User:Asimong/Test: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
unknown (talk) No edit summary |
unknown (talk) No edit summary |
||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
| picture | | picture | ||
|- | |- | ||
| style="background-color:# | | style="background-color:#eeece1" | Leibnizian theological optimism | ||
| rowspan="2" | ‘like a fairy tale, all is for the best in this, the best of all possible worlds, because it’s created by an omnipotent, omnsicient, and omnibenevolent God’ | | rowspan="2" | ‘like a fairy tale, all is for the best in this, the best of all possible worlds, because it’s created by an omnipotent, omnsicient, and omnibenevolent God’ | ||
| rowspan="2" | Since natural evil and moral evil do actually exist, then either (i) God could not have prevented this evil (hence God is ''not'' omnipotent), or (ii) God could not have foreseen this evil (hence God is not ''omniscient''), or (iii) God either created or foresaw this evil and therefore is Himself evil (hence God is ''not'' omnibenevolent): so, given the fact of evil, theological optimism is self-refuting. | | rowspan="2" | Since natural evil and moral evil do actually exist, then either (i) God could not have prevented this evil (hence God is ''not'' omnipotent), or (ii) God could not have foreseen this evil (hence God is not ''omniscient''), or (iii) God either created or foresaw this evil and therefore is Himself evil (hence God is ''not'' omnibenevolent): so, given the fact of evil, theological optimism is self-refuting. | ||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
| picture | | picture | ||
|- | |- | ||
| style="background-color:# | | style="background-color:#eeece1" | Schopenhauerian existential pessimism | ||
| rowspan="2" | ‘like someone carrying an immense burden, human existence is a vale of tears, therefore it’s meaningless’ | | rowspan="2" | ‘like someone carrying an immense burden, human existence is a vale of tears, therefore it’s meaningless’ | ||
| rowspan="2" | A universal human condition of suffering and unhappiness, even if it were true, would still be meaningful, otherwise we wouldn’t care about our suffering and our unhappiness and prefer the opposite: so existential pessimism is self-refuting. | | rowspan="2" | A universal human condition of suffering and unhappiness, even if it were true, would still be meaningful, otherwise we wouldn’t care about our suffering and our unhappiness and prefer the opposite: so existential pessimism is self-refuting. | ||
| Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
| picture | | picture | ||
|- | |- | ||
| style="background-color:# | | style="background-color:#fbd4b4" | Reductive physicalism | ||
| rowspan="2" | ‘like a tinker-toy model, everything is reducible to fundamentally physical, contingent facts’ | | rowspan="2" | ‘like a tinker-toy model, everything is reducible to fundamentally physical, contingent facts’ | ||
| rowspan="2" | If everything is reducible to fundamentally physical, contingent facts, then since the reducibility relation is logical strong supervenience, 79 but logical strong supervenience is itself a ''non''-contingent, ''non''-physical strong modal relation, therefore reductive materialism/physicalism is self-refuting. | | rowspan="2" | If everything is reducible to fundamentally physical, contingent facts, then since the reducibility relation is logical strong supervenience, 79 but logical strong supervenience is itself a ''non''-contingent, ''non''-physical strong modal relation, therefore reductive materialism/physicalism is self-refuting. | ||
Revision as of 13:04, 15 February 2023
table work
Done: William Irwin Thompson on the Four Cultural Ecologies of the West
To do: Productive Democracy
79 For explicit definitions of strong supervience, natural or nomological strong supervenience, and logical strong supervenience, see section 6 below.