"Self-existing" vs. "Self-created"

NAME: cmd
E-MAIL: permission not explicitly stated
FROM: Maine, USA
COMMENTS: = Nominis, was wondering if you could clarify the differences between "self-existing" and "self-created" (if such a concept exists). thanx. -cmd

Hey cmd! "Self-existing" encompasses a concept known as "aseity"; (the name comes from the Latin "a", meaning 'from', and "se", meaning 'oneself'). It indicates a being that is underived, necessary, nondependent existence. Yet another term applicable to the concept is 'noncontingent'. It has also been expressed by the terms "first cause", or the "uncaused cause".

In classical theology, this concept of Pure Existence is seen as a key attribute of God. God's aseity means that He is Being; everything else merely has being.

In contradistinction to this concept, the idea of a "self-created being" is an absurdity. Think about it: If something were to be said to have created itself, it would have to antedate itself... That is to say, it would have to exist before it existed, in order to bring itself into existence! (Don't worry if you're confused, here, that only indicates that you're used to thinking in logical categories!) But stay with it: If a being is not yet in existence, can it cause itself to exist? No, if it is not yet in existence, it is literally "no thing", nothing; and "nothing" cannot cause something. Hope this helped!
~ Nominis

TOPIC: "Is philosophy outdated?"

NAME: Anonymous
E-MAIL: No Answer
FROM: No Answer
COMMENTS: = Is "philosophy" outdated?

SHORT ANSWER: "No."

LONG ANSWER: Absolutely not. Let's look for an example at the realm of politics. A friend of mine was talking recently about a particular world leader and made the following comment:

I wonder.....was so-and-so schooled in the art of fabrication?...Or is it a case of the mentality where you lie for SO long you actually believe it yourself?

My friend went on to ask:

Why does TRUTH seem to be so hard to master for anyone in power?

Here's a quotation that makes the point:

"'The true,' to put it very briefly, is only the expedient in the way of our thinking, just as 'the right' is only the expedient in the way of our behavior." ~ William James

According to this mindset, "Truth", in regard to our thinking, is that means to an end which is of use or advantage. "Right" is that means to an end which is of use or advantage in terms of our behavior: Expedient behavior is right, and expedient thinking is true. What does THAT do to objective reality?!

Historian Lord Acton observed:
"Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely". With these philosophical foundations, a position of power necessarily leads to corruption. One ends up disregarding the truth and redefining it when it suits his purposes.
Does someone with this worldview know they're lying, or have they convinced themselves? Another interesting question.

In "The Prince", Machiavelli wrote: "How we live is so far removed from how we ought to live, that he who abandons what is done for what ought to be done, will rather bring about his own ruin than his preservation. Therefore it is necessary to learn how not to be good."

As to whether it's done in a particular case with a conciousness of the unethical nature of it all, who knows? The scary thing is, either way, it impacts US! A real focus of power in our government lies in the Judicial branch. Supreme Court Justices (re-) interpret the Constitution using these principles settling court cases, establishing policy creating law; and those guys serve for LIFE! (One Supreme Court justice recently died after being a judge in that capacity for over 50 YEARS!) Is philosophy outdated? Or is philosophy relevant to us today? What do YOU think?

~ Nominis

THE FOLLOWING MOVED FROM THE GUESTBOOK

TOPIC: A "Rage Filled" Teenager
NAME: Linseth
E-Mail: Linseth@yahoo.com
FROM: not stated

