rusmeister wrote:Lewis's observation is different from yours - but he started from his observation. It is obvious to me that you take exceptions and treat them like the rule. YOU ignore the commonality which he deftly explains. But what's the point in arguing if you can't or won't see that?
When we examine things like the newspapers and police reports, and we simply hear what people are saying around us, either we find that many people, every day, everywhere, steal, kill, rape, and cheat, or we do not. And we do. Not exceptions. Not a small percentage. Just those we
know about are a huge number. It's how humans are. It's impossible for a society to endure if everyone has a free hand to do such things, so society does its best to stop us. But it can't change human nature. We keep doing it.
rusmeister wrote:I do not say that your worldview does not exist. I am sure there are a number of sincere people who hold it. I am a little surprised that you have taken what I have said and interpreted THAT out of it, as I am at the interpretation that people 'cannot' possibly think certain things. I completely grant that people DO think such things and you do not need to prove that you do think them. I believe it. I also believe you have a worldview. You don't need to prove that you do indeed have one, and the one that you have. I believe it.
You believe it is impossible for me to hold my worldview if I think it through to the end. If I do that, I will not be able to avoid a contradiction that forces me to abandon the worldview. Just as I would be unable to hold onto a worldview that says I can walk through walls if I actually tried to. Therefore, I haven't thought it through to the end. I'm avoiding it (intentionally or not).
rusmeister wrote:Fist, you ADMITTED that you had never considered the thought of others - that your worldview is something you came up with in your own experience. In terms of philosophical knowledge, it's like a scientist to whom it had never occurred to refer to a scientific tradition - prior obtained knowledge, but literally discovered everything on his own. Only his 'everything' isn't all that much. I'm not saying that as any kind of put down - but when I have made at least SOME reference to that aspect of human experience when you, by your own admission, haven't (by now 'hadn't), you shouldn't be shocked and offended when I reference it and claim to know things about it and have thought about it.
Someone who has never seen a wheel, and invents it again, will still have invented the wheel. A perfectly good invention.
rusmeister wrote:You can make assertions, as we all can. Since I DO grasp materialism, and since that is obviously at the center of your worldview, I DO grasp your worldview, even if there are details that I know nothing about built around that core that I DO know something about. If I blast the core, I blast the worldview, and everything that depends on that core.
You DON'T understand it. Not beyond the point where is repelled you. Someone can hear the Beatles' "Please Please Me", "Love Me Do", and "Can't Buy Me Love", and not be all that interested in them. He might not bother listening to any more Beatles. It's certainly possible that, if he
did hear all of the Beatles' songs, he wouldn't like them anyway. He might prefer the Rolling Stones. Or Motley Crue. That's the way it works. But it would be wrong for him to assume he knows the Beatles all that well. Their sound changed considerably. Those of us who know the Beatles fully know that he's speaking from ignorance when he says he knows them from those three early songs.
It's the same with your understanding of my worldview. To those of us who
are within this worldview, who have gotten past the initial observations, it is clear from things like this:
Well, Cambo, I think I've already said what I think of a person who believes in oblivion, that they speak of 'now' as if 'now' was all there was, not seeing that it ultimately means complete and utter meaninglessness even of the 'now'. A complete self-contradiction, escaped only by thinking only about what one 'can enjoy "now"' - by ignoring that 'now' must end and cease to be.
that you don't understand. You can claim you do, but you clearly do not. My 8 yo could claim to understand income taxes, but, if she tried to talk about it, it would be clear that she does not. You hit a concept that you cannot resolve, and can go no further. But the concept is not the contradiction that you see it to be. It's merely
your perception of it.
rusmeister wrote:Chesterton said that sanity understands insanity; insanity does not understand sanity. (Orthodoxy, a truly great book that it's a pity you haven't read.)The civilized man can understand the barbarian. The barbarian cannot understand the civilized man. ("Mirror, Mirror")
The logical person recognizes illogic - the illogical person cannot recognize good logic. The person who knows truth can recognize falsehood. The person who clings to falsehood cannot recognize truth.
Yeah, I was gonna say, "Spock said it, too."
Of course, I put us in the opposite roles that you put us in.
rusmeister wrote:But enough said. I'm not going to continue this. I appreciate all your kind thoughts and wishes for my daughter; she has made a full recovery, so thanks to all!
I've been there, too. There's no more horrifying position people can find themselves in. I'm extremely happy for both of you!
P.S. What's the point in arguing if we agree??