Click here if your mom is a monkey!!!!

[lonewolf]

I'm not sure about apes, but it wouldn't surprise me if some people I know had a little neaderthal in them.

[esa]

I'm not sure about apes, but it wouldn't surprise me if some people I know had a little neaderthal in them.

::grins as she can now return the spelling error favor:: Muah ha!
Neanderthal? If you hold down the shift key, you can get a capitol "N" and then you can add another "n" for that sound in the middle....
::lol...being a smart ass::
Garcon!

[BDR]

Anyways, back to rationalist philosohy. Here's part of a paper I wrote a few weeks ago for my reading class. The essay's actually longer (hence why the foot notes start on a later number); the first part was about the history of rationalism and existentialism, but this here is my own argument (with other's ideas footnoted). I'm sure someone with a doctrate in philosophy (or even physics) could rip it apart, but I never said I was a philosopher. Since determinist causes got brought up, I thought that some people may be interested in it. So.....

The Argument Against Deterministic Objectivity
By Paul Rainey

Scientific deduction has always relied on rationalist theory to help predict relationships occurring in an external reality. Determinism asserts that event B is contingent on object A, so therefore an objective truth can be concluded from the assumption that things are the cause of other things. The purpose of the argument against deterministic objectivity is not to dismiss causal-relationships (as they can be widely observed, David Barash even synergized existentialism and biology(6); science and philosophy are not mutually exclusive.) but to prove the irrationality of attempting to predict material behavior.

Events and objects often do not come into being through simple linear cause-and-effect relations but are the result of multiple factors interacting to create a large interwoven system of causes. Rather than have one event conceptually cause another event, there are many spurious variables working in tandem towards an eventual termination. Each variable is exclusive unto itself and only shares universality with other variables insofar as their mutual result. Of course, each variable can also be considered an end, as it is too contingent on preceding factors.

Chaos theory provides an explanation as to why the chances of predictability diminish as a system is rationalized. Once any conceptual architecture is brought into realization it becomes vulnerable to miniscule, extrinsic fluctuations acting upon its compulsion. As the number of variables grows, larger errors impede one’s ability to predict an accurate outcome of the system – in other words, the system is chaotic. The only way the system’s behavior can be predicted is by knowing the initial conditions’ state to an infinite degree, which is impossible(7).

Descartes’ method of attacking foundational beliefs exemplifies the flaw of linear thinking that is found in many rationalist arguments. He contended that knowledge was based on a vertical structure of proven truths; if a cause were found to be untrue, the effect residing above it must also be untrue. Much like the chaos theory’s explanation of external variables instigating changes in a system, an external variable could also account for a change in Descartes’ model. The next logical step would be to view his model not as a set of independent strands of contingencies, but as a series of linear systems interconnected by auxiliary pathways. Still again, the infinite existence of external causes creates a problem when attempting to acquire thorough knowledge of a system. While in this case rationalism still maintains its objectivity, it fails at providing enough relevant information for the statement of a truth.

Theoretical platforms only provide information pertinent to a static reality; humans, on the other hand, exist in a dynamic reality. Rational maxims cannot explain absolute knowledge for they do not take in account the entirety of complex systems. Since knowledge exist (according to the rationalist view) a priori, one is left facing his or her own finite being. That is since all determinist models are prone to unpredictability, the individual loses his or her free will in enacting change upon an external reality simply because they still believe in the theoretical laws governing causal relations.

There does seem to be an existentialist antagonism toward rationality( 8 ), but it is at this critical juncture that rationality resolves into existentialism. Even from an existentialist point of view, natural laws still exist – it’s the perception of where the individual stands in relation to the laws that changes. One begins to realize the indifference of the external world and then forges a personally unique reality. Instead of operating against the world, the existentialist now operates within the world. Since objective phenomena can no longer be quantified or qualified, it’s up to the individual to define his or her own external reality. Objects no longer possess measurable properties but are now things insofar as they exist within the perceivers mind. For example, a brick wall is no longer thought of as having the property “red”; rather, red is simply a construct of interconnected things (i.e. light rays), which then are perceived as being “red” by the cones and brain of the individual looking upon it. If one looked at the wall in a low-light situation, it would probably appear to be blue or black due to his or her rods instead of cones synthesizing the texture. Therefore, it would be foolish to say that the wall, as an external object, has the color “red”, since the color is simply a property perceived and given subjective meaning by internal factors. If a color-blind person said that the wall looked green, would he be wrong?

Understanding how the unfathomable objectivity of Rationalism concludes to existentialism is rational in itself – one has to hypothetically reason towards his or her own realization of existence. Some may even say that it’s human nature to try and understand the world, that we are all innate rational beings. But, as stated before, the worth of any theory is found in its tangible results, not its design. With that in mind, existentialism provides infinite freedom, while rationalism creates self-imposed barriers. It has always been the individual and not the world that defines reality – And once man realizes this, he will truly see things for what they are.

6. Barash, David P (2000). Evolutionary existentialism, sociobiology, and the meaning of life. Bioscience, Vol. 50, Issue 11.

7. Lorenzen, Michael (2005). Chaos Theory and Education. Retrieved on April 2, 2005 from http://www.libraryreference.org/chaos.html.

8. Solomon, Robert C. (1992). Existentialism, emotions, and the cultural limits of rationality. Philosophy East & West, Vol. 42, Issue 4.

... my bass player is smart ...

r:>)

[lonewolf]

I'm not sure about apes, but it wouldn't surprise me if some people I know had a little neaderthal in them.

::grins as she can now return the spelling error favor:: Muah ha!
Neanderthal? If you hold down the shift key, you can get a capitol "N" and then you can add another "n" for that sound in the middle....
::lol...being a smart ass::
Garcon!

ooops...typo....actually I hab a colb and my nose is stuffed up so it comes out neaddertall.

the garcon thing was not for spelling...it was for the cool la cédille accent

the l'accent aigu in cédille is LeftALT-130keypad

[the herald]

we never evolved from" monkeys "but at the beggining of human existance we were mentally and physically more primative and animal like. why people cant accept this i dont know. what is so hard to believe about evolving?? were still evolving today !the human mind and body has undergone many adaptions over the past few hundred years. humans have an arrogance about them that "how dare anyone say we could be related to those dirty monkeys"!! As far as creation, this is where i believe this all got started. either way once we were created or metamorphisized from tadpoles, we have evolved since then. simple as that