Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Biological evolution and Traditionalism

Re: Biological evolution and Traditionalism
November 21, 2010, 01:50:06 AM
Isn't investigating those theories opposed to one's own part of the scientific process? How can you decide they're bullshit if you don't even know what constitutes them?
lmao, I read "Archetypes are situated not in time but in eternity" and "[evolution] contradicts the metaphysical structure of reality"  and that's all I needed to read on Traditionalism. A clear-cut case of misunderstood cause-and-effect: We have archetypes and metaphysical structures BECAUSE we have interpreted the world around us in a particular way. The world does not exist BECAUSE of a metaphysical structure! Just as some scientists feel they are hot shit and the universe is run by whatever "law" is in vogue at the time, (the law of gravity, or yes, the "law" of natural selection) these laws are just observations and explanations of the universe's behavior. Just as evolution is an explanatory model and not a law, "metaphysical structures" are explanatory models and not causes. It just so happens that evolution is an excellent explanatory model and that metaphysical structures are, well, so "excellent" that they need support from neither science nor reality!

So, after seeing these golden nuggets and having discovered "eternal principles" and "perennia sophia" on the wikipedia page, I figured I had enough good sense and education to tell that I could safely skip over Traditionalism (or, more accurately, had skipped over it long ago) on my long road of intellectual development. For all those still studying at Trad U, I hope you'll graduate one day! Then we can hang out and have fun together!

You know, I don't consider myself a traditionalist, and had no opinion on this thread, because I found the argument from both sides almost completely inconsequential. I don't see how an evolutionist or creationist perspective really opens up any avenues for foundational and applicable knowledge. However, I'm almost completely certain that just because I implied that you take time to consider the opposing viewpoint that you immediately assumed that I advocated the opposing argument, and I assume this because you insulted me when all I did was recommend something that didn't even take a side. It's obvious that you have a bias, and that you shouldn't be taken seriously in discussion, and no, I'm not saying this because you disagree with traditionalism, because I could care less about that.
Actually I'm trying to find the post where I directly addressed a post of yours and insulted you and I can't. Sorry if your imagined grievance never came to pass, I will try to rectify this in future writings.

Anyway my post that you just quoted has a good deal more argument in it and is far more pertinent to the preceding discussion than, say, the one you just wrote, and yes, I am biased, as is the entire human race. To be human is to be biased. Your post is irrelevant and biased. My post is relevant and biased. I fail to see how the fault lies with me.

Re: Biological evolution and Traditionalism
November 21, 2010, 01:54:12 AM
Isn't investigating those theories opposed to one's own part of the scientific process? How can you decide they're bullshit if you don't even know what constitutes them?
lmao, I read "Archetypes are situated not in time but in eternity" and "[evolution] contradicts the metaphysical structure of reality"  and that's all I needed to read on Traditionalism. A clear-cut case of misunderstood cause-and-effect: We have archetypes and metaphysical structures BECAUSE we have interpreted the world around us in a particular way. The world does not exist BECAUSE of a metaphysical structure! Just as some scientists feel they are hot shit and the universe is run by whatever "law" is in vogue at the time, (the law of gravity, or yes, the "law" of natural selection) these laws are just observations and explanations of the universe's behavior. Just as evolution is an explanatory model and not a law, "metaphysical structures" are explanatory models and not causes. It just so happens that evolution is an excellent explanatory model and that metaphysical structures are, well, so "excellent" that they need support from neither science nor reality!

So, after seeing these golden nuggets and having discovered "eternal principles" and "perennia sophia" on the wikipedia page, I figured I had enough good sense and education to tell that I could safely skip over Traditionalism (or, more accurately, had skipped over it long ago) on my long road of intellectual development. For all those still studying at Trad U, I hope you'll graduate one day! Then we can hang out and have fun together!

You know, I don't consider myself a traditionalist, and had no opinion on this thread, because I found the argument from both sides almost completely inconsequential. I don't see how an evolutionist or creationist perspective really opens up any avenues for foundational and applicable knowledge. However, I'm almost completely certain that just because I implied that you take time to consider the opposing viewpoint that you immediately assumed that I advocated the opposing argument, and I assume this because you insulted me when all I did was recommend something that didn't even take a side. It's obvious that you have a bias, and that you shouldn't be taken seriously in discussion, and no, I'm not saying this because you disagree with traditionalism, because I could care less about that.
Actually I'm trying to find the post where I directly addressed a post of yours and insulted you and I can't. Sorry if your imagined grievance never came to pass, I will try to rectify this in future writings.

Anyway my post that you just quoted has a good deal more argument in it and is far more pertinent to the preceding discussion than, say, the one you just wrote, and yes, I am biased, as is the entire human race. To be human is to be biased. Your post is irrelevant and biased. My post is relevant and biased. I fail to see how the fault lies with me.

Quote from: Erosion on November 18, 2010, 10:50:12 PM
Your nickname is not ironic, it is an actual description of your character.
fixed for truth

Forgive me if I was mistaken in believing this was directed at me.

As for the relevance of your posts, you seem to be out to insult people more than to contribute useful information.

Re: Biological evolution and Traditionalism
November 21, 2010, 02:29:00 AM
Your nickname is not ironic, it is an actual description of your character.
fixed for truth

Forgive me if I was mistaken in believing this was directed at me.

As for the relevance of your posts, you seem to be out to insult people more than to contribute useful information.
Yeah that was me mistagging a quote. my b

And sorry (lol not really :p) if I come across as insulting but it's positively sickening to watch people who are clearly well-read pull up pages of metaphysical dreck devoid of scientific principles or clarity of thought and try to pass these off as legitimate challenges to evolutionary theory, while ignoring plain biological data and long-understood philosophical principles. Then we are told we must accept these metaphysical and pseudo-scientific claims, or at least, to give them their fair chance so we can all decide in a rational manner what the truth is. How positively democratic!

Re: Biological evolution and Traditionalism
November 21, 2010, 07:06:43 AM
Because SCIENCE IS THE ONLY AVENUE TO TRUTH.

How Enlightened of you.