Subjective Evolution: Ego & Epistemology

[parkerjwill]

The evolved epistemology is that which leads to the most coherent, unified, contradiction-less worldview. If it's true, theism would therefore be the acme of epistemological development because it accepts the existence of an absolute truth.

Epistemology has a spectral-gradient of conceptual sophistication or purity. Anywhere except absolute middle (spectrum) and absolute extreme (spectrum) is more or less (gradient - "more or less") confounded with contradiction. That the two extremes of this spectral-gradient (empirical fundamentalism and transcendent monotheism) are actually one and the same in essence, is critical and interesting understanding.

With empirical fundamentalism one arrives at the conclusion, 'I am all that exists. I alone exist.' This, 'I alone exist' is the essence of solipsism. And given that this person has actually and fully realized these statements as literally true, they compliment the Vedic aphorism "aham brahmasmi" - "I am Brahman". The vedantist knows that Brahman alone exists. Both "extremes" arrive at an absolute truth - One is the essence of all being. The discussion, however, continues as to the nature of each persons' conception of the Absolute Truth. There is variety in Truth, but the Truth is nevertheless inconceivably One.

In all likeness, true monotheism holds that God is everywhere, that God is all-pervading and all-powerful and all-knowing. Thus the similarity with the solipsist who understands that everything is an expression of Brahman, including his/herself.

My point here is that any sincere desire to understand the true nature of reality will result in a theistic conclusion, because the theistic conclusion accepts the existence of an absolute truth. Whereas atheism rests upon contradiction from the very foundation - "The reality is there is no reality. The truth of it all is that there is no truth." These are self-contradicting statements because they deny absolute truth by evoking it.

 

[quatona]

My point here is that any sincere desire to understand the true nature of reality will result in a theistic conclusion, because the theistic conclusion accepts the existence of an absolute truth.

Fallacious reverse conclusion. Even if theism, by definition, would include the assertion that an absolute truth exists (which I am not even sure it does), we can´t conclude that any view that asserts or accepts the existence of an absolute truth is necessarily theistic.

Whereas atheism rests upon contradiction from the very foundation - "The reality is there is no reality. The truth of it all is that there is no truth." These are self-contradicting statements because they deny absolute truth by evoking it.

Assuming that you are not intentionally misrepresenting atheism, I am left to conclude seems that you are misinformed about the tenets of atheism.
Epistemological nihilism and atheism aren´t even in the same bed.

 

[Paradoxum]

The evolved epistemology is that which leads to the most coherent, unified, contradiction-less worldview. If it's true, theism would therefore be the acme of epistemological development because it accepts the existence of an absolute truth.

I'd think most atheists also accept that there is one absolute truth... if by that you mean truth isn't subjective.

If you mean something else, what do you mean? Why do you think a coherent, unified, contradiction-less worldview would lead to this?

With empirical fundamentalism one arrives at the conclusion, 'I am all that exists. I alone exist.' This, 'I alone exist' is the essence of solipsism.

Why wouldn't it lead to the belief that physical things exist, because there is evidence for them? Or, why wouldn't this this conclusion make more sense?

And given that this person has actually and fully realized these statements as literally true, they compliment the Vedic aphorism "aham brahmasmi" - "I am Brahman".

Well, they wouldn't mean the same thing if Brahman is a god, or anything other than the empirically evidenced.

In all likeness, true monotheism holds that God is everywhere, that God is all-pervading and all-powerful and all-knowing. Thus the similarity with the solipsist who understands that everything is an expression of Brahman, including his/herself.

Didn't you say the solipsist only thinks they exist? So they don't believe in Brahman.

Is the similarity merely that they think Something is (in) everything?

My point here is that any sincere desire to understand the true nature of reality will result in a theistic conclusion, because the theistic conclusion accepts the existence of an absolute truth.

But being a solipsist isn't theism. There is no claim of there being a god.

Also, why have you discounted the idea that physical things exist, but not God? You never really explained that.

Whereas atheism rests upon contradiction from the very foundation - "The reality is there is no reality. The truth of it all is that there is no truth." These are self-contradicting statements because they deny absolute truth by evoking it.

