Quotessence
Home / Quotes / Quote by Ranty McRanterson

Quote by Ranty McRanterson

“Nietzsche viewed morality as an evolving weapon wielded by one group against another for self-interested reasons. There’s no doubt that Nietzsche is correct that no absolute moral code can be established since there is no absolute, objective, unambiguous standard to which to appeal, and upon which everyone would agree. However, rational morality at least gives us a framework to which all rational people can subscribe, and that’s as good as it can ever get.”

Quote by Ranty McRanterson

Book:Kill Religion!: The Deserved Death of Faith
Create image

Work

Kill Religion!: The Deserved Death of Faith

Browse quotes and source details for this work. more

Author

Ranty McRanterson

Browse famous quotes and profile details for Ranty McRanterson. more

You May Also Like

“The PSR is not an abstract principle. It is embodied ontologically by way of Euler's formula, which is what the PSR reduces to mathematically. Anyone who denies that the universe is made of reason is automatically an irrationalist, and their irrational opinions can be dismissed. There is nothing more ironic, and irrational, than irrationalists trying to give reasons why the universe is not made of reason.”

ReasonIdealismPsrEuler S FormulaPanlogosIrrationalists
Book:The Book of Mind: Seeking Gnosis
Create image

“The PSR is reflected in points traveling in complex-numbered Euler circles where no point is privileged over any other. From this motion, we get sine and cosine waves, even and odd functions, symmetry and antisymmetry, orthogonality and non-orthogonality, phase, straight-line radii, right-angled triangles, Pythagoras’ theorem, the speed of mathematics (c), π, e, i, Fourier mathematics … and from all of that we get the whole of mathematics (eternal, necessary and mental; Being), and thus the whole of science (temporal, contingent and material; Becoming). And that is the whole universe explained. Nothing else is required. The PSR gives us mathematics, mathematics gives us science, and that’s all we need for the universe: science with a mathematical and rational core rather than with a material and observable core. What could be more rational and logical?”

ReasonPhilosophyOntological MathematicsPsrFourier MathematicsOccam S RazorPrinciple Of Sufficient ReasonEuler S Formula
Book:Castalia: The Citadel of Reason
Create image

“Why do people that ask for “evidence” never ask for rational explanation? What is more reliable? – analytic reason, or the unreliable, fallible, limited, frequently delusional human senses where it is guaranteed that they are showing us only phenomena and never noumena (i.e. things in themselves). You cannot understand reality as a phenomenon, although this is in fact exactly what science tries to do. You can understand reality only as a noumenon – as an intelligible thing in itself – and that’s exactly what ontological mathematics is all about. Anyone that obsesses over phenomenal evidence is an opponent of noumenal truth, which is never subject to phenomenal evidence.”

ReasonPhilosophyScienceEvidenceProofSensiblePhenomenalRationalismOntological MathematicsNoumenal
Book:Extra Scientiam Nulla Salus: How Science Undermines Reason
Create image

“Empirical evidence is not what counts. Rational proof is the only acceptable criterion of truth. If you cannot provide a sufficient reason for an argument you make, you do not have an argument. Sensory evidence is not a sufficient reason. It is not an argument. Sensory evidence is simply raw data. A million people could provide a million different ways of interpreting it, hence it’s meaningless. It has nothing to do with proof. “Evidence” concerns an appearance from which inferences may be drawn. It concerns that which is obvious to the eye. Yet what does “obvious” mean? What is obvious about sensory data? Color blind people don’t know what “blue” is. Tetrachromats, with four cone types in the eye (cone cells are responsible for color vision, while rod cells code for monochromatic vision) see color radically differently from normal people (i.e. trichromats with three cone types). People with synesthesia have drastically different sensory experiences from normal people. So, everything about the senses is mired in ambiguity, uncertainty and subjectivity. These are no organs for truth, i.e. organs that show us the truth of a thing, exactly what it is and everything about it. We see things in our dreams even though our eyes are closed. How can we see without eyes, how can we sense without sense organs? What’s for sure is that scientific empiricism and materialism won’t be furnishing any answers.”

