Is arealism / anti-realism a worthy approach to existence?
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
Would not all departing from that state of being
be accurately known as arealists?
Really, you're born, you're fed, clothed, nurtured,
and protected from harm, girded in that which is
the nature of being ...
And as you mature ...
The questions begin to arise ...
Where did I come from, why am I here, who am I,
where am I going, what's life all about, what's the
meaning of life ...?
And from a realistic viewpoint, the naturalistic answers
are your mom & dad, a result of sexual activity, a being,
unknown, life is what you make it, and the meaning of
life is to find the meaning of life ...
And in all of that, pray tell, would not realism be present?
Now, interject the supernatural, and what do you have but
arealism ...
So, henceforth and forevermore, atheists shall be known as
realists, and all the deviations from realism shall be referred
to as arealism ...
What do you think? Isn't life all about what you think about
it rather than de facto acceptance of the way those before
you thought about it? If so, if life is all about what you think
about it, why not think about it in a different way? Why not
realism and arealism, for a change, for a clearer and more
accurate way of viewing our one and only sure chance on
earth?
- - -
Some/many arealists make many claims about and attacks
upon realists via the venue of arealism or anti-realism or
arealist constructs which label realism and realists as evil
or in league with the devil, lost souls doomed to lives of
futility and despair, destined for immortal torment or
oblivion.
Some/many arealists use God as "the one and only" a priori
answer for all unknowns, and on that basis alone, attack
realism and realists from a position that realists lack that
answer for all unknowns. To those types of arealists, the fact
that their answer for all unknowns is 'make believe' or merely
convenient and presumptive and non-evidential makes no
difference. They have "the one and only" a priori answer
for all unknowns, and by God, they're bound and determined
to hold that over realists' heads.
Some/many arealists use God as the equivalent of good, and
on that basis alone attack realism and realists from a posi-
tion that realists lack that good known as God.
Some/many arealists use God as requisite for immortality,
attacking realists and realism because there is no immortality
construct tied into realism.
I could continue, but suffice to say, some / many arealists find
plenty of grounds for using their arealism against realism and
realists.
To put it plainly and simply, if an arealist views God and all
associated beliefs as 1 and Truth (optimum good) and all
beliefs opposite their optimum good as -1 and sinful and false
(optimum bad), therein resides their methodology for trying to
associate realists / realism with evil / untruth, rejecting realism
on that basis alone.
As for arealism promising immortality, is that playing
fair? After all, realists have nothing but reality to offer, but
most arealists assert that there is heaven awaiting if ______
[fill in claims here].
Also, speaking of playing fair, many arealists assert that there
is eternal damnation awaiting if ________ [fill in claims here],
and you better ________ [fill in claims here] or else.
Most arealists assert that they've got a friendly buddy one
can talk to (via prayer) and that buddy just happens to be
the supreme be-all end-all of the entire universe and all
realists have to offer is reality and human companionship,
so ...
To best achieve edification and enlightenment, perhaps it
would be well-advised for arealists to consider dismissing
their claimed Truths and promises and claims of answers
for all unknowns and their efforts to brainwash / indoctrinate
their children (and every child they can get their hands on)
into God fear / belief, valuing the advantages and veritability
of realism over the imaginations and deceit required for
arealism ...
- - -
~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
(Freethinking Realist Exploring Expressive Liberty,
Openness, Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
http://www.ghg.net/phf
~~~
Sphere
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
> IF the default state of being is realism ...
>
> Would not all departing from that state of being
> be accurately known as arealists?
>
Um... The 'default' state of being
doesn't care about realism.
...
--
All conditions are impermanent.
All conditions are imperfect.
All which is held is without self.
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
news:3E399EDD...@all.com...
>
>
> Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
> > IF the default state of being is realism ...
> >
> > Would not all departing from that state of being
> > be accurately known as arealists?
> >
>
> Um... The 'default' state of being
> doesn't care about realism.
Is that an arealistic or anti-realistic view?
Sphere
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
> "Sphere" <no...@all.com> wrote in message
> news:3E399EDD...@all.com...
>
>>
>>Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
>>
>>>IF the default state of being is realism ...
>>>
>>>Would not all departing from that state of being
>>>be accurately known as arealists?
>>>
>>
>>Um... The 'default' state of being
>>doesn't care about realism.
>
>
> Is that an arealistic or anti-realistic view?
Well. Assuming I've guessed right about
what rocks think on the matter, the default
state of being doesn't care about that
either.
lblissett
"Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" <p...@ghg.net> wrote in message
news:3e399...@news.ghg.net...
>
> So, henceforth and forevermore, atheists shall be known as
> realists, and all the deviations from realism shall be referred
> to as arealism ...
>
> What do you think? Isn't life all about what you think about
> it rather than de facto acceptance of the way those before
> you thought about it? If so, if life is all about what you think
> about it, why not think about it in a different way? Why not
> realism and arealism, for a change, for a clearer and more
> accurate way of viewing our one and only sure chance on
> earth?
Because it's not clear and it's not accurate. It's contrived and
oversimplistic. There is no concrete agreement about what is real and what
is not; furthermore, there is no agreement on what "real" actually means.
