Principles vs Pragmatism

[surreptitious57]

If man is the measure of all things then it is sufficient to agree that we decide what is and is not objective
Then work towards defining the rules by which objectivity is asserted

I see zero problem with this as long as it is accepted that the rules can always be revised or updated
For too specific a definition might result in objectivity as a concept becoming less rigorous over time

[Logik]

If man is the measure of all things then it is sufficient to agree that we decide what is and is not objective
Then work towards defining the rules by which objectivity is asserted

I see zero problem with this as long as it is accepted that the rules can always be revised or updated
For too specific a definition might result in objectivity as a concept becoming less rigorous over time

Perfect!

We are getting closer and closer to solving all unsolvable decision problems.

Last one that remains: what signals to us that the rules/definition are in need of a refresh?

Expressed as the following decision problem: At the current point in time do the rules/definitions require a refresh/update?

Yes or no.

Who decides and how?

What is the feedback into the system that the current rules/definitions are inadequate?

[Judaka]

I intended my last post to be my last response to you but I may as well respond here, then I'm done talking to you.

Pragmatism is all about making decisions. Which requires bias and subjective initiative and total attachment/immersion in problem-solving.

I have no fucking idea what to make of the fact that you call yourself a pragmatist while giving the definition of "objectivity" above!

It makes sense given your opinion of me that you don't pay attention to what I say but why bother acting like you do? I didn't make up the word objectivity? I didn't state my opinions about it all I did was give the generally accepted definition - I didn't bring up the word YOU did.

How you manage to go on like you do here is astounding, you blow away all expectations. I know you have a low opinion of me, I get it but believe me, the feeling is mutual. I never talked to someone for so long to convey so little information in all my life, the only things you've learned about me so far are "nihilist" and "thinks he's pragmatic" that's all I know that you've understood from what I've written. I know for a fact that you didn't retain at least 60% of it based on your posts and I'm dubious as to the rest.

You are dealing with a reasonable person. More than most.

At least you continue to make me laugh. You're smug, condescending, you don't retain information, you've insulted me continually without coherency and you make accusations without caring about their validity or appropriateness. You're reasonable? Dude, you're a riot.

open-mindedness/neutrality/disinterest is the opposite of my conception of pragmatism.
open-mindedness is indifference is indecision the same as detachment and disinterest.

Pragmatism is all about making decisions. Which requires bias and subjective initiative and total attachment/immersion in problem-solving.

I have no fucking idea what to make of the fact that you call yourself a pragmatist while giving the definition of "objectivity" above!

.

You can be unbelievably stupid, is it mere willful ignorance? I've told you idk, at least twice that I am not aiming to be impartial or neutral in my stances. I've told you many things that completely contradict this perspective you've adorned me with such as insisting that I see things through my subjective framework, that I don't care about what's true and only causation and a plethora of other things. Here you are cursing and spouting off about how absurd I'm being - are you serious? I never even brought up objectivity except to disagree with the manner you're using the word.

There's no way, absolutely no way - that you've understood anything about me if you're still saying these things. Since the very start of talking to you, it's like there's an imaginary poster here, you mistake his posts for mine and you can't read mine. Endless incorrect and baseless accusations, endless assumptions about me that aren't just baseless or wrong - you've literally read that I think contrary to your assumptions about me! You argue with caricatures, ghosts, phantoms - I have never seen anything like it.

A nihilist that doesn't recognise the relativism of ALL adjectives. The irony!

I have at lengths explained the degree to which I am a relativist, if somehow it wasn't clear to you already - you could have just asked. "Hey Judaka, do you think adjectives are relative or not?" even a dumb question like that would have been okay. I could have told you "No Logik, of course, I believe all adjectives are relative, never said the contrary but glad to clear that up". Instead you make more DUMB assumptions, give more DUMB insults and make yourself look like a stupid ass AGAIN.

For the record: I don't expect you to come up with any better answer to what objectivity, fairness, unbiasedness, equitability and detachment are except "I know it when I see it".

You literally took SYNONYMS of objectivity and acted as though they are components of the concept of objectivity, you do this and continue to insult me. You could be smearing shit all over your face and still manage to think I'm the idiot here.

I will continue to talk with Nick_A in this post if that's necessary but I am done talking with you.

