A Blistering Account of DCP's Scholarship

[_mikwut]

Hello sockpuppet,

mikwut, I think your point boils down to what is to be celebrated by concluding god does not exist.

Well my post was more of a question than a commitment to a point.

The question each of us faces each day is, what do I do with the rest of my life? We do not know if there is anything beyond death. We cannot change the past. We can enjoy or begrudgingly endure the present. We can take steps to shape the future, the future to the day we die.

Of course.

So with the present and the limited, known future, what do I do with them?

This is Camus, yes.

If I conclude atheism, then I am freed from the notions that I should live life to seek some hoped for reward in an afterlife. Should I not celebrate my liberation from notions which restricted me (but for which there is no evidence)?

No, you should consistently live with the understanding that this is it, that doesn't entail a celebration. It entails maturity if correct. Do children celebrate the Death of Santa?

We are all simply agnostics or apathetic.

I am not. I believe in trusting my basic intuitions and faculties, and that that is warranted towards my beliefs. I find apathy the worst sort of nihilism.

The ace that religionists hold in their hand over agnostics is that eternity is a damn long time. It never ends. Since we don't know, none of us knows, what do you do with the time you know you have left, until death?

We all have to trust and live in the authentic way we understand.

Those who celebrate their liberty from the delusion of atheism are drinking that Kool-Aid just as much as those who celebrate their redemption from hell from the delusion of theism (and a savior). I think it ironic either cannot appreciate the celebration of the other.

There still exists good, better and worse - growth toward truth itself isn't just a frat party it includes happiness but also despair.

For me, since I cannot know either way (theism or atheism), I hope to achieve complete apathy.

From a place of care I hope you unsuccessful.

I know many who act consistent with the apathy at which I aim.

I care not to. I respect care and engagement.

Therein lies something to celebrate, and not give a s*** what the theist believes or his hallelujahs or what an atheist thinks or celebrates. It is simply live and let live.

That isn't the same as apathy.

regards, mikwut

[_Darth J]

(b) He is not a nice guy at all, but is in fact a TBM troll who uses a faux-naif act to derail threads by multiple 'distractor' posts along the lines of "Why so much hate? You guys!" and so on, when the issue at stake is a matter of fact or logic, rather than of emotional attitude.

I used to be definitely on the side of (a), but recent stemelbow appearances are making me reconsider.

I am also becoming more persuaded that (b) is the more accurate choice. Unfortunately, (b) is a more damning indictment of what it means to be an LDS defender of the faith on the internet.

[_stemelbow]

You guys need to stop the ad hom attempts and stop trying to figure me out. Just stick with the other things. Afterall, what has gotten people all up in arms here lately? The very thing you guys do. Sadly, none of ya realize the hypocrisy.

[_Darth J]

You guys need to stop the ad hom attempts and stop trying to figure me out. Just stick with the other things. Afterall, what has gotten people all up in arms here lately? The very thing you guys do. Sadly, none of ya realize the hypocrisy.

Ad hominem is not a fallacy when a person's behavior and/or character is in fact at issue.

This board started because of the behavior of certain people in the online Mormon community. Observation of, and commentary on, the behavior and characteristics of Mormon apologists (armchair or otherwise) is a substantive topic, not a distraction from something else. LDS leaders have frequently said that the lives and behavior of its members are the biggest commentary on the Church. E.g.,

Gordon B. Hinckley

I replied that the lives of our people must become the most meaningful expression of our faith and, in fact, therefore, the symbol of our worship.

The hypocrisy is your incessant trolling and attempts to derail threads, then demanding that people stop talking about your behavior when your entire purpose on this board is to run interference whenever there is criticism of your favorite corporation that has a religion on the side (or defenders of same) that you find troubling. Your ongoing demonstration of the mentality and tactics it takes to defend the modern incarnation of Joseph's frontier tall-tales says more about the substance of Mormonism than an army of secular critics ever could.

[_stemelbow]

Ad hominem is not a fallacy when a person's behavior and/or character is in fact at issue.

Blah blah...

This board started because of the behavior of certain people in the online Mormon community. Observation of, and commentary on, the behavior and characteristics of Mormon apologists (armchair or otherwise) is a substantive topic, not a distraction from something else. LDS leaders have frequently said that the lives and behavior of its members are the biggest commentary on the Church. E.g.,

Gordon B. Hinckley

I replied that the lives of our people must become the most meaningful expression of our faith and, in fact, therefore, the symbol of our worship.

