Tautological Oxymorons: Deconstructing Scientific Materialism:An Ontotheological Approach
- Amazon book link Following in the fêted footsteps of Heidegger and Nietzsche - Jacques Derrida set out to complete the process of 'deconstructing' Western metaphysics. But something remarkable happened on the way to dismantling the Forum! As if by grand design, Derrida's deconstruction of Western metaphysics morphed into the ultimate justification for the apophatic (negative) theology that undergirds Western metaphysics!In reaction to this inadvertent justification of negative theology, Derrida embarked on a decade long confrontation with negative theology. Most objective observers of the confrontation would be hard pressed not to feel that rather than deconstruction 'deconstructing' apophatic theology, instead, and quite irreverently, apophatic theology appears to have absorbed and incorporated the vocabulary of Derrida's deconstruction into the very language it uses to justify its presuppositions.Having more than staved off the attack by Derrida's deconstruction, it may now be time to turn the sword in the opposite direction. If deconstruction is easily absorbed into the apophatic behemoth supporting Western metaphysics, what would happen if Western metaphysics applied deconstruction to the modern scientific materialism which acts as the cornerstone of the worldview setting itself in opposition to Western metaphysics?Tautological Oxymorons is an attempt to deconstruct the language and logic used to present scientific materialism as though it were a viable alternative to pre-Enlightenment theology, philosophy, and mythology. By examining modern scientific materialism in the light of language (and proper language use) we can see that much that's taken for granted as 'obvious' and a mere 'given' (within the context of scientific materialism) is rather (when carefully examined in the context of precise language usage) nothing more than sheer unadulterated absurdity!
Tautological Oxymorons - Book by John D. Brey. Details how the Platonic binary opposites language was used to represent during the pre-Enlightenment era, became displaced with the Age of Enlightenment Newspeak that rejects the dichotomy between a Pattern or design, cause and effect.
in the video the narrator states that the right/wrong dichotomy no longer applies.
these are random notes, will format later:
The materialist gives the term natural selection no meaning. p.27
p.32 every time he attempts to state the proposition in non-metaphysical terms he forced to conceded what the human language can state clearly is limited.
p.27 Nietschze ... we shall not be rid of God until we are rid of grammar .... ref. 33
28 twist free of binary opposition between infinite and finite, Platonic dualism. Dualism seems to be the pattern /design dichotomy.
29 ns is oxymoronic tautology
29 Richard Rorty, rejects the binary oppositions of Western philopsphy ,by which he means the necassary Platonic interplay between the finite and infinite.
nietsche understood that the platonic duality must be eliminated.
31 Leszek Kolakowski I know that I know nothing is self-contradictory. Thus godel again, there is always something in any logical system we must assume.
32 act of doubtingh something pressuposes something: certainty of the doubt.
p.33 all language functions on the negative tension generated by primary binary contrasts - contrasts between
33 - we must not let the theist impose their vocabularly on us says rorty
35 Rorty defines exactly how atheists use newspeak and rejects Platonic binary opposites to establish materialism.
38 Sons of atom versus sons of Adam.
39 the materialist becomes a tautological oxymoron excemplified by the oxymoron natural selection. these tautological oxymorons sell an onanistic form of communication, we have mulling the planet Orwelian speakers uttering words devoid of allmeaning
Natural selection can cause no new information for example from Ken Ham or natural selection can explain the survival of the fittest but not the arrival of the fittest.
41 Dawkins says that asking why question is scientifically illeterate , yet the statement itself is thus illetierate.
The term IC for a concept that http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/D%27Arcy_Wentworth_Thompson described as http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Composite_Integrity.
My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such a violent reaction against it?... Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if i did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never have known it was dark. Dark would be without meaning. C.S. Lewis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQfRdl3GTw4 Plato allegory of the cave.