tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post2365518992134605687..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: More on Michel OnfrayRussell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-71964829061646824242007-06-03T12:43:00.000+10:002007-06-03T12:43:00.000+10:00Ah, but what about the invisible, pink, unicorn-sh...Ah, but what about the invisible, <I>pink,</I> unicorn-shaped fairies at the bottom of the garden? (-;<BR/><BR/>I've noticed people in the ScienceBlogs comment threads and elsewhere on the Blagnet waxing long-winded on the distinction between philosophical or metaphysical naturalism and the methodological kind. At the risk of sounding <A HREF="http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000350.html" REL="nofollow">snowclonish</A>, it's almost the NOMA of our time.Blake Staceyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13977394981287067289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-78607422402059485552007-06-03T11:16:00.000+10:002007-06-03T11:16:00.000+10:00Well, guys, for me it's like this.I actually call ...Well, guys, for me it's like this.<BR/><BR/>I actually call myself a "philosophical naturalist" or a "metaphysical naturalist" (the terms are interchangeable). I have a fairly austere picture of what things exist, though I don't consider it (as some people would) to be a bleak one. There's ultimately, just the stuff found by the natural sciences: it looks to me like there are no supernatural beings, no ectoplasm, no ontology of objective norms and so on (moral and legal norms, norms of etiquette, etc., are all man-made things, not things Out There that we "discover").<BR/><BR/>That still leaves plenty of room for the beauty and majesty of the Universe, though I happily concede that our perception of certain things as "beautiful" or "majestic" is an emotional reaction that human beings have; "majesty" is not an objective property of those things, independent of us and the way that we are inclined to respond to certain kinds of phenomena.<BR/><BR/>To me, the questions of "Are you an atheist?" "Are you an agnostic?", etc., aren't that meaningful. I don't particularly apply such terms to myself. However, I do live my life on the basis of certain beliefs about what sorts of things actually exist. For example, I don't reserve judgment, as it were, on whether there are invisible, intangible, elusive fairies at the bottom of my garden. I operate on the basis that there aren't any, and I imagine that Pamela Bone does likewise.<BR/><BR/>Of course, there are lots of specific things on which I do reserve judgment. For example, I just don't know whether Queen Zenobia was beheaded by the Romans after the fall of Palmyra or whether she was eventually pardoned for her rebellion. The historical sources differ, and I see no way to resolve the situation unless some new evidence turns up.<BR/><BR/>None of the above detracts from my general liking of Pamela Bone's journalism. I've been a fan of it for as long as I care to remember.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-8597158980495130812007-06-03T00:53:00.000+10:002007-06-03T00:53:00.000+10:00Hm. I actually disbelieve in damn near all of the...Hm. I actually <I>disbelieve</I> in damn near all of the specific gods and goddesses people on this planet have actually worshiped. The evidence that they exist just isn't there, and plenty of evidence <I>does</I> exist which gives alternate explanations for all the phenomena which prompted people to think of gods. If I try hard enough, though, I could think of something with respect to which I am <I>agnostic,</I> in that I have no definite belief either way. The existence of Homer as an individual, blind, male person is one such item.<BR/><BR/>With respect to certain inventions of theology, I have to say I'm an <I>ignostic,</I> since I find those constructions logically incoherent.<BR/><BR/>At some point, the hair-splitting over "agnostic" and "atheist" comes to resemble an argument between people who want two different words for <I>health</I>, one reflecting the lack of any illness or injury and the other indicating a presence of wellness.<BR/><BR/>Still, ignostic, agnostic or atheist, we're all gonna be against the same wall when the authoritarian revolution comes, aren't we?<BR/><BR/>As to the main subject of your post:<BR/><BR/>I had a similar experience reading Hector Avalos's <I>Fighting Words</I> (2005). While it is much more thoroughly footnoted than the book you describe, it does not appear to have been comprehensively proofread. Most of the glitches I caught were punctuational in nature (footnotes interacting with quotation marks and parentheses, etc.). Two errors of word choice caught my eye, one of which just made the sentence awkward and the other of which introduced an error of fact (Captain Dreyfus was imprisoned but not executed).Blake Staceyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13977394981287067289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-43347052617587457962007-06-02T23:28:00.000+10:002007-06-02T23:28:00.000+10:00I think that Bone is too wishy-washy in wanting to...<I>I think that Bone is too wishy-washy in wanting to call herself "an agnostic". It's pretty clear that she has no belief in any deity, and the term "agnostic" often just strikes me as a euphemism used by people who are concerned not to cause offence.</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, the point we Agnostics try and make is that we neither believe nor disbelieve in any deity. <BR/><BR/>And, although I have the desire not to cause offense, it's not from my Agnostic viewpoint, but from politeness and civility. Otherwise I'd possibly say something nasty about Atheists at this point. ;})>drjonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14351916590417179786noreply@blogger.com