Sure, it works well for tables and chairs and horses, and we already have
clear language with which to talk about those things. It also works well for
unicorns and faeries and dragons, and we have language with which to talk
about those things, too. There is a gray-area when it comes to gods, angels,
etc., but this isn't going to be solved or changed simply by calling those
things "areal" or the people who believe in them "arealists". Furthermore,
this vague dichotomy you're proposing opens up a lot of other problems. Are
electrons real? No one has ever seen or touched an electron. What about
words and numbers? These things all have a manifest "real" element -- that
is, material existence -- but there is something unreal about them, too,
namely meaning. And what about time and space? Neither can be observed,
measured, or touched in themselves, so are they "real" or "areal"?
It seems like your main argument here is against God and religion. So
why don't you just say so? If you want to make an argument against how
religious people talk about things, go ahead, but why do you have to invent
some useless change in language to do it? It's going to create more problems
for you than it solves, trust me.
Sphere
lblissett wrote:
> "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" <p...@ghg.net> wrote in message
> news:3e399...@news.ghg.net...
>
>>So, henceforth and forevermore, atheists shall be known as
>>realists, and all the deviations from realism shall be referred
>>to as arealism ...
>>
>>What do you think? Isn't life all about what you think about
>>it rather than de facto acceptance of the way those before
>>you thought about it? If so, if life is all about what you think
>>about it, why not think about it in a different way? Why not
>>realism and arealism, for a change, for a clearer and more
>>accurate way of viewing our one and only sure chance on
>>earth?
>
>
> Because it's not clear and it's not accurate. It's contrived and
> oversimplistic. There is no concrete agreement about what is real and what
> is not; furthermore, there is no agreement on what "real" actually means.
> Sure, it works well for tables and chairs and horses, and we already have
Tables, chairs, and horses are areal.
> clear language with which to talk about those things. It also works well for
> unicorns and faeries and dragons, and we have language with which to talk
> about those things, too. There is a gray-area when it comes to gods, angels,
> etc., but this isn't going to be solved or changed simply by calling those
> things "areal" or the people who believe in them "arealists". Furthermore,
> this vague dichotomy you're proposing opens up a lot of other problems. Are
> electrons real? No one has ever seen or touched an electron. What about
> words and numbers? These things all have a manifest "real" element -- that
> is, material existence -- but there is something unreal about them, too,
> namely meaning. And what about time and space? Neither can be observed,
> measured, or touched in themselves, so are they "real" or "areal"?
>
>
> It seems like your main argument here is against God and religion. So
> why don't you just say so? If you want to make an argument against how
> religious people talk about things, go ahead, but why do you have to invent
> some useless change in language to do it? It's going to create more problems
> for you than it solves, trust me.
>
>
>
>
Crazyalec
> would be well-advised for arealists to consider dismissing
> their claimed Truths and promises and claims of answers
> for all unknowns and their efforts to brainwash / indoctrinate
> their children (and every child they can get their hands on)
> into God fear / belief, valuing the advantages and veritability
> of realism over the imaginations and deceit required for
> arealism ...
Well then, why do you think they brainwash children?
Why do you think they make women a "baby-making" machines?
Why do you think they create a set of laws, where its illegal to "waste
sperm" ?
There is only one answer.That is what keep the business of religion to stay
in business.
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
>
>
> Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
> > "Sphere" <no...@all.com> wrote in message
> > news:3E399EDD...@all.com...
> >
> >>
> >>Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
> >>
> >>>IF the default state of being is realism ...
> >>>
> >>>Would not all departing from that state of being
> >>>be accurately known as arealists?
> >>>
> >>
> >>Um... The 'default' state of being
> >>doesn't care about realism.
> >
> >
> > Is that an arealistic or anti-realistic view?
>
> Well. Assuming I've guessed right about
> what rocks think on the matter, the default
> state of being doesn't care about that
> either.
Well, actually I was referring to sentient beings
there, specifically humans being that humans
are the only ones we can communicate with
about philosophy.
~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
(Freethinking Realist Exploring Expressive Liberty,
Openness, Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
http://www.ghg.net/phf
~~~
>
Sphere
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
> "Sphere" <no...@all.com> wrote in message news:3E39A323...@all.com...
>>Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
>>>"Sphere" <no...@all.com> wrote in message
>>>>Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>IF the default state of being is realism ...
>>>>>Would not all departing from that state of being
>>>>>be accurately known as arealists?
>>>>
>>>>Um... The 'default' state of being
>>>>doesn't care about realism.
>>>
>>>Is that an arealistic or anti-realistic view?
>>
>>Well. Assuming I've guessed right about
>>what rocks think on the matter, the default
>>state of being doesn't care about that
>>either.
>
>
> Well, actually I was referring to sentient beings
> there, specifically humans being that humans
> are the only ones we can communicate with
> about philosophy.
>
The default state for humans would
be completely wordless, and devoid
of any concepts which require words
to express. In other words, they'd
agree with the rocks.
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
>
> Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote ...