Atheists don't claim that there's no reality, or that there is no truth. So what are you talking about?

 

[Davian]

What quatona said.

 

[bhsmte]

What quatona said.

Ditto.

 

[True Scotsman]

The evolved epistemology is that which leads to the most coherent, unified, contradiction-less worldview. If it's true, theism would therefore be the acme of epistemological development because it accepts the existence of an absolute truth.

Epistemology has a spectral-gradient of conceptual sophistication or purity. Anywhere except absolute middle (spectrum) and absolute extreme (spectrum) is more or less (gradient - "more or less") confounded with contradiction. That the two extremes of this spectral-gradient (empirical fundamentalism and transcendent monotheism) are actually one and the same in essence, is critical and interesting understanding.

With empirical fundamentalism one arrives at the conclusion, 'I am all that exists. I alone exist.' This, 'I alone exist' is the essence of solipsism. And given that this person has actually and fully realized these statements as literally true, they compliment the Vedic aphorism "aham brahmasmi" - "I am Brahman". The vedantist knows that Brahman alone exists. Both "extremes" arrive at an absolute truth - One is the essence of all being. The discussion, however, continues as to the nature of each persons' conception of the Absolute Truth. There is variety in Truth, but the Truth is nevertheless inconceivably One.

In all likeness, true monotheism holds that God is everywhere, that God is all-pervading and all-powerful and all-knowing. Thus the similarity with the solipsist who understands that everything is an expression of Brahman, including his/herself.

My point here is that any sincere desire to understand the true nature of reality will result in a theistic conclusion, because the theistic conclusion accepts the existence of an absolute truth. Whereas atheism rests upon contradiction from the very foundation - "The reality is there is no reality. The truth of it all is that there is no truth." These are self-contradicting statements because they deny absolute truth by evoking it.

I am an atheist and my worldview contains no contradictions and is founded on incontestable truths. The only way to arrive at a theistic conclusion from observing reality is to confuse the imaginary with the real.

 

[parkerjwill]

Fallacious reverse conclusion. Even if theism, by definition, would include the assertion that an absolute truth exists (which I am not even sure it does), we can´t conclude that any view that asserts or accepts the existence of an absolute truth is necessarily theistic.

Assuming that you are not intentionally misrepresenting atheism, I am left to conclude seems that you are misinformed about the tenets of atheism.
Epistemological nihilism and atheism aren´t even in the same bed.

Actually I'm saying that atheism is voidist philosophy. A person who claims to be agheist is asserting there is no absolute truth, aka God. It follows that if there is no absolute, reality is purely relativistic. This is existentialism, a variety of atheism. There's only two philosohies in this world, theism and atheism.

 

[True Scotsman]

Actually I'm saying that atheism is voidist philosophy. A person who claims to be agheist is asserting there is no absolute truth, aka God. It follows that if there is no absolute, reality is purely relativistic. This is existentialism, a variety of atheism. There's only two philosohies in this world, theism and atheism.

I am an atheist and I believe in absolute truth. Atheism is not a philosophy. It is a conclusion about a single issue. You keep trying to tell us what we believe but so far you're all wet. Atheists have all kinds of different philosophies. They come in all stripes and varieties. There are only two types of philosophies, subjective and objective. Yours is 100% subjective.

 

[True Scotsman]

The evolved epistemology is that which leads to the most coherent, unified, contradiction-less worldview. If it's true, theism would therefore be the acme of epistemological development because it accepts the existence of an absolute truth.

Epistemology has a spectral-gradient of conceptual sophistication or purity. Anywhere except absolute middle (spectrum) and absolute extreme (spectrum) is more or less (gradient - "more or less") confounded with contradiction. That the two extremes of this spectral-gradient (empirical fundamentalism and transcendent monotheism) are actually one and the same in essence, is critical and interesting understanding.

