Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Sporeworks
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 |  [ show all ]
Epistemology and the Primacy of Existence
    #5238387 -

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature and methods of human knowledge. It discovers the processes we have to go through in order to acquire knowledge. It identifies the rules and criteria which determine when our knowledge is valid.

On the basis of such science, evident is the fact that the very existence of such a subject as epistemology depends upon the Primacy of Existence. For if the Primacy of Consciousness were true, there would be no need of any such subject as epistemology.

This is so, because if one has to engage in a certain specific process, that means one is not able to simply do whatever one feels like doing and then count whatever comes up as knowledge. Furthermore, if one has to use specific methods of validation before something counts as knowledge, that means one's feelings, emotions or whatever else that simply strikes you does not count as a standard of validity, evaluation, or cognition.

In other words, the reason for an epistemology is the fact that merely because an idea passes through your head doesn?t ensure it is true. One can misuse one?s cognitive faculty. One can err. Therefore, one needs criteria. One needs principles to inform one how one must function in order to achieve knowledge. Put simply, the mere brute fact that you believe something is irrelevant to truth ? irrelevant to knowledge.

Why? Because consciousness does not have primacy. Thus epistemology is only necessary if existence has primacy.

The primary source of the mind-body dichotomy and of all the suffering it has caused, is a false view of the mind, i.e., of concepts. The solution is to return to the axioms of philosophy, existence and consciousness, and identify their actual relationship within a conceptual process. The axioms of philosophy cannot be asunder, there is no consciousness without existence and no knowledge of existence without consciousness. The advocate of objectivity recognizes this fundamental fact; that a volitional relationship between consciousness and existence is the essence of conceptual cognition, i.e., of the mind. For one to grok and follow this, is to uphold the Primacy of Existence, the efficacy of human consciousness, and the harmony of mind and body.

In conclusion, I leave you with the final paragraphs of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology:

Quote:
. . . the satisfaction of every need of a living organism requires an act of processing by that organism, be it the need of air, of food or of knowledge.

No one would argue [at least, not yet] that since man's body has to process the food he eats, no objective rules of proper nutrition can ever be discovered - that "true nutrition" has to consist of absorbing some ineffable substance without the participation of a digestive system, but since man is incapable of "true feeding," nutrition is a subjective matter open to his whim, and it is merely a social convention that forbids him to eat poisonous mushrooms.

No one would argue that since nature does not tell man automatically what to eat - as it does not tell him automatically how to form concepts - he should abandon the illusion that there is a right or wrong way of eating [or he should revert to the safety of the time when he did not have to "trust" objective evidence, but could rely on dietary laws prescribed by a supernatural power]. . . .

No one would argue that man eats bread rather than stones purely as a matter of "convenience."

It is time to grant to man's consciousness the same cognitive respect one grants to his body - i.e., the same objectivity.






--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Epistemology and the Primacy of Existence [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5239168 -

How is existence or essence any more primary than the other?

Essence is required to measure existence. Existence is required for essence to function.
It's a mutual relationship where each party is nullified without the other. This is why the body dies without a consciousness (its own or another's) fulfilling its needs. It seems fundamental then that evidence for incorporeal entities should not exist... and no evidence has withstood testing.


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Epistemology and the Primacy of Existence [Re: Sclorch]
    #5239195 -

How is existence or essence [consciousness?] any more primary than the other?

Existence has primacy over consciousness because consciousness cannot exist without reality. Reality can exist without consciousness.

Essence is required to measure existence. Existence is required for essence to function.
It's a mutual relationship where each party is nullified without the other.

You are implying that essence exists apart from existence. It either exists, or it doesn't. In any case, the relationship between the two is mutual - as pointed out once more: The axioms of philosophy cannot be asunder, there is no consciousness without existence and no knowledge of existence without consciousness.
The party of existence, however, is independent of any faculty of perception. To say that the existence of Earth was nullified prior to any conscious life, or after any conscious life becomes extinct, is to deny the Primacy of Existence, the absoluteness of reality.

This is why the body dies without a consciousness (its own or another's) fulfilling its needs. It seems fundamental then that evidence for incorporeal entities should not exist... and no evidence has withstood testing.


