My philosophical position is more aptly named deanthropization

by phil on Tuesday May 23, 2006 11:40 AM

My philosopher roommate thought it contradictory when I described my beliefs:
- I hold certain philosophical positions because they're convenient.
and
- I don't believe in free will, existence, past, present, future, etc. I only believe in nothing.

The first statement, he claimed, was a form of pragmatist methodology. In other words, that I've chosen certain philosophical stances because it is easier to argue for them. But when he heard my litany of controversial stances on various debates, he became puzzled.

Pragmatism is an extremely flexible word, so we have to be careful first of all. I think what my roomate was getting at is that a pragmatist puts the burden of proof on those who propose arguments that defy common sense. For example, a certain kind of pragmatist will say that he believes in the materiality of the universe because "hey, just look at everything! If you think there aren't materials, you better have some darn good arguments."

But I disagree with this pragamist. My position doesn't defy common sense. It defies anthropic sense. It is only human nature to believe in time, God, past, present, future, causation, free/unfree will etc. To me, the burden of proof is on philosophers who argue for the sake of human inventions.

Science has put the God debate through deanthropization. I think that's what is meant when Nietzsche (1844-1900) said, "God is dead." He was signalling that around his point in history, the tables turned and now the burden of proof was on theoligists, not atheists. Today most philosophers will approach proofs for the existence of God with skepticism first.

Will the other debates eventually follow suit?

Comments

me me me said on May 24, 2006 10:36 PM:

come on you know the truth vector lord!