The Number of the Beast

Regi:

Me:  >>I’m not trying to convince Objectivists to become Catholics – or even that we’re something more than the scum of the earth.<<
 
You:  >>Do not suppose everyone who disagrees with you thinks you are the scum of the earth.<<

I try not to be that uncharitable.  I simply wanted to make clear that I have no interest in changing anyone’s mind regarding Catholics or Catholicism.

You:  >>Human beings are provided only one means of gaining knowledge, the ability to reason. Anything that is not learned by reason from the evidence is superstition. To the extent your choices and behavior are determined by irrational beliefs, you will be acting contrary to reality, which at best is pointless, but more likely self-destructive.<<

You and I have no argument here.

I suspect where the division lies is that my reason has lead me to axiomatic conclusions that are different from yours.  So long as what I reason from those axioms is in accord with my experience of reality (assuming that I am not mentally ill and so am experiencing reality as it objectively is), how is the charge of irrationality justified?  Maybe I am in error regarding an axiom, but who can say so with authority as long as they are not falsified, and what I deduce from them is consistent with reality?  Only someone who has a complete knowledge of reality, which no human being has or will ever have.

Where am I wrong?

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Regi:

Me: >>Ah yes, the old cannibal canard.<<

You: >>That is extremely disingenuous. I specifically referred to the doctrine of transubstantiation. I never mentioned (or even thought of) the straw man you threw up about cannibalism, although I can certainly understand how that charge might be laid. I was referring to the superstition that the wine and host are literally changed into actual blood and flesh.<<

Now, Regi, my friend, who’s being disingenuous?  That “superstition” is the rationale for the Eucharist, which I do believe you have previously equated to cannibalism elsewhere.  Am I mistaken?  Did you have something else in mind when you questioned the “decency” of the doctrine of transubstantiation?  If so, I apologize.

Regards,

Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

For the kids out there:  The Eucharist (or communion, as it is sometimes known) is a re-creation of the Last Supper, which Catholics celebrate at every mass.  Some people who find Catholicism to be extremely disagreeable state that this communion is cannibalism.  The basis for their charge is that the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation states that the bread and wine a Catholic receives at communion has been transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ – and eating human flesh is cannibalism, right?  Well, not exactly.

Eating human flesh is certainly cannibalism if it is in the form of flesh.  At the Eucharist the body and blood of Christ are not in the form of flesh; they are in the form of bread and wine.  Now perhaps you’re thinking, well so what, the symbolism of cannibalism is still there?  No, it’s not.  The issue of form is paramount.  If it weren’t, we would all qualify as cannibals if we do not account for form.

 
Let me give you an example:  You’re a tree hugger who likes to commune with nature.  So you go up to the wilds of Alaska and try to hug a few bears.  One takes exception to your trans-species demonstration of affection and eats you.  As the bear digests you, you are transformed into the bear.  I then come along, shoot the bear, and later that night grill up a nice juicy bear steak.  As I dine on that, I am eating some part of you that has become the bear, but you are not in the form of your own person, but that of a bear steak.  Because of the FORM of my meal, no sensible person would accuse me of being a cannibal.

Jeremy asks why he would want to examine [his] own primary postulate and prove that “Existence exists”. My suggestion is based on your 21 April post, where you suggest Bill stops using God as the basis for confronting Objectivism, when he cannot prove the existence of such a being. On that argument, the lack of proof for “Existence Exists” should also disqualify it as a fundamental assumption.

Nicholas: “Any attempt to prove something assumes …2) that an external reality exists and is knowable.”

Yes, one would have to assume what one is trying to prove. And that’s my point. If the term “existence” is understood to mean or refer to “an external reality that exists and is knowable”, you’ve already taken on board several assumptions about the nature of existence. In that case, the term cannot be a fundamental primary, because it depends on some preceding metaphysical and epistemological assumptions.

And if existence is not the bedrock fact that Rand claims it is, maybe there does exist an uncaused cause, like God. Or maybe not. But a clear view of the subject requires one to lay all possible assumptions on the table.

Brendan

I have a hunch that I'd better get around to it before post #666.

Rodney: You suggested: >>You should hang around at least until I've answered.<< I will, and I look forward to it.

Jeremy: “I can "prove" "existence exists" to myself and accept it, as that's the simplest (most logical) answer to the air I breath, the food I eat, the books I read and the TV I watch.”

Sure you can point to the existence of an external world by reference to your experience of objects that exist apart from your own self. That’s what I would do. But such a procedure will not produce an axiomatic concept. First, in appealing to your experience, you’re deriving the concept existence from other facts. The concept existence thus becomes a derivative, rather than a primary. Refer Rand’s claim: “An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts.”

Second, in appealing to your experience as the basis for the concept of existence, you’re appealing to the primacy of consciousness.

Brendan