has the potential to be successful as scientology has been, if someone puts forth the requisite effort. But I don't think anyone is doing so because the site is unfinished and hasn't been updated in years, apparently.
I tend to agree with you Arglor that it's not necessarily wrong/bad, if you mean from a moral standpoint. I'm not so sure I agree with you from an epistemological standpoint. You are forcing me to remember terms such as doxastic justification, justified true belief, Gettier Problem, linear coherentism, and other things that make my head hurt.
I think they may be justified in believing it, but I'm not sure their belief is justified.
Wittgenstein - that's family resemblances theory? Gee whiz, I sure do feel like an amateur philosopher all right. You're making me remember that I only half-remember!
Interesting discussion. I keep hoping Danica will weigh in. And anyway, I don't think the kisses were meant exclusively for you, Snaars.
• From my point of view as an unbeliever, it makes sense to have a religion without god. As much as human beings try to be rational about everything we do, there is just not enough time.
Snaars, I wouldn't want you to think I objected out of mere prejudice against atheism. I think the word "religion" implies a belief in a God (or gods).
In the absence of a belief in God, aren't we talking about a philosophy or a way of life, rather than a religion?
But you raised a good example when you mentioned Confucianism. I looked it up in the Abingdon Dictionary of Living Religions. Confucius' teachings were concerned almost exclusively with earthly conduct. But he presupposed that "Heaven acted in history, and through the study of the traditions, literature, rites, and music of the past" we could derive a template for human action in accordance with the ways of heaven.
Perhaps Confucius was merely accommodating his teachings to the religious prejudice of the age. In any event, I think it's fair to say that Confucianism straddles the border between religon and philosophy.
So let's dig a little deeper; help me think this through. I think I catch the implication of your statement that human beings don't have time to be rational about everything that they do. In other words, anything that provides a supra-rational basis for human conduct is a religion — is that what you propose?
I'll return to that thought. First, Arglor provides a description which might serve as a definition:
• I think people want religion to tell them what is moral and what is immoral, what exists beyond the physical world, and even more importantly what makes them (and humankind in general) unique/special/meaningful.
The first and third suggestions are functions of religion, but I think they're collateral benefits, rather than the core of the thing. Guidance re morality and immorality? This could come from a philosophy rather than a religion. Assurance that we human beings are special and meaningful? This is something philosophy may be unable to provide. But religion also reminds us of the insignificance of human beings — that we did not create ourselves, and we are not in control of events in the universe.
But when Arglor speaks of "what exists beyond the physical world" — I think he's on to something there. I would reduce it to a single word, "transcendence". If you want to argue that there can be a religion without God, I would counter by saying religion must include a belief in something transcendent, even if we do not call the transcendent thing "God".
It is this belief in something transcendent that provides the other things Arglor mentions. Morality and immorality are determined by being who stands apart from and above (so as to judge) human behaviour. Human significance and insignificance both derive from our relation to the transcendent being.
Likewise, with respect to the supra-rational basis for human conduct. It is derived from the transcendent entity, whatever it may be. The transcendent being is primary; all the other things we're discussing are secondary. Hence there is no such thing as a "religion" without such a transcendent entity.
Q
This might become an argument of technicalities like "which came first the chicken or the egg" in which case we all know eggs came first... dinosaur eggs...
right...
but i would argue that the Transcendent nature is in fact secondary to moral guidance and human importance. (i know bad shorthand). My reasoning is that these two are functional to the human, where as transcendent belief is more of the "story" that links these two functionable descriptions together.
In example, the ten commandments and jesus' teachings of human speciality (i.e. the path to heaven for those who are good, the creation story, etc) are all functional beliefs. Whether or not god is female, angels exist, or even the specifics of what heaven itself is becomes the backstory. How a religion explains what is beyond the physical world is simply the "carrier" for the more important ideas, which are focused on "how do i treat my friends neighbors and strangers" etc.
just positing this as my understanding... and this was quick...
Arglor:
There's a distinction between the existence of God and how human beings came to believe in God's existence.
I think you've described the process correctly, though many believers would strongly disagree. The historical evidence suggests a slow groping toward God over many centuries, culminating in a pure monotheism first articulated by Isaiah.
(Moses probably believed Yahweh was supreme among the deities; the only rightful object of our worship, but not the only deity in existence.)
But God's existence, or non-existence, is an objective fact. Perhaps, after death, we'll have a direct encounter with him/her/it. In the meantime, we have subjective knowledge of an objective deity … at least, that's how I see it.
Second, to return to the main point. The question is, is the word "religion" appropriate to a worldview that denies the existence of any transcendent entity?
If you're right, the functional beliefs may be all there is. There is no God, no transcendent entity in back of them.
If that's an apt description of objective reality, let's cease to speak of "religion" except as a superstition held by those who don't know any better. Those of us who know the truth should call ourselves philosophers, or just atheists, and eschew any talk of religion.
Q
Q, don't worry, I didn't think you were being prejudiced, although it's thoughtful of you to make that clear.
In the absence of a belief in God, aren't we talking about a philosophy or a way of life, rather than a religion?
Depends on what you mean by "way of life". What I was thinking, in part, is that a religion is more than a personal way of life - it's also a ready social structure. Believers have social outlets, ways to meet people of like faith, a safety net in time of trouble, and people to rejoice with during good times, etc.
anything that provides a supra-rational basis for human conduct is a religion — is that what you propose?