My turn to rant...
Well, for starters; as you may have deduced I am indeed a rage filled teenager. And Adults attributing my rage to anything but themselves is one of my favorite topics to rant about. I promise you though that I will try not to get too horribly carried away in this particular version of my rant. Perhaps the most important thing to remember before getting to deeply into this is that...are ya ready?.....Adults are not Children....And therefore can not really understand kids. They think they can, yes....after all were they not just children themselves not too long ago? Yes they were... However, times change; fast... Especially in this information age.... Kids are definitely exposed to much more stuff earlier than they used to be... Adults seeing this, and remembering their own childhoods, assume that the kids couldn't possibly deal with it... They're wrong, the kids can and do deal with it because the Children have become acclimated; its simply a part of everyday life. Soooo, if the kids are acclimated then why is there all the youth violence?
There is all the youth violence because adults do not come across as truthfully caring about the youth... Oh yes they say "The children are our future," all the time. But those words are empty because they are not reinforced by actions. The actions I am referring to are to give youths a say in what happens to them, and a say in how they're world is operated. Children are wise... Yeah they get asked what they think all the time... but no one takes their ideas into account because they are but silly children who couldn't possibly solve global issues...In short, children can't shape the future which they are to be a part of in the present... Thats enough to piss ne one off...Thats why kids get angry... Cause no one cares... Thats why they kill eachother....
Ahhh, I just heard some adult somwhere blaming this on the media (I think it was you)... And here we have a prime example of why kids shoot eachother... Adults refusing to take the blame for their own actions... Media doesn't matter, it can portray or say whatever it wants... It won't effect the child what so ever if the parents have taken the time AND the caring to teach the child good morals and also the be able to notice if something is amiss in the child's mind... " We didn't know he was building bombs in his room. And we didn't know he had all of those guns." is no excuse... If a person's child is so warped that they're building a bomb, then that person should notice.
If a child feels loved, then they won't kill people. And nothing says "I love you.", like actually listening and taking into account what the children have to say.

Nominis' reply:

Thanks for posting, you're a smart kid. :-)

A large part of what you're saying here is focused on the need for adults to take responsibility for their children's actions, and a lack of a nurturing environment where the parent is aware of the child's emotional needs.

This is indeed part of our problem. The observations you made about the parent's responsibility in teaching a child good morals, affirming a child's worth (by listening to the child's opinions and concerns), making a child feel loved, and being aware of the child's emotional state and activities are all points well taken. Attention to these duties of parenting are key to the "socialization process". By this I mean the process of child rearing whereby we seek to impress upon a young person the values and skills necessary to live happy, productive lives, to contribute to and better society.

Parents must exercise responsibility in impressing values and normative ethics on their children. It's a two-edged sword, though. Some of the concepts that must be absorbed are that ideas have consequences; actions have consequences, and children, too, must come to the point of assuming responsibility in order to cross the boundary into adulthood themselves.

Where I have to begin to disagree is on the point of children becoming acclimated, and "able to handle" the rapid changes and ideas today's culture throws at them, and that the media doesn't matter. Parenting is not conducted in a vacuum. The media DOES matter, as do all the vehicles of culture that deliver philosophical premises. Any mass defection from the norms characteristic of society means there is something wrong in the socio-cultural system (of which parenting is a part, but not the whole).

There was a time (before your time) when morals weren't "relativized". When ethics (what ought to be) wasn't a matter of personal preference. When "liberty" was understood as being within the bounds of universal and absolute moral principles. Today the concept has been radically distorted to the point of the demand for, not freedom, but autonomy, and a drastic reduction in the limits to personal gratification: (Moral Relativism and radical Individualism). Today we are taught to seek, not what is "right" but that which is useful: (Pragmatism). We are taught that there is no "right" or "wrong", that we are beyond good and evil, that instead of seeking to align ourselves with such universal concepts as justice and goodness we are to seek "self authenticity" in a universe that is absurd, and devoid of meaning: (Existentialism). These ideas are hammered into us through all aspects of the culture: the media, popular entertainment, politics, art and education.

The cultural devastation wrought through these distortions have resulted in the confusion and violence we see today, not only in our youth, but society at large.

So, I agree, parents must take responsibility, but we all must be aware of the syndrome under which we are currently suffering in society, which is being perpetuated through our contemporary culture, and take the appropriate personal responibility. Please feel free to comment again, or to write if I need to clarify any of these points. Thanks~ Nominis

TOPIC: More on Parental responsibiity
NAME: Linseth
E-Mail:Linseth@yahoo.com

So if the society in which we live is such a horrible thing...then I suppose that it is the job of a parent to help their children cope with it. That's where the teaching of morals comes in, the job of a parent to build a productive member of society. Proper parenting empowers children to make moral decisions on what to do in different situations; if the parenting is there, the child can deal (even though things get pretty bad sometimes) and then, no, societal influences won't matter. The parent will have taught the child what is wrong with the amoral images which they are being bombarded with daily. If parented properly, by the time the child reaches my age which is barely 16, they will be able to assess a situation and make the correct moral decision.

