A Little Philosophical Horseplay

Xeno’s position, based on one of his famous paradoxes, is that movement is not possible. He also said that communication is not possible. The latter because each person’s understanding of words is different, and the latter becuase in order to get from A to B, one has to get half way there first (to 0.5B), and in order to get there, one has to get half way their again first (0.25B), etc. So if movement is not possible, evolution is not possible, and time itself is not possible. And even if it were, it would be meaningless in any objective sense due to the impossibility of (objectively verifiable) communication.

Hume adds to these two problems with a couple of shiners of his own. He maintains that there is no way to demonstrate causality objectively. That Affect B has always been observed to follow Cause A does that mean that (a) it will always do so in the future, and (b) that even if it did (and this is more devastating), this is not an empirical ground upon which to conclude a causal relationship.

Hume also went on to say that regardless, there are no such tings as “rational” arguments or positions (i.e., arguments which are based on reason, and defensible through rational means that can bring about an “objective” consensus), becuase if you take a position and say that you have arrived at it through reason, then you will have to give a reason for that reason, adn a reason for THAT one, and so on ad infinitum, which you cannot do, and would be forced to admit that there comes a point that you must admit that your position is not, ultimately, based on reason.
Add to that Heraclitus’s adage that you can’t step into the same river twice (the impossibility of the restoration of initial condition {in order to “redo” the “scientific” experiment} to which Terrance McKenna rejoined that you can’t step into the same river once!), and Popper’s criterion of falsifiability, and Kuhn’s paradigm shifts, and all of the PoMo critiques – all of these have a fatal effect on Western foundational epistemology.

Generally speaking, Moslems do not believe in natural laws, and agree with Whitehead that these are merely tendencies or long-term tendencies and that “a leaf does not fall from a tree without God willing it. Reality is His wake, like the streak of a comet, and if He wills something different than the observations of mere mortals, than so it shall be.


The syntactical impossibility of maintaining an atheistic position, as demonstrated by the absurd Iranian.com motto: Nothing is Sacred.

Posted by Arash Darua-Bandari


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s