5 ms·

That's fine in theory but my aunt isn't praying to Monad or declining to get her kids vaccinated because Monad will protect them.

• ukj 7y ago
  Your aunt has committed a Reification fallacy [1] because she doesn't understand the recursive/self-referential (e.g computational!) nature of the human mind. You aren't going to change her mind by Philosophising her, trying to explain the fallacy to her; or throwing evidence at her, but you may be able to reach her on a human level if you learn to talk to her in her language. The need to believe in a greater power (than the self) is rooted in a fear of the unknown - she can't cope with uncertainty. Most humans can't - don't holt it against them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)
  • anongraddebt 7y ago
    Perhaps some non-naturalists are - deep down - motivated by a fear of the unknown. I myself (from all that I can gather) and many other non-naturalists I know, aren't so motivated. The majority of my close friends over the years have been naturalists, and if I was being uncharitable, I could say all of them are naturalists because of a fear and loathing of having something outside themselves set limits to their moral freedom or life choices. While some naturalists probably do, I don't say all of them or even most of them do because people are people everywhere. And generally speaking, many people follow arguments where they lead, given whatever epistemic tools they have available to them.
  • friendlybus 7y ago
    This emotional reasoning is not much better than Star War's light side/dark side logic. Anger turns to hate, hate turns to suffering, ect. This kind of reasoning acts as if it can remove all else for the sake of a single revealed hidden feeling that guides belief. I think there are many factors that go into belief, emotions can have multiple outcomes and similarities between feelings and observed beliefs do not prove each other.
    • ukj 7y ago
      Strictly and formally speaking "proof" is impossible outside of deductive systems such as logic/mathematics. In non-axiomatic systems (such as reality) all you have is inductive reasoning, and all inductive theories are Underdetermined. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underdetermination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underdetermination
      • friendlybus 7y ago
        The idea that this is reality is a faith-based axiom, including the idea that all you have is inductive reasoning.
        • ukj 7y ago
          Sure. And what about the idea that you have ideas? This is what I mean by self-reference being inescapable... You are welcome to perform deduction in practice, but you have no absolute truths to start deducing with. Everything that you consider to be an "absolute truth" has been arrived at by induction.
          • friendlybus 7y ago
            Assuming your truths are reasoned then yes, but that is not the only way to have a truth. Second hand truths inherited from others can be instilled by an emotional relationship or claims of a spiritual experience from drug taking can generate psychological experiences that are sourced as more true than reason.
  • ppod 7y ago
    You've read a lot more into my comment than was there. My point is simply that your abstract philosophical equivalance between Monad and God does not correspond to how most people in the real world use their concept of God.
    • ukj 7y ago
      I understand your point. My is that you understand the abstract/concrete distinction. If you are to succeed at changing your aunt's mind the strategy you've chosen (evidence, reason, arguments, intellectual assault on her wrongness) probably won't work. In that regards Philosophers are completely irrational - they do the same thing over and over expecting a different result. Persuasion is a multi-faceted skill.
• igravious 7y ago
  I took a slightly longer route to the same destination, see my sibling reply to yours!