I will grant that sometimes a child is incapable of making a correct moral decision due to some emotional imbalance; in which case the parent should be paying enough attention to their kid that they would notice if the kid were say a little depressed or angry. Then the parent will be able to either help the kid deal with the depression or anger themselves, or get the kid some sort of outside help like a counselor or maybe even just another adult who is good at listening (Listening, this idea presents itself yet again). I often think that perhaps the best thing which ever happened to me was that I found a mentor (mentors rather cause I have two). One I know only online, but this person understands from experience what I am going through...And the other is a friend of my mother's whom I have known my entire life, and she's actually now also one of my close friends. Very few teenagers can say that they have friends in their sixties. Anyway, my point in all of this is, is that my mentors are people who listen to what I have to say, and listen to me not as some silly kid, but as an equal.

Which actually brings me to the fact that in your email to me you stated that " A thinking teenager is an all-too-rare animal these days!"...That statement just isn't true...pretty much every single teenager I have ever spoken to, if not every teenager, has been highly deep thinking in reflective. In fact a great deal of these ideas which I have been expressing to you, they are aware of. The only difference between them and I is that I know how to express my ideas without sounding stupid. By sounding stupid I mean getting angry and yelling or using harsh language in general. Harsh language is actually what I want to use the majority of the time when ranting about something, but I've learned to choose my words carefully so that I get listened to. Most kids don't know how to do that, or rather are so used to not being listened to that they don't even bother, hence the semblance of non-thinking among the youth. Adults might be pleasantly suprised to find out that if kids are spoken to properly, they've got some pretty good ideas or interesting ideas at the very least. Basically the only rule an adult should follow when talking to a kid is to not take on the "You'll see I'm right when you're older stance."...that's the number one way to bring about a violent response. I can't even put up with that, when an adult starts acting like that is when I become a smart-ass(pardon language). I know not taking on the "You need more experience," stance is difficult, especially since its usually the truth... The trick is though, that if a kids idea is like totally wrong, a person must discuss the issue with the kid and attempt to gently get the kid to see the fault in their idea. If done properly the kid will almost magically be able to single-handedly reach the anti-thesis of their original idea. And its good and its firmly planted cause they reached the idea really all by themselves with just a few guidelines. Reason with the kid as an equal, take into account their ideas, and analyze them along with the child. And hey, who knows, the Adult might even learn something.

Ok, I think I'm gonna stop this post here, and continue this post in a "third volume" soon. But in closing I would like to say that the NBC public service announcement which states "Listen to your kids." has great wisdom. And btw, thank You for listening.
"I hear babies cry, I watch them grow, they'll learn much more, than I'll ever know." ~Louis Armstrong

Nominis' reply:

I can agree with much of what you've said. Some further thoughts follow:

Linseth said:

"...Which actually brings me to the fact that in your email to me you stated that ' A thinking teenager is an all-too-rare animal these days!'...That statement just isn't true..."

NOMINIS REPLIES

You're right, I'm guilty as charged! Sorry for the sweeping generalization! I should have qualified the remark by prefacing it with "In my experience..." Have I experienced a lot of interaction with teens? No. So even with my prefatory qualification, my experience at best has yielded a non-representative sample. I must also hasten to add that the non-thinking, emotional responses I've encountered are by no means limited to teens! Two phenomena are pervasive in today's world:

1) the failure to make the distinction between "cognition" (thinking) and "emotion" (the expression of feelings.) And,

2) The outright denial of logic and relativization of truth. These are two things I encounter regularly, and I believe, must never be negotiated if any communication, not to mention knowledge, is to be established.

Hopefully, that explains where I was coming from with my hasty generalization. It doesn't excuse it, though, and I recant. :-)

Linseth said:

"...if the parenting is there, the child can deal (even though things get pretty bad sometimes) and then, no, societal influences won't matter..."