The hypocrisy is your incessant trolling and attempts to derail threads, then demanding that people stop talking about your behavior when your entire purpose on this board is to run interference whenever there is criticism of your favorite corporation that has a religion on the side (or defenders of same) that you find troubling. Your ongoing demonstration of the mentality and tactics it takes to defend the modern incarnation of Joseph's frontier tall-tales says more about the substance of Mormonism than an army of secular critics ever could.

So, you are saying no matter the topic of discussion, the issue to you to the behavior of any old Mormon you so choose to hate at the time?

What a delightful one, you!

[_MrStakhanovite]

On the parts I bolded and italicized Camus certainly believed in unfulfilled potential that Dan mentions

Yes he does, and I did point this out:

At the start of the momentum building up to the Camus abuse, Dr. Peterson seems to be (at least) vaguely familiar with Camus and his work. As near I can tell, these examples of life tragically cut short and the observation about the finality of death is some kind groping towards Camus’ demonstration of the absurd in 'The Myth of Sisyphus 'and/or 'The Stranger'. Camus does meditate and work his way through two blunt facts that create the absurd; (i) a cold mindless universe that grinds on in the face of humanity’s dream of unity and peace and (ii) the destiny of death that each person must meet. From these starting points, Camus begins to construct a hermeneutic for how a human should understand his or her place in this world.

But this isn’t the end point of Camus’ thought, it is just the beginning, it is a basic starting point for Camus, and simply stating that starting point while ignoring everything after that isn’t really being honest to Camus’ entire project.

his Nuptials clearly present that. As well as this is it then you'll die. I concede that "nothing good is coming could be argued" but Camus in the Nuptials clearly elaborates that fully and completely living in the present is how to fully appreciate life. Camus believed the reality of our condition is we live briefly, we die and then rot. He was more concerned on how we then live in this condition.

The issue I have here is that the Nuptials came about in the late 30s, Sisyphus came 5 years later and The Rebel came another 8 years after Sisyphus. Sisyphus and Rebel are the mature forms of Camus’ thought and it’s not entirely wrong for one to skip Nuptials, because Camus’ thought was still very juvenile at the time.

It is also important to point out that all of Dan’s citations of Camus come directly from The Rebel, and none of the citations move past the Metaphysical Rebellion.

Camus's Absurdity was that we are forever cursed or blessed whatever your fancy with a unavoidable paradox. We long or strive to answer questions of what is the meaning in life yet whether it be science, religion, metaphysics, etc... no answer is available. Yet we try to answer, no answer available... like Sisyphus. His main concern is in what ways of living our lives make them worth living despite the fact that their meaningless.

I can’t agree with this characterization at all. Camus’ lesson is not that life is in itself meaningless, it is meaningless if you stick to living your life and believing that the world will somehow yield to man’s wishes of eternal life (Religion) or the desire for unity (Utopian philosophies) or worse yet, succumb to the universe itself (Nihilism).

Remember, the universe isn’t absurd, humanity isn’t absurd, Camus thinks both are ontologically distinct, and the absurd rises between the relationship or confrontation of humanity and the world. To be an absurdist is to recognize that relationship and try to abandon it.

To Dan's statement that he is baffled in the celebratory aspect of atheism and he gives a messageboard members statement as an example - he is still well within Camus' thought.

I still maintain he is well outside Camus’ thought.

Camus gave clear references to Sartre's Nausea to help describe the sense of anxiety and nausea that one experiences when they begin to awaken to absurdity - going to work and coming home, repeat, repeat - this process leads to a consciousness of the absurd not a glib hoorah!

But that isn’t what is happening here. Sartre’s nausea arises when someone (Roquentin
) discovers that existence and being are extralogical, and Camus’ anxiety is part of the coming to terms with the absurdist relation, before moving past it. We have no idea if the glib anonymous atheist on an unnamed message board had gone through these stages, or even agreed with them.

It has been argued and debated regarding Camus seeming shift when he wrote the Rebel. He seems to jump or just shift from skepticism about any truth and nihilism about any meaning to promoting a view that life can be judged to be better or worse.

I have no idea what debate you are referring to, Camus was never a skeptic about truth, only about Nihilism being effective. Camus was all about axiology, his two philosophical works are predicated on it.


ETA: Lulu, your PMs are off, I can’t reply to you.

[_Darth J]

Ad hominem is not a fallacy when a person's behavior and/or character is in fact at issue.

Blah blah...

