Lecture by the British philosopher, Keith Ward

Here's the second part. You can find the other parts from this link if you wish:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvoMu17Ft8I&NR=1

More Gresham College videos:

http://www.gresham.ac.uk/audio_video.asp?PageId=108

**ALERT ** ^ Humpty Dumpty Post ^ **ALERT **

spoiler:"I don't know what you mean by "glory"?" Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't-- till I tell you. I meant "here's a nice knock-down argument for you!"
"But glory doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument!'" Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean-- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-- that's all."
"And what does "outgrabe" mean?' [Alice continued]
'Well, "outgrabing" is something between bellowing and whistling, with a kind of sneeze in the middle; however you'll hear it done, maybe - down in the wood yonder - and, when you've once heard it, you'll be quite content."

Please explain to us how Ward misuses any philosophical terminology [with references to standard works in the field of course so we can cross reference and make our own minds up rather than taking you as the authority on what words do and don't mean]...

Short answer: I base my post merely on the inclusion of the words "philosopher" and "materialism" (the later particularly relative to "Discontents")

["sorry" it caused you to have to type out all that additional bracketed Dumptying]

*as to Mr Ward personally, I regret that he has associated with a label that presently company, coupled with the likes of Stefban, have me avoiding such entirely as a bit of a sabbatical*

You're a riot, Dane, a real riot. aROFLMAOist.

You gotta admit, eye, you're not known for your clarity, brevity or even basic comprehensibility.

The notion of existence as anything other than materia is a contradiction. For a thing to exist it has to exert force on other objects. A thing which does not exert force, consequentially, is not real.

A reference to the physical sciences isn't necessary at all, Aristotle's law of non-contradiction is itself an ontological (not merely logical) law; existence and material instantiation are identical.

But does Aristotle's ''law' of non-contradiction' really exist as anything other that sub-atomic particles in your brain? If the answer is yes then there is a serious question mark over materialism - if the answer is no then the so-called 'law' is no such thing after all. It is just a physical part of how your physical brain works and trying to objectify it is a nonsense.

But does Aristotle's ''law' of non-contradiction' really exist as anything other that sub-atomic particles in your brain?
It is a minimal property of existence. Primary philosophy is not about 'laws' in the legislative sense, it is about reality qua reality.

I like it. I'm now officially switching my verbiage to reflect some newfound uncertainty. "Materialist" leaves me with some questions I haven't put together answers for, so "naturalist" it is.

On a side note, I think an interesting and tangential point raised is that the scientists whose work most supported materialism were typically not materialists. My thoughts immediately turned to evolutionary biologists with conflicting thoughts on spirituality and/or creation. It was the subject of Greg Graffin's dissertation, but I don't remember ever following up on it when it got done