NOMINIS REPLIES:

We can never afford to let down our guard as to the pervasive nature of the influence of culture on us all. I'll humbly suggest here that you check out the "Hall of Isms" elsewhere on this site to see exactly what I'm so worried about. I can't overstress the fact that ideas of "relative truth" are all around us... Anyone can counter any statement, argument, piece of advice, etc. with "hmmm... that's interesting, but irrelevant: That's YOUR truth. MY truth is..."

  This isn't some vast conspiracy, but a syndrome we're suffering under as a result of NOT THINKING THROUGH our underlying ideas and presuppositions. The problem is not ONLY adults not listening to kids, or vice-versa. A glance at the bigger picture reveals that we don't even really listen to each other! Further, we often, individually, neglect to listen to OURSELVES! In honestly approaching philosophy, we must take on the hard task of self-examination. Is our life and world view rational? What ARE the ideas that we hold to as true? They determine how we act. To focus it a little closer, violence in our society is an indicator of moral relativism and a radical individualism which demands complete autonomy (self-law) and redefines truth as subjective in nature. Beware these poisonous trends.

Linseth said:

"Reason with the kid as an equal, take into account their ideas, and analyze them along with the child. And hey, who knows, the Adult might even learn something."

NOMINIS REPLIES:

I couldn't agree more. Emerson said "In every man there is something that I may learn of (from) him; and in that I am his pupil."
That includes kids.

  Another of my favorite quotations is from Francis Bacon: "Read not to contradict and confute, nor to believe and take for granted; nor to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider."

And an absolute diamond of thought, a rhetorical question from the pages of the Bible: "You, then who teach others, do you not teach yourself?"

What if we all, kids and adults alike, were to REALLY ingest these things? To sum up and return to Linseth's focus: Parents, listen to your kids! Fulfill your responsibilities, and by following your example, they have a greater chance of fulfilling theirs.

~ Nominis

visit the

{HALL OF -ISMS}

NAME: rashi
E-MAIL: not given
FROM: india
COMMENTS:

i went through your articles.what i liked about them is that they didnt seem to be a forum to express bigoted opinions ,they were well substantiated with reason.i see a death of philosophy now -a days with it becoming just a part of people's life style as alvin toffler puts it in the future shock.keep up the good work!

Rashi wrote:

...they didn't seem to be a forum to express bigoted opinions , they were well substantiated with reason.

If someone is expressing an opinion contrary to ours, we must be careful not to immediately assume that person is bigoted. We must consider what is being said, examine the facts upon which that opinion is based, and consider carefully our conclusions as to the truth of the propositions involved. We can then responsibly modify our own opinions or supply additional facts to support them in opposition to their contraries.

Here are a couple of my favorite quotations that deal with this topic:
"Every man has a right to be wrong in his opinions, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts"~ Bernard Baruch.
"He that judges without informing himself to the utmost that he is capable cannot acquit himself of judging amiss" ~ John Locke
"It is what we think we know already that often prevents us from learning" ~ Claude Bernard

Rashi wrote:

"...i see a death of philosophy now -a day with it becoming just a part of people's life style."

There is a sense in which philosophy has changed drastically since Kant's work in epistemology... He concluded that the only certain knowledge available to man is that of the phenomenological realm... the realm of our sense experience. Since that time, philosophy has been largely restricted to phenomenology and/or linguistic analysis; if not a "death", then certainly a severe handicap.

As to becoming "...just a part of people's lifestyle..." you mean as opposed to reflection or serious consideration on most people's part, I have to agree. While this is not a new development, the reason for its proliferation today is the underlying current of "relative truth" and an abiding sense of meaninglessness, irrelevance and despair: These are the logical correlatives of the nihilism of the Postmodern culture. Also see the previous post above: "Is philosophy outdated?"

visit the

LOGIC

page

TOPIC: A Reply to "Secularism"

NAME: Victor
E-MAIL: not given
FROM: USA
Comments: Hello
It seems rather strange to me that you spend so much time critisizing various philosophical movements (in your "Hall of Isms") but not once affirm a position of your own. Do you have one? If so, what is it and why is it true?

