"David G. McDivitt" wrote:
>
> Reality is a logical construct having implied context and significance.
> People are either in sync on that level or they are not. When people are
> not in sync should we beat them and force them to be? Do their thoughts
> have any validity at all? Yes. Their thoughts have validity to them just
> as our thoughts have validity to each of us individually.
>
> There is no reality unless there is authority to enforce it whether
> intellectually, socially, morally, or scientifically. Use of reality
> statements in a debate, rather than recital of logical premises to
> support an opinion, are in effect calls for authority, only, and non
> intellectual.
This is really rather fatuous posturing. "There is no reality"? I don't
see gravity, for example, as being inforced by intellectual, social,
moral, or scientific authority. It just IS, its inherent in the
substrate of reality that cannot be denied by any amount of subjectivist
hand waving and denial. Similarly, the other subatomic forces and
physical constants of the universe ARE, they exist irrespective of your
desire to not believe in them. Since they define how matter is formed
and interacts, they define all chemical processes as immutable reality,
which includes biological processes like photosynthesis, reproduction,
and evolution, as well as neural processes of highly complex biological
constructs like the human mind.
I don't deny that subjectivists have tried for thousands of years to
deny that reality is real. Its a natural desire because life is hard and
denial is easy. From the yogic frauds of india to the charismatic con
artists of the western religions of judaism, christianity, islam, and
socialism, denial of reality sells far better than the alternative.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:20 MDT