Agreed, entirely.



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Edited by SkorpivoMusterion (01/29/06 04:55 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Epistemology and the Primacy of Existence [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5239518 -

SkorpivoMusterion said:
Reality can exist without consciousness.


No, it can't.  Wipe out all consciousness... and the universe cannot be shown to exist. :smile:

Quote:
The party of existence, however, is independent of any faculty of perception. To say that the existence of Earth was nullified prior to any conscious life, or after any conscious life becomes extinct, is to deny the Primacy of Existence, the absoluteness of reality.


Is the Primacy of Existence falsifiable?


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Epistemology and the Primacy of Existence [Re: Sclorch]
    #5239652 -

SkorpivoMusterion said:
Reality can exist without consciousness.


Yeah, man, that's highly debatable, and virtually impossible to confirm.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Epistemology and the Primacy of Existence [Re: it stars saddam]
    #5239802 -

No, it can't. Wipe out all consciousness... and the universe cannot be shown to exist.

The Universe, or any existent for that matter, does not need to be shown to exist, in order for it to exist. Look out at the night sky, and gaze at the ancient moon. It has existed long before any life on Earth was able to observe it.

You are alluding to the same old "If a tree falls when no one hears it, does it make any noise?" argument. If no one is around, then will it be heard? No. But will the actions create soundwaves? Yes. The Law of Identity remains lawful, as Existence still exists. To claim that because one is not present to recieve those sounds, that the sound is therefore non-existent, is a denial of cause and effect - another law of Nature.

Is the Primacy of Existence falsifiable?

I don't know.



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Epistemology and the Primacy of Existence [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5239972 -

SkorpivoMusterion said:
To claim that because one is not present to recieve those sounds, that the sound is therefore non-existent, is a denial of cause and effect - another law of Nature.


How so?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Epistemology and the Primacy of Existence [Re: it stars saddam]
    #5239984 -

Every cause must have an effect - this is an objective fact.



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Epistemology and the Primacy of Existence [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5240032 -

What I'm asking is how "to claim that because one is not present to recieve those sounds, that the sound is therefore non-existent, is a denial of cause and effect?"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Epistemology and the Primacy of Existence [Re: it stars saddam]
    #5240049 -

Because to claim that an action wouldn't create any reactions, is to deny the fact that every cause must have an effect - which, is an objective fact.



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Epistemology and the Primacy of Existence [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5240080 -

SkorpivoMusterion said:
Because to claim that an action wouldn't create any reactions, is to deny the fact that every cause must have an effect - which, is an objective fact.


Without any kind of conscious observer, how is there any way to verify that the action ever took place?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Epistemology and the Primacy of Existence [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5240097 -

Must every effect have a cause?

And for that matter, could it not be chronocentric to assume that the "laws of the universe" are static?
Maybe these so-called laws have expiration dates. You know... throw them out when the universe starts smelling funny.


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Epistemology and the Primacy of Existence [Re: it stars saddam]
    #5240105 -

itstarssaddam said:
SkorpivoMusterion said:
Because to claim that an action wouldn't create any reactions, is to deny the fact that every cause must have an effect - which, is an objective fact.


Without any kind of conscious observer, how is there any way to verify that the action ever took place?


Faith in formulaic constants?


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Epistemology and the Primacy of Existence [Re: it stars saddam]
    #5240107 -

By looking at the crime scene, so to speak. :grin:

If I walk in a forest, and see a fallen tree, then obviously the tree once stood - for a tree cannot fall if it never stood. Hence, it fell, and all natural effects followed from such a cause.




--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Epistemology and the Primacy of Existence [Re: Sclorch]
    #5240124 -

Sclorch said:
itstarssaddam said:
SkorpivoMusterion said:
Because to claim that an action wouldn't create any reactions, is to deny the fact that every cause must have an effect - which, is an objective fact.


Without any kind of conscious observer, how is there any way to verify that the action ever took place?


Faith in formulaic constants?