ReasonPhilosophyScienceEvidenceProofSensesMaterialismEmpiricismPhenomena
Book:Extra Scientiam Nulla Salus: How Science Undermines Reason
Create image

“I need not describe the feelings of those whose dearest ties are rent by that most irreparable evil, the void that presents itself to the soul, and the despair that is exhibited on the countenance. It is so long before the mind can persuade itself that she whom we saw every day and whose very existence appeared a part of our own can have departed forever—that the brightness of a beloved eye can have been extinguished and the sound of a voice so familiar and dear to the ear can be hushed, never more to be heard. These are the reflections of the first days; but when the lapse of time proves the reality of the evil, then the actual bitterness of grief commences. Yet from whom has not that rude hand rent away some dear connection? And why should I describe a sorrow which all have felt, and must feel? The time at length arrives when grief is rather an indulgence than a necessity; and the smile that plays upon the lips, although it may be deemed a sacrilege, is not banished. My mother was dead, but we had still duties which we ought to perform; we must continue our course with the rest and learn to think ourselves fortunate whilst one remains whom the spoiler has not seized.”

DeathMourning
Book:Frankenstein
Create image

“The whole shtick of scientism revolves around sensory evidence. How many times must it be said that there is no such thing as self-explanatory sensory evidence? All evidence must be interpreted, and the interpretation is not a perceiving activity but a judging activity. The catastrophic error that worshipers of scientism (autistic sensing types) commit is that they privilege perceiving over judging. They believe that perception is the most important thing, and that judgment must be directed to the maximum degree possible at the perception, and minimize and indeed eliminate any reference to anything that has not been perceived. For worshipers of scientism, perception comes first, and judging is secondary, determined by perceiving. That is what empiricism is all about. It claims that all knowledge comes from experience, that there are no innate ideas, and it revolves around synthetic propositions and a posteriori knowledge. Rationalism, by total contrast, asserts that knowledge comes from logical, rational deduction and that innate ideas form the only secure basis for knowledge. It deals with analytic propositions and a priori knowledge.”

ReasonPhilosophyScienceMaterialismRationalismEmpiricismA PrioriA PosterioriRational ProofSensory Evidence
Book:Extra Scientiam Nulla Salus: How Science Undermines Reason
Create image

“It’s time to blow scientism out of the water. It’s time for judging to replace perceiving. Every time a worshiper of scientism says, “Where is your sensory evidence?” (a perceiving requirement), they should be met with, “Where is your sufficient reason?” (a judging requirement). That will create cognitive dissonance in them. They will go into meltdown. Where is the sufficient reason that scientific matter exists? According to Big Bang theory, it did not exist prior to the Big Bang, and neither did space and time. In other words, we know that there was an epoch when all the stuff of perceiving – matter, space, time and the physical senses –did not exist. However, all of the stuff of judgment – mathematics – did exist. This is why judging is primary and perceiving secondary, rather than the other way around. Get with the program. Scientism is an entirely false worldview. That’s a fact. The sole thing it gets right is that uses mathematics, which is the true basis of reality.”

ReasonScienceSensesMaterialismScientismRationalismEmpiricismBig BangOntological Mathematics
Book:Extra Scientiam Nulla Salus: How Science Undermines Reason
Create image

“Is the Bible a “source”? Is a commonly accepted scientific fallacy and misinterpretation a “source”? The “sources” once said that the earth was flat, that the earth was at the center of the universe, and that God created the earth as his special project. Why would we take “sources” seriously? All we take seriously are reason, logic, and mathematics. Sources that are in contradiction of these – and nearly all sources are – are worse than useless. What kind of pathetic human being, what kind of intellectual cripple, has to appeal to sources and authorities? Use your reason and logic … then you will end your dependency on “sources”, i.e. authorities.”

ReasonTruthMajorityConformityRationalismMinorityGroup ThinkAppeal To AuthoritySource Checking
Book:Extra Scientiam Nulla Salus: How Science Undermines Reason
Create image