I found your arguments to be lacking also. In your critique of secularism, for instance, your argument against that system of thought consisted wholly of an appeal to the common sentiment that there are, or should be, ethical obsolutes. You also cite statistics of deaths due to suicide as an argument against secularism. This is silly beyond belief and is an examplary case of a post hoc fallacy. Even if secular beliefs are the sole motivation behind all suicides among Americans, a claim which you will have great trouble supporting, it still does not follow that secular beliefs are false (or true). Lastly you include an exert from an article (citation?) about kids and guns. Now what does that have to do with the validity of secularism? Overall, many of your arguments have little substance, a fact for which you apparently try to make up by constant appeals to the "moral majority" (as in your critique of Nietzsche). Let me say it one last time: the consequances of a system of thought or belief do not reflect on its factual validity or logical consistancy.
~ Victor

Hi Victor!
Yes, I have one... That's kind of the point of the entire site: Everyone has one, but more often than not, it's not one that's been given much thought. I don't intend to direct, but rather to encourage, and perhaps challenge others to engage in such personal reflection.

My purpose is not to challenge the validity of arguments supporting these systems, nor to 'prove' secular beliefs true or false. The point is that ideas have consequences. As such, it is not unreasonable to attribute some degree of cause and effect relationship between, e.g., a high suicide rate and a prevailing undercurrent of thought such as: "Life is absurd and meaningless, devoid of value".

What do "kids and guns'" have to do with the 'validity of secularism'? Nothing. But what do they have to do with ideas like: "...Submit to no rules; refuse the will of the community or the common good... define your own morality and values in your own interest."? Is it possible such ideas, if lived out, can result in such behavior? These ideas are explicit in existentialism, by the way. I'm not makin' 'em up!

I never stated that secular beliefs are the sole motivation behind all suicides, or that the consequences of a system of thought or belief reflect on its 'factual validity or logical consistancy'. (sic) That would be an example, I think, of the argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy, rather than the post hoc ergo propter hoc, but in any case, I agree: That would be "silly beyond belief". (Which most of us are, at one time or another. ;-)

Thanks again for writing, and most of all, thanks for thinking! We don't do it nearly enough.

~ Nominis

TOPIC:
Another Reply to "Secularism"
NAME:   Ninereeds
FROM: Western Australia
E-MAIL: ninereeds@hotmail.com
COMMENTS:

Hi, I have been enjoying your site. An unusual perspective I must say, trying to justify christian belief using logic and philosophy!

I wanted to comment on some stuff on your secularism page: You said:

"There is no eternal dimension..."

"... - no supernatural realm."

" There is no eternity, no eternal perspective. "

"There are no absolutes, or abiding principles by which to evaluate human actions and values."

"Any thinking person who adopts a worldview dependent upon secularism must ultimately embrace a philosophy of despair, for according to such a belief system there is no tomorrow - ultimately."

Finally, your examples of the sorry state the world is in could equally be interpreted as being symptomatic of a society which has discouraged its members to think.
Thanks for the enjoyable read anyway.

Ninereeds
----------------------------------------------
"There's no Justice - there's just us."

NINEREEDS said:

An unusual perspective I must say, trying to justify christian belief using logic and philosophy!

Nominis replies:
It's my contention that any system of thought or belief that makes truth claims that can't be supported by logic is not worth spending any time considering. If you surrender logic, you surrender any chance of communication of ideas, any contact with reality, and allow the possibility, at least, of sloppy thinking and nonsense statements. Fun? Possibly. A way to discover or relate truth? No. As for the use of philosophy in this context, it's a way of comparing and contrasting ideas and their consequences. This perspective of using logic to test the truth claims of any given belief system may be unusual, but I say we should demand it of ourselves and anyone who purports to be a purveyor of truth or wisdom.

NINEREEDS said:

I wanted to comment on some stuff on your secularism page: You said:
"There is no eternal dimension..."
Without definition it seems a fairly meaningless statement to me.

NINEREEDS said:

[Nominis wrote:]
>"There is no eternity, no eternal perspective."

Exactly what do you mean by "eternity" in this context? Normally it means time without end. I don't think that this is a valid interpretation of secularism; I don't see how a lack of belief in a supernatural can be construed to mean that time comes to an end. The phrase "this time..." surely doesn't eliminate the past and the future from consideration?