With empirical fundamentalism one arrives at the conclusion, 'I am all that exists. I alone exist.' This, 'I alone exist' is the essence of solipsism. And given that this person has actually and fully realized these statements as literally true, they compliment the Vedic aphorism "aham brahmasmi" - "I am Brahman". The vedantist knows that Brahman alone exists. Both "extremes" arrive at an absolute truth - One is the essence of all being. The discussion, however, continues as to the nature of each persons' conception of the Absolute Truth. There is variety in Truth, but the Truth is nevertheless inconceivably One.

In all likeness, true monotheism holds that God is everywhere, that God is all-pervading and all-powerful and all-knowing. Thus the similarity with the solipsist who understands that everything is an expression of Brahman, including his/herself.

My point here is that any sincere desire to understand the true nature of reality will result in a theistic conclusion, because the theistic conclusion accepts the existence of an absolute truth. Whereas atheism rests upon contradiction from the very foundation - "The reality is there is no reality. The truth of it all is that there is no truth." These are self-contradicting statements because they deny absolute truth by evoking it.

I have three questions for your theistic epistemology.

1. What is a concept?

2. How is a concept formed?

3. What is the relationship between a conscious subject and its objects?

 

[parkerjwill]

There are only two types of philosophies, subjective and objective. Yours is 100% subjective.

Accepted. My position, which is the Vedic position, is that consciousness is the basis of all reality. That material objects have an a priori existence is denied. Everything exists within and by consciousness.

"I am an atheist and I believe in absolute truth. Atheism is not a philosophy."

What is this absolute truth you talk about? And atheism is most certainly a philosophy, to deny that is silly. It's a worldview, complete with all the bells and whistles of any other philosophy.

"I am an atheist and my worldview contains no contradictions and is founded on incontestable truths. The only way to arrive at a theistic conclusion from observing reality is to confuse the imaginary with the real."

Pretty bold statements, Scotsman. What are these "incontestable truths"? What is real?

"Didn't you say the solipsist only thinks they exist? So they don't believe in Brahman."

Paradoxum, Brahman is the Spirit, which includes all living beings.

 

[Davian]

Actually I'm saying that atheism is voidist philosophy. A person who claims to be agheist is asserting there is no absolute truth, aka God. It follows that if there is no absolute, reality is purely relativistic. This is existentialism, a variety of atheism. There's only two philosohies in this world, theism and atheism.

If we are permitted to bring our own personal definitions into this exchange, I will define "theist" as "believes in things imaginary".

I am not a theist. Why are you a theist?

 

[parkerjwill]

IN the semantic web of language, meanings are derived from their relations with other words, concepts, etc. I'm not using my own definitions. Atheism is an extremely heavy philosophy, whether you realize it or not. Most people who claim atheism probably do so out of rejection for some nonsense they see in pseudo-religious or neophyte religious people.

 

[bhsmte]

IN the semantic web of language, meanings are derived from their relations with other words, concepts, etc. I'm not using my own definitions. Atheism is an extremely heavy philosophy, whether you realize it or not. Most people who claim atheism probably do so out of rejection for some nonsense they see in pseudo-religious or neophyte religious people.

Evidence?

 

[Davian]

IN the semantic web of language, meanings are derived from their relations with other words, concepts, etc.

It is my understanding that definitions are descriptive - they simply describe how the word is used, and that can change over time and between cultures.

I'm not using my own definitions.

It certainly would appear so.

Atheism is an extremely heavy philosophy, whether you realize it or not.

In that context I am not an atheist. Yet, I do not believe in things imaginary.

Most people who claim atheism probably do so out of rejection for some nonsense they see in pseudo-religious or neophyte religious people.

Indeed. I could point out some prime examples of that nonsense in this very thread.

 

[parkerjwill]

In that context I am not an atheist. Yet, I do not believe in things imaginary.

What is imaginary/unreal, and what is real, according to you? Your answer reveals your epistemological position and thus your degree of subjective evolution.

To elucidate the illusion of objective knowledge as absolute knowledge, consider the impossibility to fully know the physical dimensions of any object. The measurement could always be more precise if the measurement instrument would only permit it. In other words, reality is not an object that can be measured. To believe it is, is the position of empiricism, which culminates in solipsism or, 'I am the ultimate truth.'