MMmmmmmm..... Nope, no, I'm sure I don't want to say that.
when Arglor speaks of "what exists beyond the physical world" — I think he's on to something there. I would reduce it to a single word, "transcendence". If you want to argue that there can be a religion without God, I would counter by saying religion must include a belief in something transcendent, even if we do not call the transcendent thing "God".
By using the word "transcendence" you might be committing a slight equivocation, because the word has a connotation in connection with deity. I think I understand Arglor's explanation, although I am not sure. What lies "beyond the physical world" is not necessarily (or even probably) a "being" in the sense of a personality or personalities. Instead, I think of abstract objects, sets, and numbers as the sorts of things that are "beyond the physical world". Here is fodder for yet another philosophical post.
Morality and immorality are determined by being who stands apart from and above (so as to judge) human behaviour. Human significance and insignificance both derive from our relation to the transcendent being.
I think morality is a product of the relations between moral beings. If there is a god, she is certainly morally relevant. But I don't think morality is dependant on her in any sense. People can be held accountable to each other without being held accountable to god.
Human significance and insignificance both derive from our relation to the transcendent being.
I disagree. If a being must stand in relation to a higher being in order to have significance, then where would god's significance come from? If being, itself, is not sufficient for significance, then it is surely enough that we stand in relation to each other.
Snaars:
• What lies "beyond the physical world" is not necessarily (or even probably) a "being" in the sense of a personality or personalities. Instead, I think of abstract objects, sets, and numbers as the sorts of things that are "beyond the physical world".
Numbers, I understand. You've taken me that far in a previous post. But what are these other two abstractions you mention? An abstract object might have a real existence beyond the physical world? And "sets"? Total incomprehension here.
As happened with the last post, I'm not sure what your own position is. You're only providing hints, instead of a clear description. Here's a hint, for example:
• What I was thinking, in part, is that a religion is more than a personal way of life - it's also a ready social structure. Believers have social outlets, ways to meet people of like faith, a safety net in time of trouble, and people to rejoice with during good times, etc.
I quite agree. But you're talking in the abstract, not discussing the atheistic religion you envision in the concrete.
Would the adherents of the religion have to agree on some core presuppositions? (I do not think it is possible to form a society unless the individuals who make up the society hold something in common which draws them together.)
Would you worship or in some way do obeisance to these abstract objects, numbers, and sets? Would the religion include prayers for the sick? Birth and funeral rites? Because these things speak to the sense of purpose and significance Arglor was talking about. And they are central to the society you envisioned: a place which provides a safety net in time of trouble, and people to rejoice with during good times, etc.
Common beliefs, norms, and values; worship, prayer, and rites of passage — these things accompany a belief in God and, together, constitute a "religion". Without them, all you've got is a philosophical society.
And I'm sceptical — I don't think anyone can succeed in establishing them, apart from faith in God, because there is no adequate basis for them. As I've already said, belief in the deity is primary; all the rest of it is secondary.
Maybe you can answer my scepticism. But Snaars, you'll have to be more concrete than you've been so far. Or I'll have to drop out of the discussion, because I'm not a philosopher, and I have limited patience for purely abstract speculations.
If I sound angry, I apologize. What I am, is frustrated. You're pricking holes in my position, but playing it safe by not putting a proposal of your own on the table.
At least, one that I can comprehend. (And I'm not so unintelligent.) "Religion" is concrete, even if the deity is an abstraction.
Q
I'm sorry, Q. Didn't mean to frustrate you, and I absolutely don't mean to insult your intelligence. I don't view conversation as a competition, and I am not trying to rob you of anything by "pricking holes" in your position. I am merely explaining my perspective. You are under no obligation whatsoever to agree (and you don't! and that's fine). It looks like you are taking the "crash course" overview of my views on the subject.
you're talking in the abstract, not discussing the atheistic religion you envision in the concrete.
Please keep in mind that I am not proposing or trying to found an atheistic religion. It's not on my agenda, so to speak. All I'm saying is, atheist that I am, I can see the attraction. In saying this I am not so much philosophising, as I am wishing there was a well-established social group out there for me personally. People tend to want to "belong" and fit within a social structure, and I am no exception.
But for the purpose of this conversation, I didn't think I had to envision or establish an atheistic religion if I could just point to one. So far I have the Church of the Virus, Scientology, and Confucianism as examples. These all have serious flaws which cause me to not want to take part. There are also Unitarian Universalists, a very small portion of whom profess atheism. Also some kinds of pantheists, "natural" theologians, and process theologians, who believe in god, but also that he/she/it is in some sense the sum total of all natural laws - a position not far removed from atheism. I think some Buddhists also don't believe in a supreme being - they believe in the supremacy of natural laws instead. Also it was in the news a few years ago that some Anglican Bishops wrote a letter saying that they don't believe God exists, and although it caused an uproar in certain circles, they were accepted and allowed to remain active in the church. (I'm a bit hazy on the details here, but I'm writing all this on the fly, so please forgive the lack of citiations.)
Common beliefs, norms, and values; worship, prayer, and rites of passage — these things accompany a belief in God and, together, constitute a "religion". Without them, all you've got is a philosophical society.
With the exception of worship and prayer, I think all these things could be had in an atheistic religion. We all have beliefs, norms, and values - even atheists. Rites of passage and other celebrations are not always religious in nature - look at birthdays, first driver's license, first voting in an official election, etc. None of these sorts of things seem to fit in the framework of a philosophical society. But if you want to call it a philosophical society, I won't quibble.
