What if life is totally coincidence?

[Visvaldis]

Some interesting perspectives:
Nietzsche Quotes: Truth and Knowledge - 17k
Knowledge Management Research & Practice - Schopenhauer's doubts: knowledge for which purpose?

[Bunjee]

Originally Posted by dcashley

Very few Americans ascribe to Plato's descripton of knowledge. Rather, American thinking is post-modern, or neo-modern--depending on the American sub-culture. As a result just about anyone reading these posts could only agree with your statment in a metaphorical sense. As a result of that disagrement, they would classify your post as non-sensical.

This is the closest to an actual position I've seen here. It's still not a statement, just an approach to one. But I appreciate your going somewhere--anywhere--with it.

[dcashley]

Originally Posted by Bunjee

It's still not a statement, just an approach to one.

Huh? What do you mean, "It's still not a statement," I am confused.

[Tzaphkiel]

Originally Posted by dcashley

Very few Americans ascribe to Plato's descripton of knowledge. Rather, American thinking is post-modern, or neo-modern--depending on the American sub-culture. As a result just about anyone reading these posts could only agree with your statment in a metaphorical sense. As a result of that disagrement, they would classify your post as non-sensical.

what exactly is this post trying to say?

[effie g-tad]

are we represented by their thoughts?

Postmodern Thought (http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/postmodern.html - broken link)

[dcashley]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

what exactly is this post trying to say?

That post was in response to the following one you made earlier:

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

if it really was
you wouldn't be asking the question

the question comes from the place within you that already knows the answer,
and is just hoping you will follow it home, to its origin, to its source

we all know the place from which we came,
and we all have a yearning to go back
the question emerging to be asked is part of that desire

I was commenting on the assertion that the question (ergo: knowledge) is innate, or is learned in previous lives/existences. I was commenting specifically on the part of the posting that is in bold.

[Bunjee]

Originally Posted by dcashley

Huh? What do you mean, "It's still not a statement," I am confused.

You've truncated my full sentence there. Deconstruction?

My amateur's understanding of "post-modernism", since you invoked it, is it questions all assumptions, all received knowledge, all structures. In itself it's only an approach to cultural study, not a conclusion. So when you stated Americans are post-modern, you really only said that Americans think differently now. This is really interesting to me. But, OK, the obvious question remains...How do Americans think then? I'm very genuine in saying I'm not interested in debating or trying to refute your position, or exchanging bumper-sticker insults that say even less than nothing but reflect the less-than-nothing that's being said. I'm really interested in sharing here, because I've walked this path.

It's a coincidental parallel that I just got off jury duty this week here in SoCal. It was an assault case that ended up a mistrial. What hung a couple of jurors up was they could not accept the testimony of the policeman who arrived and "witnessed" it (their airquotes), therefore they couldn't convict, and that was understandable, legally. And yet there was still a man lying on the street beaten. The defendent's testimony was a proven lie. Could they at least come to a reasonable inference that the assault happened and the only one who could have committed it was the defendent? They didn't know. Shrugs. Now, again, legally this is fair and at least the defendent wasn't acquitted, according to my sense of fairness. But it remains: If you don't believe one side, and you can't believe another, then what do you believe? Materially, this was not an inessential issue, as there was still a man who was beaten about the face and neck.

To return to theism/atheism, whatever you disbelieve you still have a story to tell in the positive, the story about Life. The original post asks if life is totally coincidence. Therefore, is life purely material? Therefore, is knowledge synthetic, not absolute? Are these inferences correct? I'm not here to indict but to hear expansion; just asking, since there are people of faith who've put their views on display here--for dispute, for debate, for outright mockery. That's kind of one-sided, isn't it?

I'm actually most interested in an atheist poster who I believe I read is studying mathematics, the most abstract of disciplines. If one accepts the synthetic nature of knowledge, then how does one personally respond to the interaction between human absolutes and the ultimate impermanence of them? Not trying to catch anyone up in philosophy. I'd just be interested in hearing personal viewpoints as opposed to a bunch of slogans. After all, Derrida may have been the father of Deconstructionism, but that made him no less a Frenchman.

Oh, and BTW, thanks also to Visvaldis and Effie Briest for their links and putting these ideas on the table.