If the "I" in the "I am the ultimate truth" is realized in truth, then one's conclusion is that of Brahman. However, the standard meaning is of course one of self-recursive egoism...

Evolution is subjective people. It's not objective, matter doesn't evolve on its own accord. Matter is a vessel of errant spirit. Matter is a decoherence of Brahman, the Universal Quantum Wave Function of QM. Evolution entails coming back into coherence with Brahman.

 

[Ken-1122]

My point here is that any sincere desire to understand the true nature of reality will result in a theistic conclusion, because the theistic conclusion accepts the existence of an absolute truth.

What do you mean when you say; "an absolute truth"?

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

IN the semantic web of language, meanings are derived from their relations with other words, concepts, etc. I'm not using my own definitions. Atheism is an extremely heavy philosophy, whether you realize it or not. Most people who claim atheism probably do so out of rejection for some nonsense they see in pseudo-religious or neophyte religious people.

Do you even know what an atheist is? It appears you do not. An atheist is someone who does not believe in God/Gods. That's it! Nothing philosophical about that!

K

Ken

 

[parkerjwill]

It is my understanding that definitions are descriptive - they simply describe how the word is used, and that can change over time and between cultures.

It certainly would appear so.

In that context I am not an atheist. Yet, I do not believe in things imaginary.

Indeed. I could point out some prime examples of that nonsense in this very thread.

Do you even know what an atheist is? It appears you do not. An atheist is someone who does not believe in God/Gods. That's it! Nothing philosophical about that!

K

Ken

This goes to show how truly ignorant you are (sorry, just being frank) about the nature of God, as a concept. If you can't see how atheism is a philosophy/worldview/understanding of life, then you don't belong in this particular forum.

 

[quatona]

Actually I'm saying that atheism is voidist philosophy.

And I´m saying you are mistaken about that.

A person who claims to be agheist is asserting there is no absolute truth, aka God.

I´m sorry, but you don´t get to spontaneously define two different terms as synonyms. Maybe in your worldview you can´t think of another "absolute truth" than "God" - but superimposing your premise on someone who doesn´t share your views is bad philosophy.

There's only two philosohies in this world, theism and atheism.

Neither theism nor atheism are philosophies.

 

[True Scotsman]

Accepted. My position, which is the Vedic position, is that consciousness is the basis of all reality. That material objects have an a priori existence is denied. Everything exists within and by consciousness.

"I am an atheist and I believe in absolute truth. Atheism is not a philosophy."

What is this absolute truth you talk about? And atheism is most certainly a philosophy, to deny that is silly. It's a worldview, complete with all the bells and whistles of any other philosophy.

"I am an atheist and my worldview contains no contradictions and is founded on incontestable truths. The only way to arrive at a theistic conclusion from observing reality is to confuse the imaginary with the real."

Pretty bold statements, Scotsman. What are these "incontestable truths"? What is real?

"Didn't you say the solipsist only thinks they exist? So they don't believe in Brahman."

Paradoxum, Brahman is the Spirit, which includes all living beings.

I know it is. All theists implicitly hold a primacy of consciousness metaphysics. I have however, never met one who would admit it. On your view then, your statement above is true because you want it to be true and not a fact independent of your conscious activity.

You wrote: Pretty bold statements, Scotsman. What are these "incontestable truths"? What is real?

Yes it is a bold statement, but it could only be a bold statement in an objective universe. On your view whatever I believe to be true is true, because I want it to be. Saying that my statements are bold, implying that I can't back them up, contradicts everything you believe about the fundamental nature of existence. After all what could the concept of proof possibly mean in a subjective world?

You wrote: What are these "incontestable truths"? What is real?

You mean you don't know? You claim to know so much about my worldview and yet you don't know its most fundamental premises. On your view any thing that I care to utter would be incontestably true since "everything exists within and by consciousness".

As to my incontestable truths, you wouldn't care to know them, but I'll note that you have accepted and used every one of them in your statements above while at the same time denying them. So much for non-contradiction.