About abstract objects - this has to do with ontology, the study of how things exist, so I can say something from my philosophy background.
Plenty of things exist, and yet they are not physical objects. There is disagreement in philosophical circles as to what "abstractness" is, for technical reasons, but I won't get into that here. It would be best if I cite examples of the kinds of things that are meant.
Abstract objects include numbers (although numbers may be a special class in their own right), sets, natural laws, states of affairs, properties, propositions, and fictional entities. This is not an exhaustive list, just what I can think of.
Examples of abstract objects, aside from numbers, are: whiteness, chair-ness, E=MC^2, Sherlock Holmes, a position in a corporation, objective moral rules, and a university.
White-ness, because any given thing is not whiteness, itself. Same for chair-ness. E=MC^2 because, as far as we can tell, these symbols describe something very real, but it does not exist spacio-temporally. Sherlock Holmes, because he doesn't exist but we can talk about characteristics that he possesses. A position in a corporation, because it has a function and characteristics, but not a physical existence. Moral rules, again, because you can't physically point to them. A university, because you can't point to any single thing that makes up the university, yet the university exists.
Abstract objects are not uncontroversial in philosophy, but that is the general idea. Here is a link to an article I skimmed to refresh my memory, if you are interested in learning some more.
Rereading your last post and my answer, Q, I think I side-stepped again, although believe me, it's never intentional.
I'm not sure what your own position is. You're only providing hints, instead of a clear description.... Would the adherents of the religion have to agree on some core presuppositions? ... Would you worship or in some way do obeisance to these abstract objects, numbers, and sets?
To the first question, the answer is yes. Examples of core beliefs I would like in my own religion? "God does not exist," would be one. "Objective moral rules exist and can be discovered by rational means" would be another.
Let's see, what else? "Love your neighbor, don't be prejudiced, be humble, don't screw up the environment, give a helping hand to the needy." That would be a good start.
As for the second question, the answer is "no."
Snaars:
Thanks for replying to my specific question. I know you aren't deliberately being evasive. I think an abstract mental universe is just a more native environment for you than it is for me.
I also agree with your comment, that I'm getting the crash course on your views. I'm having to make up a lot of ground in short order.
I now have a (somewhat) better grasp of your line of thought. You're right, to the extent that you are pointing to existing examples, that ought to be sufficient for me to be able to conceptualize your position in concrete terms.
I haven't read your link, but I will. For now, I'll respond to the first of your comments.
• White-ness, because any given thing is not whiteness, itself. … Sherlock Holmes, because he doesn't exist but we can talk about characteristics that he possesses.
This explanation brings us back to what is, for me, the core issue. The abstractions you mention have no independent or freestanding existence. I'll start with Sherlock Holmes. As a fictional character, Holmes began his "existence" in the mind of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Of course, no reader will perceive him quite as Conan Doyle conceived of him, so his "existence" is thereafter determined by readers as much as the author.
But in fact Holmes cannot exist independently; he exists only in the minds of the author and his readership.
White-ness is more of the same thing, really. There is no such thing in the abstract; there are only objects which approximate to our mental conception of "white-ness". Insofar as "white-ness" exists, it exists only as a mental construct against which we evaluate the colour of concrete objects.
In other words, if you wiped out the human population of earth, Sherlock Holmes and "white-ness" would utterly cease to exist. There would still be physical objects which are white, in the sense of the physical properties of that colour. But there would be no one carrying around that mental abstraction, "white-ness", which is at issue here.
Similarly, if this is what you mean by morality, it has been reduced to the very thing I rejected as inadequte in the previous post:
What matters is that morality is an objective standard, not one that human beings create (by means of a vote, or a philosophical consensus, or whatever).
Human beings may merely discover that 2+2=4; they don't create that mathematical fact. I'm still mulling over the idea that the same thing might be true of morality. Your argument re morality would be more persuasive if you had other examples, not just numbers. (I know you've provided other examples, but they aren't persuasive to me.) It's a big leap from universal numbers to universal social mores.
By the way, I understand the painful wrench of belonging to a religious community, with all the wonderful characteristics you mention, and then ceasing to belong to it. I am still in the same place myself, and I wish profoundly that it were otherwise.
Q
uhmmm.. just a quick statement.. i don't think the university is an abstract object...
its called a scattered object.. an object that exists in many locations at once... uhmm at least thats what i remember Dr. Korcz calling it.. perhaps scattered objects are a class of abstract objects, but i don't remember him going that far... his point in metaphysics was that you could take an object and scatter it about and you would be forced to ask yourself if it was still the object...
I might be wrong, but i believe university isn't abstract... Now that i write this though it hits me that all of identity might be considered abstract objects, but the problem with this is that abstract objects are defined as objects that have no spatial temporal existence... ergo university does, David does, snaars also... this laptop... i'm rambling again... just got in from work... rough day..
As for the rest of the conversation, i will still read in bits and pieces... and comment every so often...
p.s. you can point to a single thing and call it a university, you can point to the whole area that makes up the university location. My point is that with atomic theory, your argument could go so far as to say you can't really point to a human and say thats a human because what you are really pointing to is a lot of space with a few electrons and protons etc connected by the nuclear force.
Scattered object-theory is really hotly debated right now i think. At least thats the impression i got in metaphysics.. It all ties into identity and change etc.
ok i'm really done this time.. lol..