Nominis replies:
The key to understanding my meaning here is the second half of the phrase: "...no eternal perspective". Secularism doesn't necessarily reject the objective "existence" of time as a dimension, but as I've said, dismisses the possibility of our subjective experience of it. It therefore 'eliminates the future from consideration' in terms of our personal participation in it.

NINEREEDS said:

[Nominis wrote:]
>"There are no absolutes, or abiding principles by > which to evaluate human actions and values."

Sorry, but once again I fail to see the flow of logic here - from no supernatural to no values. If you mean that there are no EXTERNAL absolutes (originating externally to man) then yes, OK. But why is that a problem?
Surely you would agree that man has the METHODOLOGY to evaluate actions and values? I know that is not quite the same, but surely the values can be derived and not just taken as a prioris.

Nominis replies:
"There are no absolutes or abiding principles by which to determine human actions and values." - These are not my words, not my assessment. This is an axiomatic assertion of secularism. In other words, I didn't draw this as a conclusion as a result of analyzing secularism; rather, this is what secularism claims! It is an assertion that is, at its root, self-stultifying. In effect, it states that there are NO absolutes, except one: There are absolutely NO absolutes. (To which I would respond: "Are you absolutely sure about that?") :-))

The problem begins to unfold this way: in the absence of any moral authority in life, values are reduced to preferences.

Fyodor Dostoyevsky made this observation: "If God does not exist, everything is permitted." To deny the reality of God is to deny that there is any final sanction in moral life, and ultimately allots to each the power to decide right and wrong according to his or her own tastes. An expression of this can be found in 19th century poet Ralph Waldo Emerson:

"That which my self delights in shall be good
  That which I do not want, indifferent
  That which I hate is bad. That's flat."

A quote from Nietzsche:

"What is good? Everything that heightens the feeling of power in man... the will to power... power itself. What is more harmful than any vice? Active pity for all the failures and all the weak: Christianity."

"Man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world and defines himself afterwards. Thus here is no 'human nature' because there is no God to have conception of it. Man simply 'is'. Man is nothing but that which he makes of himself."

NINEREEDS said:

I also must seriously question your conclusions about significance. Your assumption seems to be that significance is only possible within some external frame of reference. Given that assumption and that secularism denies such a thing it is a valid conclusion. However I do not see why you start with such a conclusion...
You conclude that : "Any thinking person who adopts a worldview dependent upon secularism must ultimately embrace a philosophy of despair, for according to such a belief system there is no tomorrow - ultimately."

I think this is an invalid conclusion because once again you have injected a presupposition that life without an external frame of reference can have no meaning.

I hope that you are beginning to see that these are not my conclusions or presuppositions, but those of the secularists themselves. Another quote, if I may:
Mark Twain, from his unfinished allegory, "The Mysterious Stranger":

"There is no God, no universe, no human race, no earthly life, no Heaven, no Hell. It's all a dream- a grotesque and foolish dream. Nothing exists but you. And you are but a thought- a vagrant thought, a homeless thought, wandering forlorn among the empty centuries."

I'm reminded of Sartre's treatise on man as "...a useless passion." Camus' obsession with the 'essential' human characteristics of "angst" and "dread". And the words of Shakespeare describing life as "...a tale told by an idiot; full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

These are the conclusions of those expressing a secularist worldview. Secularists of whatever stripe, whether existentialist or nihilist all draw their own conclusions of despair; they don't need me to point it out to them.

NINEREEDS said:

Besides which, what on earth does "...for according to such a belief system there is no tomorrow - ultimately." actually mean?

Nominis replies:

To an adherent of a belief system such as existentialism, nihilism, atheism or any secularist 'ism', there is this life, now, and that's it. There is no hope for a future existence beyond the grave. You, your hopes, your dreams, your values, all that you hold dear and important is but a fleeting shadow, a fading mist. For the secularist, it's "lights out", it's over: No 'tomorrow' ~ ultimately.

NINEREEDS said:

Thanks for the enjoyable read, anyway.

