Calling for Great Debate: DominionSeraph

DominionSeraph wroteI don't know what changes you have in mind, but I would be more than happy to entertain them. It is my opinion that Hume really is the father of this issue. It pervades the thinking in the 21st century. We must understand if he is right or wrong and why.I bring it up because in another thread (which I respectfully concede is not the place to hash it out) you made a simillar comment that knowingly or not, invoked Humean principles.You said, And I paraphrase... 'Get this religious crap out of the science forum'.Now my position is that the issue being discussed there (free will vs determinism) is not simply a scientific issue. The issue of free will or predetermination is patently metaphysical if we really seek to understand it. But Hume's position as a presupposition is that we cannot invoke the metaphysical. That tells me that many are discussing things that they admit beforehand are undiscussable. What would be the point?I'm really not sure what you want to debate... I do not want to address the 'free will' debate now, as I want to deal with this area first. Until we can understand what tools are legitimate for discovery, we will never be able to begin a discussion on the other.I would love to discuss this in detail as a debate in which we are seriouly and respectfully seeking the proper conclusions that can be reached. And that is the point... The Humean principle's presuppose there is no way to come to proper conclusions. And that beg's the question... how did he arrive at that conclusion, if conclusions cannot be arrived at?He clearly invokes a metaphysical argument. If you do not understand why, I would love to discuss it in detail.How would we procede without Hume? How would you state his position differently, that metaphysics is meaningless to the discovery of answers to these questions?

I said: To make it as clear as possible, what I am calling for is a discussion on the assumptions that I think consume the dominant opinion today.Kant, Nietzche, and Hume are all accepted without knowing them by name by millions. These rationalists were quite brilliant, and their philosophies have become unexamined in the postmodern ara. It's as though the issue is settled and we have moved on further into the pathos. But if these arguments are false, then the ether into which we travel in our minds is getting more incorrect all the time.I think that there are enormous problems with the conclusions of these men, and I invite an overt discussion as to why. If you can keep an open mind, and do not have predetermined reasons for doubting all reasoning but 'these pillars' of philosophical thought, you may be suprised to learn how simple some solutions are.But I can't explain something your not willing to hear. I am willing to hear anything. What do you say?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

DominionSeraph, let's slow down a little here. I sense some nerves being frazzled again, and that has happened a lot here at EVC. In the past I contributed much to that end.There are a lot of very intelligent people participating in this forum who have put a lot of thought into their positions. So when a disagreement comes along, and an unsensitive correction comes their way, it can be very offensive. I am trying very hard to respect the intelligence of everyone at this point.We must be able to discuss the issues addressed in this forum as openly as we can because the outcomes have tremendous implications for us individually as well as for the community at large.We must remember that it is often the smartest people in the world who lead us (by manipulation or ignorance) like lemmings, off the edge of cliff after cliff. Let's all try to put our pride aside and attempt to find some common ground.I have no illusions that that is an easy task...You said:Hume may be dead, but his ideas are not. It would be accurate to say that his ideas preceded him, but he really defined certain ideas in a way that is very difficult to unwind and examine objectively.Most people do not even know how to challenge such an argument as Hume's, so they end up accepting it and moving on towards another cliff.That is why I said:What you said is the Humean argument (stated differently). That is why I wanted to explore the philosophical framework of this vein of thinking. I want you to understand why it is a logical contradiction that cannot be true.Can we procede in the great debate thread? If not, feel free to send me a private email (address is in my profile) and we can discuss it without fear of public scorn.ps. And ignore my avatar, I really need to find one that does not suggest that I am mocking anyone!(a picture speaks a thousand words you know...)

A true seeker deos not worry about image indeed!