No. That is an accurate statement of the issue. However, given that your cogent arguments consist of the following:

(1) trolling/derailing;
(2) "Nuh-uh!";
(3) "You weren't there! You don't know! Nobody knows!"

it is pretty clear why you wish to characterize anything that does not accept your babbling at face value as "blah blah."

This board started because of the behavior of certain people in the online Mormon community. Observation of, and commentary on, the behavior and characteristics of Mormon apologists (armchair or otherwise) is a substantive topic, not a distraction from something else. LDS leaders have frequently said that the lives and behavior of its members are the biggest commentary on the Church. E.g.,

Gordon B. Hinckley

I replied that the lives of our people must become the most meaningful expression of our faith and, in fact, therefore, the symbol of our worship.

The hypocrisy is your incessant trolling and attempts to derail threads, then demanding that people stop talking about your behavior when your entire purpose on this board is to run interference whenever there is criticism of your favorite corporation that has a religion on the side (or defenders of same) that you find troubling. Your ongoing demonstration of the mentality and tactics it takes to defend the modern incarnation of Joseph's frontier tall-tales says more about the substance of Mormonism than an army of secular critics ever could.

So, you are saying no matter the topic of discussion, the issue to you to the behavior of any old Mormon you so choose to hate at the time?

What a delightful one, you!

No, and your question returns us to Chap's question. Phrased less charitably than what Chap said, either your reading comprehension is comparable to that of a brain-damaged orangutan, or you are spectacularly disingenuous. The behavior of Mormon apologists and/or internet warriors is a topic over and above the substantive apologetics on behalf of Mormonism. I've got two years' worth of posts on this board addressing both.

Your desire to frame any and all criticism of Mormonism, Mormon apologetics, and the behavior of Mormon apologists as "hate" is simply a particularly ham-handed way of playing the persecution card. And the persecution card is only played for two reasons: in attempt to silence criticism, and in attempt for defenders of the faith to absolve themselves of any responsibility for their own insipid behavior.

[_stemelbow]

Phrased less charitably than what Chap said, either your reading comprehension is comparable to that of a brain-damaged orangutan, or you are spectacularly disingenuous.

Oh please.

Your black and white thinking is a troublesome spectacle. DJ to his "enemy" (I guess enemies run rampant in his mind), "You're stupider than any known human has ever been or your a bigger liar than any known human."

That's how he goes about winning arguments it seems. Its pointless garbage. he wants to whine about the behavior of LDS folks all the while he acts like a jackass. When someone questions his tactics he has nothing but a repeat--"You're stupider than any known human has ever been or your a bigger liar than any known human." Sometimes put in different words.

You have nothing. You complain about that which you do and don't even realize it.

[_EAllusion]

That was an excellent breakdown of Dr. Peterson's quotemining. Good job.

I think the next step would be to discuss the state of metaethical theory, which is for all practical purposes exclusively secular, talk about some examples of metaethical theories in a little detail, and point out the flaws with divine command theory. That's a lot of work if you want to write as formally as you did here Stak, but it would be a nice companion piece for your audience. It would something I, and I'm sure many others, would link to illustrate the answer to the question, "What's wrong with DCP's apologetics?" time and time again.

[_mikwut]

Hi Stak,

But this isn’t the end point of Camus’ thought, it is just the beginning, it is a basic starting point for Camus, and simply stating that starting point while ignoring everything after that isn’t really being honest to Camus’ entire project.

Oh I understand. I am suggesting Dan wasn't representing Camus' entire project. He was utilizing part of Camus' assumptions regarding the absurd to demonstrate a point. An assumption I think always remains.

The issue I have here is that the Nuptials came about in the late 30s, Sisyphus came 5 years later and The Rebel came another 8 years after Sisyphus. Sisyphus and Rebel are the mature forms of Camus’ thought and it’s not entirely wrong for one to skip Nuptials, because Camus’ thought was still very juvenile at the time.

It is also important to point out that all of Dan’s citations of Camus come directly from The Rebel, and none of the citations move past the Metaphysical Rebellion.

Yes your correct. I am just pointing out he never abandons his initial assumptions or what makes up the absurd throughout all his writing. His projects is always one of given the absurd what are the consequences for our existence and lives? He explores that project throughout all his writings.

mikwut wrote:
Camus's Absurdity was that we are forever cursed or blessed whatever your fancy with a unavoidable paradox. We long or strive to answer questions of what is the meaning in life yet whether it be science, religion, metaphysics, etc... no answer is available. Yet we try to answer, no answer available... like Sisyphus. His main concern is in what ways of living our lives make them worth living despite the fact that their meaningless.

