Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:23 am
You can re-phrase it as many times and in as many ways as you like - but it provides no justification whatsoever.
You are aware that the regress problem in epistemology is unsolved, yes? So when you point out a 'lack of justification', one would be forgiven for inferring that you have some epistemic criteria for 'sufficient justification' in mind.
Could you tell us what they are? I'll bet money that you can't
$500 to a charity of your choice. Put your money where your mouth is. Or some such ancient wisdom.
The regress problem is another metaphysical fantasy, so it doesn't need solving. But by all means furkle down the rabbit hole.
I have zero intention to go down the justification rabbit hole. I have every intention to take you down the verificationsm rabbit hole!
How do you know that what you have is knowledge?
See! I am willing to bet money AND tell you the strategy I am going to beat you with up front!
What kind of crazy is this?!? Could it be knowledge that YOU can’t recognize?
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:37 am
You are aware that the regress problem in epistemology is unsolved, yes? So when you point out a 'lack of justification', one would be forgiven for inferring that you have some epistemic criteria for 'sufficient justification' in mind.
Could you tell us what they are? I'll bet money that you can't
$500 to a charity of your choice. Put your money where your mouth is. Or some such ancient wisdom.
The regress problem is another metaphysical fantasy, so it doesn't need solving. But by all means furkle down the rabbit hole.
I have zero intention to go down the justification rabbit hole. I have every intention to take you down the verificationsm rabbit hole!
How do you know that what you have is knowledge?
See! I am willing to bet money AND tell you the strategy I am going to beat you with up front!
What kind of crazy is this?!? Could it be knowledge that YOU can’t recognize?
Just $500 to find out!
No, you misunderstand. Again. It's not the justification rabbit hole. It's the rabbit hole at the bottom of which metaphysicians furkle in the dark, mumbling to each other about what such things as knowledge, justification, truth, facts and objectivity really are, why what we say they are is wrong, and why they're really mysterious things we can never truly grasp. Plato presides over the arcane proceedings in the suffocating gloom. These are your people, this is your gang.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:50 am
The regress problem is another metaphysical fantasy, so it doesn't need solving. But by all means furkle down the rabbit hole.
I have zero intention to go down the justification rabbit hole. I have every intention to take you down the verificationsm rabbit hole!
How do you know that what you have is knowledge?
See! I am willing to bet money AND tell you the strategy I am going to beat you with up front!
What kind of crazy is this?!? Could it be knowledge that YOU can’t recognize?
Just $500 to find out!
No, you misunderstand. Again. It's not the justification rabbit hole. It's the rabbit hole at the bottom of which metaphysicians furkle in the dark, mumbling to each other about what such things as knowledge, justification, truth, facts and objectivity really are, why what we say they are is wrong, and why they're really mysterious things we can never truly grasp. Plato presides over the arcane proceedings in the suffocating gloom. These are your people, this is your gang.
Do I misunderstand? When veritifacionism clearly rejects metaphysics?
To ask, 'How do you know that what you have is knowledge?' is to be completely befuddled by metaphysical delusion. No way around it. It's a stupid, pseudo-intellectual question - the kind peddled by metaphysicians for millennia. And here you are still peddling it. Wake up.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:48 pm
To ask, 'How do you know that what you have is knowledge?' is to be completely befuddled by metaphysical delusion. No way around it. It's a stupid, pseudo-intellectual question - the kind peddled by metaphysicians for millennia. And here you are still peddling it. Wake up.
I am awake. Consider the alternative hypothesis. It is you who is dreaming.
You fail to recognize that without skin in the game (selection criteria against bullshit-vending) there is no difference between an intellectual and a pseudo-intellectual.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:48 pm
To ask, 'How do you know that what you have is knowledge?' is to be completely befuddled by metaphysical delusion. No way around it. It's a stupid, pseudo-intellectual question - the kind peddled by metaphysicians for millennia. And here you are still peddling it. Wake up.
I am awake. Consider the alternative hypothesis. It is you who is dreaming.
Which, appropriately enough, is Plato's fantasy: we fondly imagine that what's around us is real - but actually we're in the cave of seeming. The irony is lovely: down the rabbit hole, make up the story that this is real, and outside in the fresh air is illusion.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:59 pm
Which, appropriately enough, is Plato's fantasy: we fondly imagine that what's around us is real - but actually we're in the cave of seeming. The irony is lovely: down the rabbit hole, make up the story that this is real, and outside in the fresh air is illusion.
Irony indeed! As Rorty observes.
First you have to survive long enough in this hellhole before you can write the 'real' story.
Then you have to overcome the 2nd law of thermodynamics to acquire 'truth'.
Truth-seeking is your religion It is a comforting delusion. Bloody theists everywhere!
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:59 pm
Which, appropriately enough, is Plato's fantasy: we fondly imagine that what's around us is real - but actually we're in the cave of seeming. The irony is lovely: down the rabbit hole, make up the story that this is real, and outside in the fresh air is illusion.
Irony indeed! As Rorty observes.
First you have to survive long enough in this hellhole before you can write the 'real' story.
Then you have to overcome the 2nd law of thermodynamics to acquire 'truth'.
Truth-seeking is your religion It is a comforting delusion. Bloody theists everywhere!
