We cannot ask for better examples of “Anglo-Saxon Empiricists” than Mill and Hume, and yet the percepts of empiricism taken to their logical conclusions put us squarely at the heart of phenomenalism. Despite the sophistry which claims the opposite, phenomenalism unfolds organically into phenomenology. There are distinctions to be made for certain, as between prokaryotes and sentient human beings, but one certainly follows from the other.

From phenomenalism it is not such a great leap to postmodernism. In my musings I attempt to demonstrate how postmodernism is actually the cutting edge of the ancient Saxon civilization- emergence theory as epistemology.

Regardless, this IS the postmodern age. The modern age had a very clear beginning, middle, and end. Naturally what comes after is the postmodern age. Who is to lay claim to that term, to the age its self? To argue against its existence period is the worst kind of anachronism, as it allows those who would take the worst of ‘our’ past and forge into present terms. We should endeavor to do the opposite- take the best of the past and forge into present terms.

To me, that has always been the meaning of real conservatism. Not to preserve what dies naturally of its own accord, but to facilitate the spontaneous organic order that emerges of its own accord, that has slowly been emerging for two thousand years.

Postmodernism is, most simply, the awareness of the historical ‘here and how’. The anachronism is largely on the part of the ‘leftists’ who are trying to usurp our civilization using the same old tricks. We should not let them and should strive to command this age through the merit of our reason and time-tested ethics.

Perhaps you meant to say that they follow more closely a sort of scientific method, and this would be true in a limited sense since they appealed to the senses (and observation). But the metaphysics they proposed was entirely and solely the result of reason (or to be more precise, a rationalization based on empirical foundations).

The article shows a huge lack of understanding of philosophy or even history of philosophy. (I suggest Scruton’s short history on modern philosophy - an analytic who certainly does not share the views you expound here). It is also a very unphilosophical article, ripe with unfounded sweeping statements and ad-hominems.

I do not mean to belittle, only you need to read more, as I needed, and still need, to read more when I had fuzzy ideas about a subject.

You claim to be an empiricist, yet the empiricists did not deny the appeal of rationalism (or the place of the rational); they merely set out to show that in the end, or rather in the beginning, the basis of knowledge is empirical, not rational. They all realised that this raises a number of problems, and, ironically, most empiricists solved them by ignoring them, and this they did quite explicitly.

It is in fact this play between rationalism and empricism that led Kant to seek a solution in synthesis.

As for the claim that existentialists were mostly Nazis, again this is not grounded in facts. Existentialism is a philosophy resulting from previous philosophies, mostly as a reaction to Hegelian philosophy, which in turn was built on Kant’s, etc. (Hence Descartes’s label as the “Father of Modern Philosophy).

You have already gained a certain amount of knowledge, but you need to refine and increase it, as the thoughts expressed here are quite confused, if not entirely misguided, and cetainly misguiding.

Stick with your second hand *concrete* empiricism buddy. It sounds about as much as your brain is able to manage. I have found more intelligent/well informed posts from athiest undergrads on the Richard Dawkins forums. You’re a hack.

On mind, see here:

http://ray-dox.blogspot.com/2005/11/chapter-39-from-j.html

I ask these questions out of genuine curiosity as well as the desire to put your smug self-righteous attitude in its place. You obviously haven’t read much (if any) existential philosophy but are fronting like you have. I suggest starting with Kierkegaard. I’m calling you out and ready to go toe to toe with you in a debate right here. Call it existentialism vs empiricism. Round one. Ding!