I can’t agree with this characterization at all. Camus’ lesson is not that life is in itself meaningless, it is meaningless if you stick to living your life and believing that the world will somehow yield to man’s wishes of eternal life (Religion) or the desire for unity (Utopian philosophies) or worse yet, succumb to the universe itself (Nihilism).

Remember, the universe isn’t absurd, humanity isn’t absurd, Camus thinks both are ontologically distinct, and the absurd rises between the relationship or confrontation of humanity and the world. To be an absurdist is to recognize that relationship and try to abandon it.

I was originally drawing from two sources, The Cambridge Companion to Camus, and my own courses taken nearly twenty years ago. But, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says the same thing I stated here, it is from the article on Camus:

The essential paradox arising in Camus's philosophy concerns his central notion of absurdity. Accepting the Aristotelian idea that philosophy begins in wonder, Camus argues that human beings cannot escape asking the question, “What is the meaning of existence?” Camus, however, denies that there is an answer to this question, and rejects every scientific, teleological, metaphysical, or human-created end that would provide an adequate answer. Thus, while accepting that human beings inevitably seek to understand life's purpose, Camus takes the skeptical position that the natural world, the universe, and the human enterprise remain silent about any such purpose. Since existence itself has no meaning, we must learn to bear an irresolvable emptiness. This paradoxical situation, then, between our impulse to ask ultimate questions and the impossibility of achieving any adequate answer, is what Camus calls the absurd. Camus's philosophy of the absurd explores the consequences arising from this basic paradox.

To Dan's statement that he is baffled in the celebratory aspect of atheism and he gives a messageboard members statement as an example - he is still well within Camus' thought.

I still maintain he is well outside Camus’ thought.

I above bolded the portion of an irresolvable emptiness. There isn't celebration, but a change of a way or attitude that one must look at our existence in the most healthy way. That maturity itself I guess could be celebrated if an individual so develops but the grand understanding of the meaninglessness of remains. Our inner ability of how to respond is our responsibility but it doesn't make the universe meaningful. Sisyphus doesn't celebrate his plight, ever. He does rebel in his plight.

But that isn’t what is happening here. Sartre’s nausea arises when someone (Roquentin
) discovers that existence and being are extralogical, and Camus’ anxiety is part of the coming to terms with the absurdist relation, before moving past it. We have no idea if the glib anonymous atheist on an unnamed message board had gone through these stages, or even agreed with them.

Here is where we slightly dis agree, it could be semantical. I don't believe Camus ever suggests we can "move past" the absurd. The absurd simply is (and Dan utilized that portion of Camus that always remains, in his quotes). Reason demands the absurd - it is the only "reasonable" conclusion. It is the truly philosophical portion of Camus' thought. We agree the remainder is subjective and meta-logical. All I was pointing out was Camus utilized examples from Sartre that are consistent with my labels.

I have no idea what debate you are referring to, Camus was never a skeptic about truth, only about Nihilism being effective. Camus was all about axiology, his two philosophical works are predicated on it.

It is mentioned in the Companion and here is another quote from SEP (from part 4 Murder and Rebellion):

At first blush, however, the book's subject seems to have more of a historical theme than a philosophical one. “The purpose of this essay is … to face the reality of the present, which is logical crime, and to examine meticulously the arguments by which it is justified; it is an attempt to understand the times in which we live. One might think that a period which, in a space of fifty years, uproots, enslaves, or kills seventy million human beings should be condemned out of hand. But its culpability must still be understood” (R, 3).

Scholars disagree over whether the shift to such questions represents an entirely new philosophy or is continuous with The Myth of Sisyphus.

The issue is not resolved by the explanations that Camus gives for his shift in the first pages of The Rebel—which range from the example of the Sisyphean individual confronting absurdity to the mass murders of the middle third of the twentieth century. “The age of negation,” he says, once fostered a concern for suicide, but now in “the age of ideologies, we must examine our position in relation to murder” (R, 4). Have the “ages” changed in the less than ten years between the two books, or have Camus's interests changed? He may be right to say that whether murder has rational foundations is “the question implicit in the blood and strife of this century,” but in changing his focus from suicide to murder, it is also clear that Camus is changing his optic from the individual to our social belonging.

I suggest it is continuous. If Dan agrees he is consistent in utilizing quotes that simply refer to a consistent theme found throughout all of Camus' writings.

I do agree with you that Dan could have been more selective with his quotes. Earlier sources would have been less ambiguous.
Regards, mikwut