« Seasons of Life | Main | Nachal Chareidi »

December 10, 2007

Comments

Ploni

How would you address the claim that much of what we consider reality is simply a human construct. I guess that would include everything besides the actuall physical "stuff" of the universe.

avakesh

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to expand on the answer to the question at the end of the post.

First, let me make the point that we are trying to describe the spiritual world, not to get bogged down justifying its existence to those who do not know it exists. I do not intend to wage a battle on the opponents' turf and using solely their worldview and gestalt. Instead, I would like us to rise above the field of battle so as to see the large picture better.
We must remember that proposing an alternative explanattion is not a refutation. Materialists can certainly propose alternative explanations for the existence of abstractions as spiritual entities but they can't refute them. Only in the prevailing intelelctual climate, in which materialism is the default, can proposing an alternative explanation be viewed as a proof.
The answer given in the post is that we can use philosophy of science to support our approach. If we can induce reality of abstractions from the sense data, if they are reproducible and reliably predict future events, if they can be experimentally supported (i.e. loyalty can be tested and behaves exactly as we expect it to behave based on its definition), why shoudl we doubt their true existence. What is good for the goose... If we accept induction as valid for science, so must we accept it as valid for independent existence of abstract concepts.

The comments to this entry are closed.