First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
A freedom of choice over who we love?
Posted 6/14/11

st1rn3r wrote:

As a Romantic, I deny the validity of the use of the scientific method as an epistemology suitable for beliefs and attitudes that are inherently subjective. Not all things in life require objective validation, or the scientific rigor of independent analyses. Personally, I believe epistemology to be second to ethics.

In the end, nothing appears to have objective value. I fail to see why, therefor, we should choose to assign subjective value to the sort of reductionist, cynical thinking that leads one to devalue those cultural practices which best separate humans from other animals (i.e., materially illogical practices based on ritual that is not directly related to observations of causal effect)
. Without an objective backing, it is no more logical to prefer science to feeling in the first place.
Doesn't matter, for I too had anticipated your denial in my second paragraph:

And before some of you deny this argument, please keep in mind of your own human cognitive bias known as loss aversion. While your arrogance is causing more recklessness in your personal relationship with others, yet here you are denying the fact of your psychosocial loss over your predisposed copy of delusion on choice.

And when there's an objective moral study for ethics, your denial is also moot.

Also, when certain social animals do have their own cultures. What makes you think that humans as social animals ourselves are any different?

Finally, your whole argument was moot, when you ended up denying both objective empirical facts and subjective psychosocial experiences. Therefore you're not a romantic, when you're arguing like a nihilist.
39209 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 6/14/11 , edited 6/14/11

DomFortress wrote:


st1rn3r wrote:

As a Romantic, I deny the validity of the use of the scientific method as an epistemology suitable for beliefs and attitudes that are inherently subjective. Not all things in life require objective validation, or the scientific rigor of independent analyses. Personally, I believe epistemology to be second to ethics.

In the end, nothing appears to have objective value. I fail to see why, therefor, we should choose to assign subjective value to the sort of reductionist, cynical thinking that leads one to devalue those cultural practices which best separate humans from other animals (i.e., materially illogical practices based on ritual that is not directly related to observations of causal effect)
. Without an objective backing, it is no more logical to prefer science to feeling in the first place.
Doesn't matter, for I too had anticipated your denial in my second paragraph:

And before some of you deny this argument, please keep in mind of your own human cognitive bias known as loss aversion. While your arrogance is causing more recklessness in your personal relationship with others, yet here you are denying the fact of your psychosocial loss over your predisposed copy of delusion on choice.

And when there's an objective moral study for ethics, your denial is also moot.

Also, when certain social animals do have their own cultures. What makes you think that humans as social animals ourselves are any different?

I don't need to explain myself analytically; I am human-biased, and I need no more justification than one does to assume that there exists anything outside of the mind in the first place. That is, I argue that it is necessary and proper to assume human superiority in order to live within society, and that our implicit acceptance of even the most mundane aspects of human culture or values implies an acceptance of this principle.


Finally, your whole argument was moot, when you ended up denying both objective empirical facts and subjective psychosocial experiences. Therefore you're not a romantic, when you're arguing like a nihilist.

I'm arguing as an anti-enlightenment Romantic, not as a "romantic" as in the movie stereotype. And my argument is certainly not moot, since the only argument that you've made is one that presupposes its conclusions in its premise -- that is, you presuppose that it is possible for humans to be lesser than animals in the first place, that the scope of scientific empiricism as a form of epistemology necessarily stretches to all possible realms of conception (regardless of who is doing the conceiving), and that to be scientifically "correct" is superior to being emotionally fulfilled. I dispute all of these claims, so using them as a basis for an argument against me is circular logic.

That said, you make a point when you say that my rejection of empirical fact is more reminiscent of nihilism. Certainly that is correct; perhaps I should have qualified that I was using nihilism as a basis for an argument for my position, as an illustration of how your own presumed world view does not have a fitting argument against mine?
284 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / ιη тнє ¢ℓσυ∂ѕ.
Offline
Posted 6/14/11
You can't choose who ever you fall in love with, but you can decide if you're gonna accept it or run away from it.
Posted 6/15/11 , edited 6/15/11

st1rn3r wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


st1rn3r wrote:

As a Romantic, I deny the validity of the use of the scientific method as an epistemology suitable for beliefs and attitudes that are inherently subjective. Not all things in life require objective validation, or the scientific rigor of independent analyses. Personally, I believe epistemology to be second to ethics.

In the end, nothing appears to have objective value. I fail to see why, therefor, we should choose to assign subjective value to the sort of reductionist, cynical thinking that leads one to devalue those cultural practices which best separate humans from other animals (i.e., materially illogical practices based on ritual that is not directly related to observations of causal effect)
. Without an objective backing, it is no more logical to prefer science to feeling in the first place.
Doesn't matter, for I too had anticipated your denial in my second paragraph:

And before some of you deny this argument, please keep in mind of your own human cognitive bias known as loss aversion. While your arrogance is causing more recklessness in your personal relationship with others, yet here you are denying the fact of your psychosocial loss over your predisposed copy of delusion on choice.

And when there's an objective moral study for ethics, your denial is also moot.

Also, when certain social animals do have their own cultures. What makes you think that humans as social animals ourselves are any different?

I don't need to explain myself analytically; I am human-biased, and I need no more justification than one does to assume that there exists anything outside of the mind in the first place. That is, I argue that it is necessary and proper to assume human superiority in order to live within society, and that our implicit acceptance of even the most mundane aspects of human culture or values implies an acceptance of this principle.


Finally, your whole argument was moot, when you ended up denying both objective empirical facts and subjective psychosocial experiences. Therefore you're not a romantic, when you're arguing like a nihilist.

I'm arguing as an anti-enlightenment Romantic, not as a "romantic" as in the movie stereotype. And my argument is certainly not moot, since the only argument that you've made is one that presupposes its conclusions in its premise -- that is, you presuppose that it is possible for humans to be lesser than animals in the first place, that the scope of scientific empiricism as a form of epistemology necessarily stretches to all possible realms of conception (regardless of who is doing the conceiving), and that to be scientifically "correct" is superior to being emotionally fulfilled. I dispute all of these claims, so using them as a basis for an argument against me is circular logic.

That said, you make a point when you say that my rejection of empirical fact is more reminiscent of nihilism. Certainly that is correct; perhaps I should have qualified that I was using nihilism as a basis for an argument for my position, as an illustration of how your own presumed world view does not have a fitting argument against mine?
"Human superiority" over animals? When the fact is the human specie is just another unique evolutionary branch of animals, within the Earth's biosphere. Your narrative on human arrogance is but an irrational superstition of self-righteousness. That's nonetheless driving the human society further into societal collapse, simply by us unwittingly living well beyond our means. Therefore when the multidisciplinary science of biology, sociology, anthropology, and behavior economics clearly place humans as just another specie of social animals. It's your arrogance and nihilism that's got nothing to prove. I mean, when you can't even prove the existence of romantic love using nihilism, your whole argument as yourself being a nihilist is thereby self-defeating.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.