Faith, indeed.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Epistemology and the Primacy of Existence [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5240136 -

SkorpivoMusterion said:
By looking at the crime scene, so to speak. :grin:

If I walk in a forest, and see a fallen tree, then obviously the tree once stood - for a tree cannot fall if it never stood. Hence, it fell, and all natural effects followed from such a cause.


In my opinion, there would be no way to confirm that the tree existed in that state prior to it's entrance into your perception, and your role as the observer.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Epistemology and the Primacy of Existence [Re: Sclorch]
    #5240146 -

Must every effect have a cause?

Until I am shown of an example whereby such laws do not apply, I will remained 100% convinced that every effect will naturally have a cause.

And for that matter, could it not be chronocentric to assume that the "laws of the universe" are static?

I, for one, have no problem acknowledging that if the Universe were to collapse in a "Big Crunch", into non-existence, then along with it, it's own laws will go.

Maybe these so-called laws have expiration dates.

When these laws expire, nobody will get anything done, for it is by the Law of Cause and Effect that we create change - when that expiration date comes, then so will the Universe expire [see: Big Crunch]



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Epistemology and the Primacy of Existence [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5240177 -

In my opinion, there would be no way to confirm that the tree existed in that state prior to it's entrance into your perception, and your role as the observer.

In that state, as in "stood"? Certainly, we can confirm that it once stood - it has fallen. What more confirmation do you need? Something does not fall without having stood. Furthermore, an expert can check the remains of the tree stump, observe levels of decay and even determine the general time frame that the incident occured. One can even determine how many years the tree has stood by looking on the inside of the tree stump.



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Epistemology and the Primacy of Existence [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5240199 -

its NOT a sound unless it is HEARD man. its just disturbed air. Just like Reality would be nothing without someone to observe it.

Your brain MAKES it a sound, jsut liek yoru BRAIN makes this world REAL. There is no absolutness to this reality. It is a perception of our minds, and nothing more. A passing glimpse. Thats not to say our world and universe has no practical rules of course, only that we are ignorant of 99% of these(better to err on the side of cation rather than ASSUME one knows more than they do).

blaze2


--------------------
"Religion without science is blind, Science without religion is lame." Albert Einstein

"peace is not maintained through force it is acheived through intelligence." Albert Einstein

"Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Thomas Jefferson

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." --Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Epistemology and the Primacy of Existence [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5240207 -

SkorpivoMusterion said:
In my opinion, there would be no way to confirm that the tree existed in that state prior to it's entrance into your perception, and your role as the observer.

In that state, as in "stood"? Certainly, we can confirm that it once stood - it has fallen. What more confirmation do you need? Something does not fall without having stood. Furthermore, an expert can check the remains of the tree stump, observe levels of decay and even determine the general time frame that the incident occured. One can even determine how many years the tree has stood by looking on the inside of the tree stump.


Of course, but this would all be after the fact of your initial observation of the tree in the state of having fallen. Add a touch of solipsism, or consider the theory of "wavefunction collapse", and the notion that the tree was ever standing is no longer so black and white.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Do Basic Human Morals Exist
( 1 2 all )		 mrfreedom 5,486 24 05/28/02 07:55 AM
by Sclorch
* The Internet Dosn't Exist *DELETED* Demon 2,232 19 02/10/03 05:06 PM
by RebelSteve33
* A big reason why aliens DO exist!
( 1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 all )		 Ego Death 15,900 181 08/06/03 10:53 AM
by Azmodeus
* Sclorch's "Dirty Fractal Edge" Sclorch 3,163 17 02/06/03 02:32 AM
by whiterasta
* God hates you all(except Sclorch LOL) whiterasta 981 7 10/18/02 10:36 PM
by Anonymous
* God Cannot Exist
( 1 2 all )		 jim_dewit 5,614 39 08/22/02 06:29 PM
by Xlea321
* objective reality does not exist
( 1 2 all )		 monoamine 6,579 34 11/01/02 08:55 AM
by Newbie2000
* lets build a space ship to search for ET
( 1 2 all )		 Cosm 2,128 30 02/05/05 02:22 PM
by Ego Death

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
3,487 topic views. 2 members, 166 guests and 16 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.034 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 18 queries.