Arglor,
Yes, a university is a scattered object. Whiteness might also be a scattered object. Scattered object theory is one way of dealing with some kinds of abstract objects. I thought about bringing that up but I left it out so I wouldn't get sidetracked.
you can point to a single thing and call it a university, you can point to the whole area that makes up the university location.
No, you can't point to the university location, because a university also includes people - students and faculty and staff.
if you wiped out the human population of earth, Sherlock Holmes and "white-ness" would utterly cease to exist. There would still be physical objects which are white, in the sense of the physical properties of that colour. But there would be no one carrying around that mental abstraction, "white-ness", which is at issue here.
Q, I commend you on your incisive wit and critical thinking skills. I wish they weren't so good, because I honestly grow weary sometimes answering each successive barrage. But, I do it to myself by opening up these topics for discussion.
Please tell Journeywoman I refuse to be held responsible if you tear your hair out. It has taken me years of study to learn to think in these terms and you are getting a lot of exposure in a short amount of time. Here goes:
In everyday language, we associate the word "abstract" with ideas and theories and things that exist in the mind. When I used the word "abstract" it was in a more technical sense, meaning something that exists but lacks the characteristics of physical objects. As such, abstract objects do not depend on thought for their existence. Whiteness would still exist even if no one were around to observe it. Whiteness is considered an abstract object because it is not a physical thing, rather it is a property. You can't put "whiteness" in a bottle; but you can put a white substance in a bottle. Arguably, even if you destroy every white thing, you would not destroy whiteness, the property, because you could still say that everything you destroyed was white.
The idea of whiteness exists in the mind and is not the same as whiteness itself, whiteness the property. They are two different things.
I started writing this late and now it's very very late. IPerhaps this was enough to answer your question about morality, and perhaps not. If not, I will attempt a better explanation later.
• The idea of whiteness exists in the mind.
I'm not sure if this is what you meant to say, because it seems to undermine the argument you were making in the preceding paragraph.
That the idea of whiteness exists in the mind was exactly my point. That's why, if "mind" ceased to exist, "whiteness" would simultaneously cease to exist.
I think we're still dickering over the term "transcendent". You challenged me on the use of that word and suggested it was an equivocation on my part, and I never came back to that point.
What I'm trying to get to is something that exists independently of the physical cosmos. God is conceived of as a transcendent being insofar as she existed before the cosmos, and will continue to exist, eternally, long after the cosmos has collapsed in on itself. (Or whatever is going to happen to the cosmos at the end of the age.)
This may surprise you, but in the end I'm prepared to believe you have enough material for a religion here.
The existence of God cannot be proven, of course, so what we're left with is a mental abstraction. I believe that there's an objective reality in back of the mental abstraction. That's my religion.
You may believe that morality exists in some abstract, transcendent realm. You can't prove it, but you believe it, and you could theoretically build a religion on that belief.
So there, despite all my critical thoughts and my wearying barrages, you've converted me.
When is our first service?
Q
The existence of God cannot be proven, of course, so what we're left with is a mental abstraction. I believe that there's an objective reality in back of the mental abstraction.
I see that I failed miserably in trying to explain the difference between abstract objects and mental entities, because you use the word "mental" in conjunction with "abstraction", and the concept of a mental abstraction is different from what I have in mind when I say "abstract object". I know the fault is mine for not being able to explain these things clearly. Part of the problem is that i know that the distinction between abstract and concrete objects is not definitively clear even among hard-core philosophers, and the distinction between abstract objects and mental entities is difficult to get used to. So I'm trying to explain it while avoiding pitfalls that might cause confusion for us both later on, should the subject come up again. If this sounds like an excuse to you, then so be it - we are getting into some heavy-duty analytic philosophy here, and while I have a bachelor's degree in philosophy, I am not a philosophy professor, and I have no formal training as a teacher. Still, I think there is good evidence that abstract objects really do exist.
I don't want to belabor the point or become repetetive, but I will try one more time. Here goes:
The idea of whiteness is not the same thing as whiteness, the abstract object. This is evidenced by the fact that the idea of whiteness is not white. You close your eyes, you envision the whiteness. This idea is different from "real" whiteness in the world external to you. Presumable, the idea of whiteness has something to do with your mental state. No one else has access to your mental state; and if someone had a window into your brain, they would not see whiteness there caused by your idea. Your idea of whiteness would be destroyed if your mind were destroyed. "Real" whiteness, whiteness the property, synonymously whiteness the abstract object, has nothing to do with any mental state you have or anyone else has. All minds can be destroyed, and there would still be white things; hence, whiteness the abstract object would still exist.
What I'm trying to get to is something that exists independently of the physical cosmos.
Yes, I agree that there are things that exist independantly of the physical cosmos. I think I have been bungling the explanation a little bit, and so I still think that we think about these things differently.
I think I may have unintentionally misled you a little bit in regards to how I think of morality and other abstract objects. As you suggested in relation to Sherlock Holmes, some sorts of abstract objects do seem to have a sort of dependance on ideas. But that is not to say that they are subjective.
If human beings were different, then morality might be different. If human beings were ants, then it might be okay to squish them. But we are not ants - we are humans, so it is not okay to squish us. But this does not mean that morality is "chosen" in any sense (by philosophical consensus or otherwise). Morality is a result of the Way Things Are. Morality is not dependant on the way any given person thinks or believes. Morality is not a physical object, and yet it seems to be very real. So, I say, it's an abstract object (not a mental entity or idea!)
Whew! Can I get an Amen? Anybody?? I think I just concluded the first sermon in the Church of Snaars. Where's everybody going? Donations, anyone - donations?
