it's impossible by definition, since both of them claim their domain upon objective truths (science legitimately, religion illegitimately).
but i think it's possible to mix science and art. the first one is built on objectivity, but doesn't exclude subjectivity, while art is built on...
yeah it is a sport expression. i meant that an artwork's quality doesn't depend on its realism.
that is not the point. pre-historical rock art is a much greater art than that made by e.g. the artistes pompiers in the 19th century, despite the superior technique of the latter.
art is not a skill show. when it comes to art indeed (or metaphysics) your everyday reproduction-oriented perspective doesn't work, as long as it makes you value, above all, productiveness and efficiency, despite the merely intellectual nature and uselessness of our subject (and , forget me for...
easy target. christian metaphysics was laughable even for late-hellenistic athenians, although they already got used to the wretchedness of schools such as cynicism or "middle-platonism", and had become themselves no more than a pale shadow of what their fathers were.
christianity, as jesus...
this technique is frequently employed by adherents to abrahamitic religions. i mean, showing others an artificial compassion in order to assert (in their view) their universalism and therefore their domain upon you and your being. it's a kind of "eteroreferentiality" which actually shows an...
that's absolutely not true.
the foundation of science is not arbitrary, or conventional. its semantics is conventional, but semantics is marginal to science . and the fact that everything is consciousness doesn't mean (AT ALL) that everything is subjective or illusory. also, mysticism (or...
i said excactly the oppisite tho. and yes, i agree that metaphysics (and philosophy, which is in included in metaphysics) is subjective, that was my whole point.
i have no time to "formalize" it on here, but there is a difference between arbitrary opinions and objective facts. this violet on my table is blue, not yellow, this rose is red, not white, and this little marble bear is not cut in bronze, but marble. you can call these truths "trivial", as well...
ganghi allegedly said that "in democracy no fact of life is untouched by politics". well, it includes science. most people can't give an actual meaning to scientific discoveries such as the black hole imaging... at the same time they can't ignore them. therefore they are bound to force them into...
with regard to contemporary popular culture, especially american culture, yes. left wingers are usually richer and smarter, thus more familiar with contemporary education - and therefore also its honest skepticism.
as regards high culture, though, it's the other way around. to less deluded eyes...
an honest and cold look at history teaches us the jewish people always had and will ever have a tribalistic weltanschauung. which means they respectively judge good and bad anything advantageous and disadvantageous to them. the jews adopted the idea of equality during their nomadic/servile...
reality, or truth, is a physical feature, therefore the domain of science and science alone. and not because of a methodological scruple or some kind of a disciplinary partition, but because only through observation and sensible perception we can distinguish between "true" and "false", between...
nowadays metaphysics can revert to a younger state, that is art, because science emancipated it from the necessity of being true while not being capable of truth by definition.
that doesn't mean it can ignore truth - in which case it would be no more than buffoonery and decadance - it means it...
the fictional character buddha is neither an atheist nor a theist. he simply doesn't care. there is a sutra about that somewhere. it tells the parable of buddha answering in 4 different ways to 4 men asking him his stance about gods and daemons.
i think this general attitude about god is right...
augustus, vous n'avez pas le compétences cognitives (minimales) nécessaires pour un débat fructueux, il n'y a plus rien à dire.
to other users, it might be useful for you to see how confusion works as the ideal environment for a man (let's call him pablo) having lost an argument.
FIRST CASE...
so it appers this discussion will end with you still not being able to tell the difference between an abstraction, whose content (unlike its very existence) is not per se liable to the category of truth, like a law, a contract or even an ideology, and a falsification of a (indeed falsifiable)...