13169Grondin Re: [XTalk] Presuppositions
- Apr 8, 2003At 02:07 PM 4/7/2003 +0000, Mike Grondin wrote:
>I think the reason why some folks might think that they have noBy which I take it that you mean 'naturalistic' presuppositions are
>presuppositions at all is that their presuppositions are of the sort
>that might best be called 'naturalistic'. These presuppositions are
>are so seemingly ordinary and commonsensical when compared with some
>of the extraordinary presuppositions of faith that they might seem as nothing.
"better"? This is almost exactly what is involved in ethnocentrism. *MY*
presuppositions are natural, and so ordinary and commonsensical that of
course they're true. *YOUR* presuppositions, however, are strange and
unnatural, and just totally weird.
Seriously, context is everything. From an ethnocentric point of view, i.e.,
from the viewpoint of one's own culture (or subculture), one's own
presuppositions seem obvious and, as you say, "natural". From the point of
view of most cultures of the world, the idea of separating the natural from
the supernatural, and denying the existence of the latter, is not only
strange and bizarre, but contrary to experience.
So when it comes right down to it, an appeal to this kind of "naturalism"
amounts to little but an appeal to ethnocentrism, if I understand
correctly, where the name of the subculture in question is Naturalism (see
any dictionary of philosophy). Now, Naturalism certainly has its uses;
science has sprung forth from it, and all that. But it is a particular
worldview, which has its limitations.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>