fkusumot said:
Sorry, that's not really a philosophical argument. Are you positing a world of epistemological relativism? Is this a Cartesian position that devolves into solipsism? Are you denying the validity of the categorical imperative? Are you relying on any of the views presented by the "Science of the Mind" (apart from the actual neurophysiology) or are you doing a modernistic riff off of the implied nihilism in "Beyond Good and Evil" or perhaps something closer to Kierkegaard? I am interested in what you mean when you say that, philosophically speaking, believing X is no more absurd than believing Y, Z or anything else. It almost sounds like you're taking the existential objectivist position, but that would be a strange pulpit to use when defending the Bible. |
Actually, this idea is more coming from my brother, who, in turn, has read plenty o' those famous philosophers, so I'm not sure what relations it may have to which philosopher.
What I'm talking about is more along the lines of taking positions on "reality", as it were (if that distinguishes it from what you're saying). It's in response to the idea that something must be proven before it can be taken as a position. My point is nothing can be proven about reality (external world, if that works (not saying the internal world is "I", either)), so to take the Bible as truth is no less an assumption than to, say, taking empiricism alone as truth...
That may not have clarified anything.
Okami
To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made. I won't open my unworthy mouth.
