robtex said:
Interesting choice of words. I don't see naturalism assuming anything but rather assessing what can be physically evidenced. However, I do see metaphyics assuming, through faith, things that cannot be evidenced or measured. It isn't a matter each side assuming but of one using assumtions to draw conclusions and the other not.
We will quickly get into a semantic argument Rob, but from my perspective it is as much of an assumption to assume that something does not exist as it is to assume that something does exist. And you or others can argue with me that science/naturalism doesn't assume that something doesn't exist, it just ignores it. All I can say is that I studied and worked in science for many years and I was
trained to ignore certain types of explanations. I had to be
taught to not think one way and instead think another way. Society as a whole now trains us, starting from youth, to always look for naturalist explanations. Just because it is widespread does not mean it's neutral.
robtex said:
1) Why would it be wrong or bad to be left with materialism?
2) How do you equate materialism to haveing an ego?
I specifically said social materialism as opposed to philosophical materialism. If we are taught that there is nothing other than this physical world, one common reaction is to care about material wealth above all else. If we are taught that all values are purely subjective, one common reaction is to value self above all else. Metaphysics provides an anchor. Without that anchor, it is as Nietzsche said, the earth is unchained from its sun and we are plunging continually, backward, sideward, forward, in all directions. The reason why it isn't apparent to all yet is because we are still operating under the residue of a dead metaphysics. Again, as Nietzsche said, "It has not yet reached the ears of men."
This sequeways nicely into your other post to me:
robtex said:
I would concur that without metaphysyics ideas are sujective and without inherent value but it would lead me to ask why the standard must be non-subjective?
Existentialism is an example of a branch of philosophy that makes no attempts to place any objective value on existance yet is able to have a completed philosophical system.
Metaphyiscs by contrast by placing constraints on what is subjective and what is not, may in fact be limiting the scope of value to the assumptions of the metaphyiscal arguement by stifling contigencies and contexts that are outside the objective premises.
Yeah, I don't know Rob. Believe me, I see the danger of a top-down "objective morality" being imposed upon people without the ability to contextualize. I am not advocating that we return to that. But you asked what the value of metaphysics is and so I responded in favor of metaphysics. If you had asked what the danger of metaphysics is I would have probably come off sounding like I was dead-set against it. The thing is that I see the merits of both sides, and I hate the extremes of both sides. What is worse Rob, moral absolutists who want to impose their view on everyone or moral relativists who can't bring themselves to condemn slavery and misogyny? That's not a rhetorical question. It's something that I grapple with constantly.
I love existentialism. (I can't imagine any UU who doesn't.) But existentialism takes a lot of hard work. And it requires the luxury of time to be able to do that hard work. I am not sure that it by itself can provide the answer for society. For individuals yes, society no. As Voltaire said, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him."
