while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
The existence of soul is a serious problem examined by philosophy. Like you or not.
I know you don't recognise any other philosophical method rather than the scientific one.
https://global.britannica.com/topic/soul-religion-and-philosophy
The philosophy branch that studies the soul is called Metaphysics.
And Philosophy of mind approach the concept of soul in the Mind-body problem. Neuroplasticity shows that the mind itself can control the material organisation of the brain.
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
In which case we are much closer than I first thought but your definition is still incomplete. It doesn't allow for logical deduction.
I used the generic term because there's a branch that only accepts or includes the acceptance of logic (philosophy). That's called Logical Positivism.
There's a new term being used interchangeable to classical (from Comte) Positivism: Scientism.
I don't think Cofty and Viviane are logical positivists because the philosophy of soul is presented with logical consistency and both deny the logical conclusion of the soul.
They even can't admit the soul it's not a subject for the scientific method.
They clearly advocates the universal use of scientific method and don't recognise any other form of knowledge as valid.
I wonder what kind of Materialism they accept...
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
I think the ultimate crazy conclusion from positivism is the Eliminative Materialism.
Eliminative Materialism says the human consciousness does not exist because it cannot be scientifically verified.
So to eliminativists God is not the only delusion but the human consciousness is a delusion too.
That's the logical conclusion if materialism is the only system you accept.
Before someone says my definition of Eliminative Materialism is wrong, here's a link:
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
Personal purpose in life can be scientifically verified as valid?
Really?
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
There are things that can be logically deduced but for which there is no empirical evidence.
Like what?
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
Reproduction? My goals beyond that can definitely be scientifically verified.
Sorry but personal purpose in life can't be scientifically verified as valid.
If you really knows what scientific verification is you must know that.
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
I @Nicolaou
That's my first post and was not about the definition of positivism per se (me and Viviane were already talking about positivism in other topic), but one of the positions positivism leads. Meaning or purpose of human life beyond biological goals is nonsense to positivists because cannot be scientifically verified.
My crude definition of positivism is 5 posts before your first one. (page 4)
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
cofty12 minutes ago
"OR which is capable of logical ... proof"
C'mon Cofty. You're a clever guy!
The scientific method contain logical consistency and capacity of mathematical proof.
There's a pleonasm in this definition. You can say just "scientifically verified" (like I said) without the "OR" part.
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
I have to say John_Mann, I looked over your previous posts and can't see where your accusation against Viviane is coming from.
She systematically said my definition of positivism was wrong.
And if you posted a definition identical to mine so Viviane doesn't accept the definition you posted too.
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
C'mon, you said with all words that my definition of positivism was incorrect.
Nicolaou just posted a definition identical to mine.
So what incorrect claim you're talking about?
