Quote (girl0ngirl @ Nov 5 2012 06:17am)
Are we living in the past? Or were you trying to be smart?
I'm curious as to why they are questionable. Not because I'm doubting but sincerely curious.
They are questionable because they are rather important to his/the author's claim, and would each require justification.
1. Why should we assume we are more than our physical mind (what he really should say is body, that is my understanding of what he means in this instance, our brains instead of our "minds".) He is starting out with an assumed mind/body dualism that has been toted as truth, however recent philosophers have cast serious doubt on this assumption. When tested, this assumption does not necessarily stand and therefore should be justified.
2. Anyone can know the truth - really, I mean this needs some sort of justification. He assumes there is an ultimate truth, the present, which in and of itself will need an argument, then he will need to connect how he comes to the assumption that anyone can know this truth. Its nice to say that anyone can know the truth, but you need to demonstrate this, because I think skepticism still has a solid argument against humans being capable of knowing any kind of "truth". Descartes attempted this explanation and failed, so, what is the authors'?
3. We are all spiritual beings - well, thats nice but what does this mean, what is a spiritual being? If this is the 2nd part of his dualism (the mind part detached from the body) it falls to the same problem as 1
4. How do you "know" those quotes are true. First, you are going to beed to explain how we gain knowledge (other than "open you mind", this is not an answer it is empty rhetoric in this case) then you need to justify why those quotes are true.
This post was edited by mike14e on Nov 5 2012 08:00am