I think there is often a discrepancy between the experience of seeing and the knowledge or expectation of what we are seeing.
That being said, I believe the assertion that both fact and perception or valid forms of knowledge, I don't believe there is a consistent way of discerning between the methods of internalizing said knowledge. Meaning that, if you could prove ( I don't believe you can, hence the nature of my response) beyond any reasonable doubt that a "fact" is actually a truth of the world that proven truth would be no different then if you were to state that a red balloon is actually blue. To the person claiming the balloon is blue that balloon is blue, end of conversation. No amount of intense influence by way of scientific fact or rigorous rhetoric would prove otherwise to this person. So whilst both forms of discovering knowledge are legitimate there is no way to differentiate between which is which.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Naturally, supernatural?
What is naturalism? It is not really a philisophical system so much as a point of view or tendency common to a number of philosophical and religious systems. Rather than a well-defined set of doctrines, it is more an attitude or spirit pervading and influencing many doctrines.
Naturalism is the belief that all objects, events, and even values can be fully explained in terms of factual and/or causal claims about the natural world. Nature is regarded the one original and fundamental source of all that exists. The limits of nature are also the limits of existing reality and knowledge. A more specific form, Materialistic Naturalism, asserts that matter is the only reality and that all the laws of the universe are reducible to mechanical laws.
All forms of naturalism, from what research i have done, explicitly reject any reference to or reliance upon supernatural powers or authority.
What is supernaturalism? Just the opposite - the belief that events and values require supernatural powers or authority for their explanation. Natural explanations may be reliable on an immediate level, but they in turn must eventually require a supernatural cause. According to supernaturalism, a supernatural order is the original and fundamental source of all that exists. It is this supernatural order which defines the limits of what may be known.
So the main problem I have with both "definitionally" speaking, is : How can something natural be viewed through a supernatural lens and vice versa? If this is possible at all?
Is it more reasonable to be a naturalist, or does the evidence support being a supernaturalist?
Naturalism is the belief that all objects, events, and even values can be fully explained in terms of factual and/or causal claims about the natural world. Nature is regarded the one original and fundamental source of all that exists. The limits of nature are also the limits of existing reality and knowledge. A more specific form, Materialistic Naturalism, asserts that matter is the only reality and that all the laws of the universe are reducible to mechanical laws.
All forms of naturalism, from what research i have done, explicitly reject any reference to or reliance upon supernatural powers or authority.
What is supernaturalism? Just the opposite - the belief that events and values require supernatural powers or authority for their explanation. Natural explanations may be reliable on an immediate level, but they in turn must eventually require a supernatural cause. According to supernaturalism, a supernatural order is the original and fundamental source of all that exists. It is this supernatural order which defines the limits of what may be known.
So the main problem I have with both "definitionally" speaking, is : How can something natural be viewed through a supernatural lens and vice versa? If this is possible at all?
Is it more reasonable to be a naturalist, or does the evidence support being a supernaturalist?
Monday, February 8, 2010
Beginnings of Beauty
Beauty as defined by wikipedia ( obviously not the most reputable of sources)is as follows : "Beauty is a characteristic of a person, animal , place, object, or idea that provides a perceptual experience of pleasure, meaning or satisfaction."
This definition seems to eliminate the physical aspects of "materialistic" beauty, but I still find opaque nooks and crannies.
This conversation is, again admittedly, over my head, but I'm doing my best to stay afloat and shout out ideas, but I fear with my shouting I've ingested to much water from this ocean of ideology and I'm going to be sick. Beauty is something I believe is meant to be universal; rather I feel most people want it to be universal or are looking for there to be an agreed upon definition. Taken at a glance beauty may seem to have a singular definition. This definition being something to do with face value or physical appearance. This "shallow" definition is overshadowed when you peer at beauty. After taking this longer look at beauty you realize one person's definition of beauty is most likely significantly different than another's and that extends to members of the same culture. If you cross culturally compare definitions of beauty you quickly arrive at the unsolvable puzzle that is universally defining a word as complicated as beauty. How can one person's definition of beauty be more valuable, more correct, or even more applicable than another persons definition? Why are people so interested and invested in defining and or discovering what beauty actually is?
This definition seems to eliminate the physical aspects of "materialistic" beauty, but I still find opaque nooks and crannies.
This conversation is, again admittedly, over my head, but I'm doing my best to stay afloat and shout out ideas, but I fear with my shouting I've ingested to much water from this ocean of ideology and I'm going to be sick. Beauty is something I believe is meant to be universal; rather I feel most people want it to be universal or are looking for there to be an agreed upon definition. Taken at a glance beauty may seem to have a singular definition. This definition being something to do with face value or physical appearance. This "shallow" definition is overshadowed when you peer at beauty. After taking this longer look at beauty you realize one person's definition of beauty is most likely significantly different than another's and that extends to members of the same culture. If you cross culturally compare definitions of beauty you quickly arrive at the unsolvable puzzle that is universally defining a word as complicated as beauty. How can one person's definition of beauty be more valuable, more correct, or even more applicable than another persons definition? Why are people so interested and invested in defining and or discovering what beauty actually is?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)