Arglor,
I apologize if I don't give your comments all the attention they deserve. I usually figure that we have talked about these things before, and we took a lot of the same classes, so I tend to focus on the other guests more. I was just re-reading and thinking that I could have responded more to your comments. I don't mean to neglect you and I hope you don't feel as though I do. I'm glad that you take the time to add to the conversation.
You are keeping me on my toes, both you and Q, and I like that. You are forcing me to go back and dig up my notes from class. Good reenforcement for me. I went back and looked up my notes for scattered objects, and it was brought up in class in the context of understanding identity over time, and understanding objects that are not spacially continuous. It was not discussed as an abstract object. I still think that "The University" is an abstract object, but I might be technically wrong on this point.
Whiteness was most certainly referred to in class as being an abstract object, and it was mentioned that attempts have been made to understand whiteness through scattered object theory.
Please forgive me if I cause any confusion. If I have seriously misrepresented what abstract objects are about, or if you can see where my explanation is lacking, please feel free to chime in and guide me back to the path.
P.S. I'm so glad I went through my notes ... I found something that might facilitate an understanding of properties as abstract objects.
There is an argument that uninstantiated properties exist, because we could still say things about properties even if they didn't exist. This is abstruse, so let me illustrate with an example, as was done in class:
"Whiteness is a color" would still be true even in a universe with no white things in it.
Take a second to let that sink in. Now I will go a step further (this was never done in class, this is just my personal conclusion):
If "Thou shalt not kill" is a moral principle, it would still be true even in a universe in which nothing could be killed.
The example is simplistic, because "Thou shalt not kill" may not be true in every situation, but under the assumption that "Thou shalt not kill" is a universal rule, then the example stands. So, even in a universe in which there were no people and no other moral agents, moral rules would still apply.
I hope that clears things up a little bit, but I won't pretend to be surprised if someone (no need to mention anyone by name, Q, you know who you are) gives me the third degree over it.
hehe i was just commeting on using university as a example because that brings up identity arguments... and we all know where identity arguments go...
its just not the best example... too controversial... abstract objects are best understood as geometrical figures, properties, numbers etc. at least my understanding of Abstract objects is best reinforced by those ideas.
You guys are having a good argument btw.
P.S. I'm going to be in lafayette Saturday at the airport/hilton at around 1:50 if your free. heh.....
all the same we need to plan a get together time before next tuesday... i'm still going to be down there.
Cool! We must get together this weekend. I work Saturday until three o'clock and I'm off Sunday. Maybe we could have lunch or dinner or see a movie or something.
Snaars, with respect, I find your argument completely unpersuasive.
The more I mull it over, the more I think "whiteness" is a poor example. Of course, this isn't a criticism of you personally; it's a criticism of whatever philosophy professor proposed the idea. Or it's a criticism of me, because my mind is hopelessly inadequate to the discussion.
I think "whiteness" is a bad example because, in fact, it is an abstraction from a physical property. I know nothing about physics, so I'm sure I'll explain this very badly. But I understand the colour, white, to be a label by which we refer to a certain frequency of waves of light.
Light comes from a source — a lightbulb or the sun — and it strikes an object — the cap on a bottle of water or Danica's pale skin as she poses for the camera. Certain frequencies of light are absorbed by the object; other frequencies are not absorbed, but are reflected. The reflected light strikes the retina of my eye, which fires off certain neurons in my brain, reminding me of my previous experience of a similar phenomenon; and I think, "My, Danica's skin is so pale it is almost white."
But if someone asked me to be more precise, I would acknowledge that other objects, which we also describe as "white", are not quite the same colour as Danica's pale skin. A page in a book; a toothpaste tube; an egg shell: they are all approximately the same colour, which we loosely describe with the word "white".
"Whiteness" is a mental abstraction from all the objects we call "white". We don't know exactly which of the objects is 100%, pure white. But we synthesize "whiteness" from our familiarity with a variety of more or less "white" objects. We form a mental abstraction, "whiteness", which we can then use to judge colours as they appear in the world.
"That's not white," we say, "it's black"; or red, or ivory. All we mean by that is, it doesn't quite correspond to what we think of as "true" white, based on that mental abstraction we carry around with us, "whiteness".
In short, I believe "white" (as a physical property, a certain wavelength of light) preceded "whiteness" (the mental abstraction we have formed based on all the white objects we have viewed over time).
Now that we have formed the mental abstraction, we could retain it (imperfectly) even if we never saw a white object again. If I were locked in a prison where the colour white was strictly forbidden, I would still have an idea of the colour based on my prior experience of it.
But if all the white objects in the world were destroyed, and all the people who were familiar with the colour subsequently died, "whiteness" would then cease to exist.
I think my explanation is perfectly reasonable and coherent. Arguably my explanation is simpler than the one you propose and therefore, in terms of probabilities, more likely to be true. (Ockham's razor.)
I can't prove that my explanation is true. On the other hand, I don't think you can disprove it.
Ultimately, then, it all comes down to faith. What you choose to believe, or what you can't help yourself believing — however you define "faith".
That's why I think you have the makings of a religion here.
Morality may be derived from a similar process. We react negatively to certain experiences; we react positively to other experiences; after many positive and negative experiences we formulate a mental abstraction of "good" and "bad", "moral" and "immoral".
Or you could be right. Perhaps morality exists independently of our experience, independently of anything in the physical cosmos; and we are making approximately accurate judgements of human behaviour based on an intuitive grasp of the abstraction, morality.