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Well, actually I was referring to sentient beings
> > there, specifically humans being that humans
> > are the only ones we can communicate with
> > about philosophy.
> >
>
> The default state for humans would
> be completely wordless, and devoid
> of any concepts which require words
> to express. In other words, they'd
> agree with the rocks.
By that philosophy, you're claiming the default state is
non-verbal, but humans are an ever-changing entity for
a short while, and philosophy only matters during a per-
iod of time in which issues like arealism, anti-realism,
and the like have meaning ... a particular human has a
pre-sentient pre-verbal period, and emerges on various
levels to a soft point at which philosophy has meaning.
Thereafter, for an indeterminate period, philosophy
has meaning until that human ceases to function (with,
of course, the respite from philosophy being the times
at which the human is involved in activities apart from
thinking about such matters).
At that soft point, the default state is realism, for response
to real data is the only starting point from which to spring.
Only thereafter (much later, as for ability to digest and rea-
son) are the imaginary beings / forces / places thrust upon
most human beings in this plain of existence. At that point,
those human beings so influenced become arealists (or
anti-realists) to the degree they're exposed to (and believe
in) the imaginary beings / forces / places as realities.
Put another way, if your mom constantly played with an
imaginary ball, tossing it back and forth, admiring it, reading
to it, petting it, squeezing it, etc... chances are you would
mimic her activity and would grow up believing in the reality
of the imaginary ball. If that imaginary ball was reinforced
in society, you would be tempted to believe in it your entire
life. You might, some day, become an aballist or an agnostic
about "the ball", but until that day arrived, the likelihood is
that you would be a believer in the imaginary ball and would
likewise "play" with the magic ball in front of your kids, pas-
sing the meme down to succeeding generations. I call that
belief in the imaginary ball arealism / anti-realism, for there's
nothing but imagination to support its existence.
God(s)? Same deal, though they're not nearly as much fun
as an imaginary ball. (-:
Sphere
No. At that point the 'default' state
has been socially constructed. I'm
perfectly willing to call this socially
constructed reality 'real', for we cannot
know any other reality, but this is not
what you mean when using the word
'realism'. It is clear that you are
positing some sort of fixed 'objective'
reality.
> to real data is the only starting point from which to spring.
> Only thereafter (much later, as for ability to digest and rea-
> son) are the imaginary beings / forces / places thrust upon
> most human beings in this plain of existence. At that point,
> those human beings so influenced become arealists (or
> anti-realists) to the degree they're exposed to (and believe
> in) the imaginary beings / forces / places as realities.
>
> Put another way, if your mom constantly played with an
> imaginary ball, tossing it back and forth, admiring it, reading
> to it, petting it, squeezing it, etc... chances are you would
> mimic her activity and would grow up believing in the reality
> of the imaginary ball. If that imaginary ball was reinforced
> in society, you would be tempted to believe in it your entire
> life. You might, some day, become an aballist or an agnostic
> about "the ball", but until that day arrived, the likelihood is
> that you would be a believer in the imaginary ball and would
> likewise "play" with the magic ball in front of your kids, pas-
> sing the meme down to succeeding generations. I call that
> belief in the imaginary ball arealism / anti-realism, for there's
> nothing but imagination to support its existence.
>
> God(s)? Same deal, though they're not nearly as much fun
> as an imaginary ball. (-:
The imaginary ball is just as real as
a nation.
Gary Rockley
Next Question.
Oh, you were serious.
Let's see. You begin with a premise ...
> IF the default state of being is realism ...
... and then assume it's fact without any supporting arguments.
You need to define realism. I note your later post suggesting
sentience is a (new) required element.
Consider that we presume animals to lack sentience but they sure seem
to display qualities that indicate a perception of reality. How would
an autistic savant be defined in your worldview?
You may want to read up on Nihilism as a starting point before an
attempt at defining reality.
Gary
lblissett
"Sphere" <no...@all.com> wrote in message news:3E39AFA...@all.com...
>
>
> lblissett wrote:
> > "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" <p...@ghg.net> wrote in message
> > news:3e399...@news.ghg.net...
> >
> >>So, henceforth and forevermore, atheists shall be known as
> >>realists, and all the deviations from realism shall be referred
> >>to as arealism ...
> >>
> >>What do you think? Isn't life all about what you think about
> >>it rather than de facto acceptance of the way those before
> >>you thought about it? If so, if life is all about what you think
> >>about it, why not think about it in a different way? Why not
> >>realism and arealism, for a change, for a clearer and more
> >>accurate way of viewing our one and only sure chance on
> >>earth?
> >
> >
> > Because it's not clear and it's not accurate. It's contrived and
> > oversimplistic. There is no concrete agreement about what is real and
what
> > is not; furthermore, there is no agreement on what "real" actually
means.
> > Sure, it works well for tables and chairs and horses, and we already
have
>
>
> Tables, chairs, and horses are areal.
Depending on your definition of "real", yes. An argument could be
made that tables, chairs and horses aren't "real". Which is exactly why this
real/areal distinction is stupid. It's just a simple sugar-coating over a
complex and messy issue.
Sphere
Heheh.