Nominis replies:

No, man thank you for taking the time to read, and think, and respond. It's great to converse with a thinker.

NINEREEDS 2nd mssg. Name:   Ninereeds
From: Western Australia
E-Mail:ninereeds@hotmail.com
Comments:
Hi again,
after browsing your site almost in its entirety I have several comments:
1 - you have put a lot of hard work into it, and there is some good reading. Well done and thanks.
2 - It seems apparent that you are a christian. Is this site evangelistic in intent?
3 - Despite your site's title, nowhere that I could find do you actually attempt to answer the question.

So I would like to ask you some questions:
1 - how do you define reality. i.e. what is real and what isn't?
2 - what methodology do you use to determine if something is real or is not-real?
Many thanks,
Ninereeds

Thanks for posting: Nominis' Reply to Follow

TOPIC:
More on Secularism
NAME: CHARLES NOLL
FROM: MANVILLE, NJ
E-Mail: Chunol@aol.com
COMMENTS:

Dear Sir,
I found your web page and I enjoy it, however I have some questions regarding Secularism, that I thought either you or one of your readers could help me with.
If the majority of people alive today accept some form of Secularism, where all Secularist thought is founded on the following principle….

The fundamental conviction of secularism is that “this time and this place are all there is.”

Then my question is this: Is this a “logical” conclusion? What facts, what arguments, what aspects of mans situation, has an individual come to “know” in order to make this statement? How does a “secularist” defend his proposition? In the same vein, how does a secularist gain this conviction, is he/she taught it or is this conviction so obvious as to be common knowledge? Since you contend that this is the majority position, than almost everyone who would care to respond to this should be able to answer these questions pretty much in their own words.

So where does this put you, gentle reader? If you are in the “majority” (ie. a “secularist”) than you should be able to answer these questions fairly easily and intelligibly, because you have accepted this conviction.

On the other hand, if you are not a “secularist”, than you must have some other “world view”, contradictory to secularism, that you should be able to explain and defend.

IF my question makes sense, and you wish to attempt to answer or comment on it, then please take note of the level of language that I am employing. I am not a highly educated man, with this in mind the only thing I ask is to keep the answer to the level where an ordinary 21 year old would be able to understand. I ask this for the simple reason, that IF we find an answer than I would like to be able to share it with my children, who do not posses a Doctorate of Philosophy.

The only other request I have is that I would appreciate it if you did not refer me to some “tome of knowledge” that I should read to get my answer. The problem with this avenue of attaining knowledge is that when I read someone’s book I usually come up with more questions than answers, and either the author is dead, and I cannot question him/her, or they are too busy to answer my questions.

Which is why I am so grateful for a format such as this web page, where I can get honest opinions from individuals that I can hold a conversation with, and if there is a question about the question we can “work it out”.
Thank you,
Charles Noll

Thanks for posting: Nominis' Reply to Follow

You give examples of behaviors that originate from purely hedonistic premises and trace those behaviors to resultant individual or social ills. These ills are aggravated under hedonism in that they cannot be corrected, because no one has to accept responsibility for them.

Therefore, take the next step and call Hedonism self defeating and, ultimately, self-destructive.

In any case, a great article.

Thanks for posting: Nominis' Reply:

Okay. Hedonism is self defeating and, ultimately, self-destructive. I hope the tone of the article didn't give the impression I was promoting the idea.

TOPIC:
FYI on Israel
NAME: mike
FROM: canada
E-MAIL: NONE GIVEN
COMMENTS:
Your Israel fyi seems to contradict your points on sound reasoning, logic, facts, and the search for Truth and Understanding. Why include such a distorted, one-sided misinterpretation of a human tragedy in what purports to be a site devoted to the mind and not to tribal bigotry, racism, and religious self-righteousness?
mturner

Nominis' Reply:

The site is not devoted to the mind; perhaps to the advocacy of USING one's mind. Perhaps you can point out the distortions in the text, as I am not aware of any such misrepresentations. The subject of politics is a division of philosophy, and has quite an appropriate place on this site. Thanks for posting.

To be notified when there are new additions to "What is Reality", enter your e-mail address:

Subscribe      Unsubscribe