(And I do think I understand what you're saying: perhaps morality is not merely a mental abstraction, but something which exists independently of the human mind.)
Q
This is meant to be a "light" post - a break from the fairly serious and lengthy discussions instigated by the previous two.
LOL
You guys are great, and I love following your debates, but I don't think you've managed a "light post" here. :-)
And yes, let's leave Q's hair on his head: I'm rather fond of it.
Okay, I'm chuckling my way off to bed now...
Uhm, Just because a product is instantiated in the physical world, doesn't mean it exists in the physical world itself. What is more importantly is that just because we learn about an idea from a physical object doesn't make it the physical object itself.
Ok here we go i'm getting into the argument. Screw colors, they are funky. Let us evaluate geometrical figures. The triagle is an abstract object. It exists only within logical space. It is instatiated in physical space, but there is no such thing as "the" triangle in which all other triangular objects mimic.
So the question is, if it isn't a physical object what kind of object is it? Well is it a mental object? For it to be a mental object that would mean:
A) if all mental object creating creatures were to die, then all triangles were to vanish. This seems impossible, because objects will still have triangular shape regardless of metal object creating creatures' perceptions of the shapes.
B) If triangles are mental objects then that means our brains must be cluttered with every concieveable "idea" of triangle. In effect our brains store ideas, and so we would have to have a database of all the various triangles that could potentially exist. You ask why? because if we run across a triangular object we are able to explain it as triangular. This means we can link it to the idea of triangles and therefore since the idea of triangles is a mental entity it must exist within our minds and have been there since the begining of time. Geometrical figures being the way they are, there are a near infinite amount of different variations of triangles ad other such shapes. As such it seems impossible for us to hold a near infinite storage of shapes and ideas within our head.
SO it seems implausible for abstract ideas to be physical objects or metal objects so it must exist as something else, which has been defined as "Logical Space." The full ramifications of Logical Space has yet to be fully defined, but it is largely assumed to be the space cotaining abstract objects, languages, etc.
Now i need to go to bed. If this still isn't clear, or perhaps i didn't go over something thoroughly enough, maybe we can start a new thread about this.
This was shotgun written. The fact is that abstract objects have to exist because we seem to have all this information and ability to explain things without actually having "experieced" these exact objects in the physical world. So the question is how do we know so much about stuff we don't experience, ergo Logical Space.
Now as for morality i would argue that it belongs in logical space, but it belongs to a special section of logical space that is defined as natural laws. This is the same space set aside for gravity and other such "natural" laws. But this is again changing the topic and perhaps i'll bring up my own conception of morality at a later date, Snaars knows it.
• there are a near infinite amount of different variations of triangles ad other such shapes. As such it seems impossible for us to hold a near infinite storage of shapes and ideas within our head.
Compared to other geometric shapes, triangles are quite straightforward. Put three dots on a piece of paper (not in a straight line), connect them, and you have a triangle.
Ask the average person to name geometric shapes. After they mention circles, squares, rectangles, and triangles, they'll run out of steam right quickly. That's because these are simple shapes, easy to recognize and commit to memory.
It's easy to form a mental abstraction of them. Even a small child can do it, and I don't think it's because they exist in "logical space".
• we seem to have all this information and ability to explain things without actually having "experieced" these exact objects in the physical world.
No; children learn about triangles and other shapes by seeing them, and being given a word for them by their parents and teachers. The knowledge is taught, not innate; it comes from experience, not intuition.
Having said all that, I think we can add shapes to numbers as something that might plausibly have an existence in "logical space" (the term is completely new to me). I say this because shapes are, in fact, mathematical. Triangles and squares are defined, in the mathematical sense, by the degree of the angle at the corners, and the length of the lines.
I don't think your arguments prove your point.
You've made an assertion that such a thing as "logical space" exists, and it is filled with "abstractions" which have some kind of objective existence (my terminology) and, as such, are to be distinguished from merely mental abstractions.
The assertion could be true; I certainly can't disprove it. But it's contrary to human experience (e.g. how children learn about triangles) and contrary to Ockham's razor (because you're adding a complication to an otherwise straightforward account of the cosmos).
Nonetheless, it could be true. I just think we're in the realm of (a) philosophical or metaphysical speculation or (b) religion / faith.
Note that we seem to have switched roles. I started out denying that there was material for a religion here. Now I'm arguing that we're in the realm of faith, and you're making out that it's pure, irrefutable fact.
Q
Just checked in and saw the last few comments. It strikes me at this point in this lengthy conversation that something very important has been left out of my explanation of abstract objects thus far - an account of the problems that the concept of abstract objects are meant to solve.
Q, your explanation of colors is quite good for our everyday understanding and talk about the world. However, it entails logical consequences in the areas of epistemology, ontology, and philosophy of language, that are unacceptable to me, and to most people that have evaluated the evidence by rational means. You are talking physics, and I do not disagree that there is a physical process underlying our experience of color. But I am talking metaphysics, not physics.
It will take me some time to gather and organize my thoughts in order to present the problems clearly so as to avoid confusion. I can't do that now because I'm at work. So, maybe tonight. perhaps I will make that my next blog article.
Now I'm arguing that we're in the realm of faith, and you're making out that it's pure, irrefutable fact.