No, the delusion is in thinking truth is a mysterious or impossible thing that needs to be sought. That's your metaphysical delusion. You're a metaphysician in denial. And metaphysics is sublimated supernaturalism. You're the theist. Stop projecting. Wake up.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:59 pm
Which, appropriately enough, is Plato's fantasy: we fondly imagine that what's around us is real - but actually we're in the cave of seeming. The irony is lovely: down the rabbit hole, make up the story that this is real, and outside in the fresh air is illusion.
Irony indeed! As Rorty observes.
First you have to survive long enough in this hellhole before you can write the 'real' story.
Then you have to overcome the 2nd law of thermodynamics to acquire 'truth'.
Truth-seeking is your religion It is a comforting delusion. Bloody theists everywhere!
No, the delusion is in thinking truth is a mysterious or impossible thing that needs to be sought. That's your metaphysical delusion. You're a metaphysician in denial. And metaphysics is sublimated supernaturalism. You're the theist. Stop projecting. Wake up.
I am an atruist, remember? I reject the notion of truth or its existence It is a claim on par with the existence of God.
I believe in neither. I am looking for neither. It is only time that I seek.
So what is it that I am projecting exactly?
It is the exact same accusation theists lay against science. The fallacy of gray
When people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together. —Isaac Asimov
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 1:20 pm
I am an atruist, remember? I reject the notion of truth or its existence
So what is it the I am projecting exactly?
I know. Your mistake is the metaphysical delusion that truth is some kind of 'notion' or 'concept' or 'thing' whose existence we can accept or reject. You mistake the abstract noun 'truth' for a thing that therefore may or may not exist, in the mind or reality or the realm of forms.
If you've bought metaphysical snake oil, that we use the word truth and its cognates perfectly clearly and understandably in different contexts is unimportant. Ho-ho - these amateurs, blithely unaware how little they know about what's really the case. (Takes another puff of in the suffocating gloom.)
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 1:35 pm
I know. Your mistake is the metaphysical delusion that truth is some kind of 'notion' or 'concept' or 'thing' whose existence we can accept or reject. You mistake the abstract noun 'truth' for a thing that therefore may or may not exist, in the mind or reality or the realm of forms.
If you've bought metaphysical snake oil, that we use the word truth and its cognates perfectly clearly and understandably in different contexts is unimportant. Ho-ho - these amateurs, blithely unaware how little they know about what's really the case. (Takes another puff of in the suffocating gloom.)
I see.
How is the abstract noun Truth any different from the abstract noun God?
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 1:35 pm
I know. Your mistake is the metaphysical delusion that god is some kind of 'notion' or 'concept' or 'thing' whose existence we can accept or reject. You mistake the abstract noun 'god' for a thing that therefore may or may not exist, in the mind or reality or the realm of forms.
If you've bought metaphysical snake oil, that we use the word god and its cognates perfectly clearly and understandably in different contexts is unimportant. Ho-ho - these amateurs, blithely unaware how little they know about what's really the case. (Takes another puff of in the suffocating gloom.)
Which religious book is this paragraph from ? The followers of that religion seem highly convinced of their own enlightenment
Last edited by TimeSeeker on Mon Sep 24, 2018 1:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 1:35 pm
I know. Your mistake is the metaphysical delusion that truth is some kind of 'notion' or 'concept' or 'thing' whose existence we can accept or reject. You mistake the abstract noun 'truth' for a thing that therefore may or may not exist, in the mind or reality or the realm of forms.
If you've bought metaphysical snake oil, that we use the word truth and its cognates perfectly clearly and understandably in different contexts is unimportant. Ho-ho - these amateurs, blithely unaware how little they know about what's really the case. (Takes another puff of in the suffocating gloom.)
I see.
How is the abstract noun Truth any different from the abstract noun God?
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 1:35 pm
I know. Your mistake is the metaphysical delusion that god is some kind of 'notion' or 'concept' or 'thing' whose existence we can accept or reject. You mistake the abstract noun 'god' for a thing that therefore may or may not exist, in the mind or reality or the realm of forms.
If you've bought metaphysical snake oil, that we use the word god and its cognates perfectly clearly and understandably in different contexts is unimportant. Ho-ho - these amateurs, blithely unaware how little they know about what's really the case. (Takes another puff of in the suffocating gloom.)
Which religious book is this paragraph from ? The followers of that religion seem highly convinced of their own enlightenment
Grammar 101. 'God' is supposedly the name of a supernatural entity. Good luck in the pit with theists if you claim 'God' is an abstract noun.
Appeal to purity. Grammar from which logic/language? There are infinitely many logics. I can parse at least 17 different ones. I don't know which one you've CHOSEN.
You have pre-supposed a single language. That is your error in reasoning. Logocentrism.
In classical logic there is no difference between the claims “God exists” and “Truth exists”.
Both claims reduce to 1 bit of information.
So it is on you to demonstrate a difference.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:00 pm
'God' is supposedly the name of a supernatural entity. Good luck in the pit with theists if you claim 'God' is an abstract noun.
What is the difference between an 'abstract noun' and a 'supernatural entity'?
Because I am having no more luck in the pit with people who believe in Truth than with people who believe in God.