Q, there is no more faith involved in Arglor's or my belief in abstract objects, than there is in someone believing a scientific claim. The reason I assert this, is that the methods used by philosophers are much the same as those of scientists - careful observation, conceptual analysis, good reasoning, peer review and the postulation of theories that can, at least in principle, be tested.
I would like to point out also that I have never asserted that the existence of abstract objects in logical space is a "pure, irrefutable fact." It's no more an irrefutable fact than any other postulated entity such as quarks, black holes, or the human subconscious mind.
I know that I have not responded directly to your argument, but soon I will. I humbly ask you to be patient.
By the way, about this:
The more I mull it over, the more I think "whiteness" is a poor example. Of course, this isn't a criticism of you personally; it's a criticism of whatever philosophy professor proposed the idea. Or it's a criticism of me, because my mind is hopelessly inadequate to the discussion.
Whiteness is an excellent example and I am going to stick by it when I follow up. Arglor is good to bring up geometrical figures, but I want you to understand how properties can also be understood as abstract objects.
You don't fool me, Q, by your protestations of "mental inadequacy". Just because two people disagree or fail to communicate well or understand one another, that doesn't make one of them stupid. (That's what "mentally inadequate" means, doesn't it?) I'm not going to blow up like I did last time, because I know that you are a kind and generous man, and that you don't mean any harm. But I want you to know it irks me.
I don't believe these things "because my professor told me so." I belive them because they're reasonable and rational.
You guys are great, and I love following your debates, but I don't think you've managed a "light post" here. :-)
Journeywoman, I was thinking exactly the same thing. I nead a break from my "breather"! And if the break is anything like the breather, then I'll need a vacation.
No, seriously, I really enjoy these conversations, even if they are work. It's not every day that people get to talk about these things, and I'm glad we've all taken our time to do it. It's good for me, because one day, if I ever find myself at the head of a classroom, I will show no fear. "Ha," I will say, "you think your questions scare me? Well, I've dealt with the likes of Q, so give me all you've got! I can take it, I'm not intimidated!" And they are all in awe of me in my fanasyland.
Okay, another thing just occurred to me about Q's position. Real quick:
Q, your explanation of colors and geometric objects is a plausible, if loosely worded, account of how we come to know about abstract objects or, as you put it, abstractions. It doesn't explain what those abstractions are or where they exist (if they exist anywhere - I'm going to step away from "abstract space" for a bit since it seems to be an unnecessary sticking point right now.)
Maybe I shouldn't even have written this, as it may give you a false impression about where I am going with this, but again, please be patient and I will explain further.
• You don't fool me, Q, by your protestations of "mental inadequacy". … I want you to know it irks me.
OK, I'll remember in future that it irks you.
The remark was intended partly in jest. But, believe it or not, I was also partly serious.
I am genuinely not very skilled at thinking through purely abstract concepts. I'm sure a theologian (not that I'm one, really) and a philosopher ought to be on the same wavelength. But I fear I lack the mental capacity to follow you where you're going. If there are different kinds of intelligence, then I am very average in my capacity to grasp the purely abstract.
As for your frustration … we've switched roles there too, and I know why. Early on in this thread, I took a position thereby giving you an opportunity to critique it. Then I pressed you to declare a position, which you did when you provided me with a series of examples of abstractions. This gave me an opportunity to critique your position on "whiteness", which has been the focus of our discussion ever since.
It is easier to poke holes in someone else's position than to come up with a watertight counterproposal. Whoever proposes a position is immediately put on the defensive. And, in effect, the playing field is slanted against them because it's always easier to disprove something than to prove it.
In fact, precious few things can be proven. Even in the realm of the hard sciences, hypotheses are always held to be provisional, because there is no absolute proof — the next experiment may always prove you wrong.
I'm really not trying to frustrate you with my arguments. On the contrary, when I announced that I thought you had enough material for a religion, I thought you would be pleased! I thought I was conceding the point you had set out to establish!
Now I'm puzzled. I conceded that your position could be right, though I think probabilities are against it. And your frustration level seems to be growing. Must I be convinced that you are, in fact, right … is that the only thing that will relieve your frustration?
Q
Perhaps this will help. Let me throw out a description of a child discovering triangles. You tell me whether it has any part in your worldview.
A small child sees a triangle, then another, then another … different sizes, different shapes even (isosceles and whatever other kinds there are). At some point, as she becomes aware of the pattern that is staring her in the face, the child is startled by a jolt of recognition — it's as if she was dimly aware of these things (triangles) before she ever saw her first one.
Would you disagree or agree that this is part of a child's experience of learning about triangles?
This is not a set-up, btw. I'm only trying to expedite communication.
Q
Q, I am not at all frustrated because you attacked my position. I got frustrated because I felt that, by implicating that one of us is "mentally inadequate", you took the discussion out of the realm of ideas and made it personal. My frustration was short-lived, not growing. I just want you to understand my reaction and the reasons for it, so that we can communicate better in the future.
Maybe this is a cultural thing. Do all Canadians apologize this way when they disagree?
You raised very good questions in your posts. VERY good questions. You are not inadequate for this task in my estimation. That is, if you want to pursue it. I am not proposing logical impossibilities, like square circles or married bachelors.
... precious few things can be proven. Even in the realm of the hard sciences, hypotheses are always held to be provisional, because there is no absolute proof — the next experiment may always prove you wrong.
Quite right. And yet we still have knowledge. It doesn't seem as though "certainty" in the sense of "absolute, incontovertible proof" is required for us to know something.
Must I be convinced that you are, in fact, right … is that the only thing that will relieve your frustration?
No, and I'm sorry if you feel that I'm pressuring you to agree with me. I don't want you to feel pressured, I want you to evaluate the evidence. I want to provide you with the evidence that I think is relevant to the issue at hand. It's not likely, or even probable, that you will agree with me even after you see the evidence, because you will probably want to mull it over, take your time, and consider alternatives, etc. In the end, you will probably remain noncommittal; that is, you will disagree or withhold judgment.
If you don't want to pursue it, I will not be offended in the least bit. But because I enjoy talking about my interests, and metaphysics is one of them, I will still write up another article about the problems I alluded to earlier.
Q, I didn't see your last comment when I was composing mine. I'm not a developmental psychologist or anything, but I don't see anything overtly wrong with it.
There might be a problem in that abstract objects seem to be causally isolated, so it's not clear how this process of abstraction works, but it is undoubtedly something along the lines of what you describe.
You know, Snaars, I'm amazed that when I check your blog I see a new entry. Then I come back a couple days later and there are, like, 40 responses.
And that's just for the "noncontroversial" topics.
Nothing to add, that's all I wanted to say.
Carry on.
Ron.
• Maybe this is a cultural thing. Do all Canadians apologize this way when they disagree?
I think Canadians tend to be more apologetic than Americans, yes.
I wasn't exactly apologizing, though I can see why you interpreted it that way. I was responding to this remark:
• I see that I failed miserably in trying to explain the difference between abstract objects and mental entities.
My point was, if you aren't able to make yourself understood to me, it's possible that the failure is mine, not yours. I genuinely don't think I'm very good at thinking in purely abstract terms.
That's it.
Q
hello, friends. my apologies for not participating in the discussion on memes, but i've been heavy into researching something to try to better understand a metaphor i use in my novel.
in so doing, i came across some a few interesting postulates regarding the origin of life. i'd love some input, as i'm still working this out in my head.
please note that for your pleasure and amusement, the above link contains large font and proper capitalization. (!!!!)
One last note to Q, before I write another main entry on a related topic (didn't get to it this weekend, I was too busy).
One thing I didn't notice about your example the first time around, which I don't quite agree with:
When discovering triangles, I don't think a child has the sensation of being dimly aware of them before ever seeing one before. I think that we all genuinely discover triangles, without having been aware of them before.
What I think is important (in terms of the discussion we are having) is that instances of "triangle" come in an infinite or near-infinite number of shapes, colors, sizes, and materials; but the child quickly comes to recognize each instance of triangle as having something in common. The thing that all triangles in the world have in common, is the set of properties that belong to the abstraction "triangle".
In geometry, a triangle is a closed, three-sided, plane figure. As such it is two-dimensional, not three dimensional, and it has no mass or weight. In contrast, any instance of a triangle that is corporeal, that we can see and interact with on a physical level, is going to have mass and weight. Even a drawing of a triangle on a piece of paper is made of pencil or ink.
I don't think the child fully understands the geometrical abstraction as yet, but she does understand that all triangles share a set of properties.
Just to be clear, I wasn't presenting my own point of view. That is, I do not believe that children are already dimly aware of triangles before they ever encounter one.
I was putting the idea out there for a response, to see whether you (or Arglor) would agree with it. I'm still trying to figure out whether, in your view, abstractions somehow make themselves known to us: whether consciously or unconsciously.
I've used the word "intuitive" a couple of times, but no one has picked up on it. Do we intuitively penetrate to some knowledge of these abstractions, which we would not be able to arrive at through reason alone?
You believe that these abstractions exist; but do they affect us in any way? It still isn't clear to me, especially since you rejected the idea I put out there (about children being dimly aware of them).
But there's no need to get into the subject further here. I'm awaiting your next post, with interest.
Q
Mary P.,
Paper bag princess!!! Funny you should mention that one, it's one of my favorites. My mom told me she's getting that for me for Christmas (don't ask - long story).
You and other readers may have noticed that I haven't posted in a long time. I'm actually eager to post, but I have been held back for two reasons: 1) no time, and 2) I really, really want to write some more about philosophy and me beliefs, but it seems to be a sticky subject at the moment, and no matter how I approach it I'm bound to stir up more questions than answers. It's going to have a dominoe effect, and I will be compelled to post again and again and again on strange and diverse philosophical matters. While I enjoy philosophy, I'm not sure I want to make such a commitment on this blog (see number 1).
And yet, I hate to back down from a challenge. So I think I will have to just jump in, and answer some more of the questions Q has asked, and see where the conversation goes. But judging from the communication breakdowns we have had already, I think it could get a little messy.
So. Yeah, paper bag princess report is about on the level I feel like writing right now.
Mary P. says I've been short-tempered with you. I agree we seem to have suffered a series of communications breakdowns. So I, for my part, promise to work harder at being careful not to misconstrue whatever you say.
I'm going camping with my kids tomorrow (Monday) and I won't be back until Thursday afternoon. You can post at leisure without fear of an immediate response!
Q
Usually I lurk around here reading and attempting to follow the philosophical lines of thought (out of mild interest).
As you know I am more interested in politics, though I do not have the time to put together more than the occasional briefly thought out political rants.
That said, I do read and try to follow your philosophical / religious interactions.
I do have one comment, Anything that takes longer than 15 minutes to read and digest is far from a "light" post I think your attempt to enable a break from the fairly serious posts usually post here has failed miserably. (-:
Keep up the good work.
Post a Comment