[surreptitious57]

Recently acquired knowledge strongly suggests that the rules need to be updated at this point in time
The precise nature of this is dependent on inter subjective consensus from all the relevant disciplines

[Logik]

You can be unbelievably stupid, is it mere willful ignorance? I've told you idk, at least twice that I am not aiming to be impartial or neutral in my stances. I've told you many things that completely contradict this perspective you've adorned me with such as insisting that I see things through my subjective framework, that I don't care about what's true and only causation and a plethora of other things. Here you are cursing and spouting off about how absurd I'm being - are you serious? I never even brought up objectivity except to disagree with the manner you're using the word.

Dude. Your perspective is 'nihilism'. You sure don't act like a nihilist...

So why should I retain anything information you say? Your narrative of yourself tells me nothing of or about you.

Actions speak louder than words.

There's no way, absolutely no way - that you've understood anything about me if you're still saying these things.

But I have learned a lot about you! You are still trying to define yourself. Labeling yourself a 'nihilist' and a 'pragmatist'.
You are still trying to figure out what to think, now how to think.

You are still searching for your own identity. The 'pragmatist' hasn't yet figured out it's ontological impossibility to define yourself.
What I've also learned about you is that you think you have private access to your 'beliefs', which tells me you have absolutely no conception of what a 'belief' is and how you use it.



It's not who you are underneath - it's what you do that defines you. So says Batman!

Since the very start of talking to you, it's like there's an imaginary poster here, you mistake his posts for mine and you can't read mine. Endless incorrect and baseless accusations, endless assumptions about me that aren't just baseless or wrong - you've literally read that I think contrary to your assumptions about me! You argue with caricatures, ghosts, phantoms - I have never seen anything like it.

Every 'accusation' of mine is inferred from your contradictions.

Your incompatible ideas tell me all about your internal struggles. It must be hell trying to balance them all out.

Or do the pragmatic thing - embrace your hypocrisy and ignore them

I have at lengths explained the degree to which I am a relativist, if somehow it wasn't clear to you already - you could have just asked. "Hey Judaka, do you think adjectives are relative or not?" even a dumb question like that would have been okay. I could have told you "No Logik, of course, I believe all adjectives are relative, never said the contrary but glad to clear that up". Instead you make more DUMB assumptions, give more DUMB insults and make yourself look like a stupid ass AGAIN.

Well, lets see how dumb my accusations are.

Given that all adjectives are relative (and you admit that recognise that) then I infer that you recognise your choice of words.
You CHOOSE to use the definition of the word that is ladden with positive human values/interpretation.

Where you use the word biased as a pejorative. You use the word 'unbiased' as 'desirable human quality'.
Where you use the word 'fair' as a desirable human quality, you use 'unfair' as a pejorative.

Your language, your mannerisms are so value-ladden that with positive human stereotypes and archetypes that I have no cooking clue what you mean by labeling yourself a nihilist.

The reason I think you are an idiot is because you accuse me of lacking self-awareness when a nihilist that hasn't committed suicide is a square circle.

Maybe you were just projecting. I will gladly play your mirror.

You literally took SYNONYMS of objectivity and acted as though they are components of the concept of objectivity, you do this and continue to insult me. You could be smearing shit all over your face and still manage to think I'm the idiot here.

Yes. YOUR synonyms. YOUR choice of words.

I will continue to talk with Nick_A in this post if that's necessary but I am done talking with you.

Whatever floats your boat.

[Logik]

Recently acquired knowledge strongly suggests that the rules need to be updated at this point in time

Is that based on evidence or gut feel?

[surreptitious57]

Everything that ground apes do is a work in progress as they try with the best of intention to make sense of it all
There cannot be total elimination of intuition so better for it to be factored in to the equation than just ignored

[Logik]

Everything that ground apes do is a work in progress as they try with the best of intention to make sense of it all
There cannot be total elimination of intuition so better for it to be factored in to the equation than just ignored

And for as long as work is in progress, all we can hope to improve is our workflow.

Better tools. Better processes. Better strategies for dealing with common challenges (soft skills) etc.

The clash of cultures happens when neither side is willing to surrender their thinking tools (e.g beliefs) despite working towards a common goal.

[surreptitious57]

I dont think there is any culture difference within science because the common goal is universally understood
The difference is between science and other disciplines particularly religion and to a lesser extent philosophy

[Logik]

I dont think there is any culture difference within science because the common goal is universally understood
The difference is between science and other disciplines particularly religion and to a lesser extent philosophy

The best way I've heard somebody define the institution of 'science' is 'paragon society'.

Which is why a lot of society puts science/scientists on a pedestal.

Science doesn't need admiration. It needs application... It is a pragmatic institution first and foremost.
It's iterative, rigorous, systematic attempt at keeping your own reasoning in check so as to silly errors.

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool. --Feynman

[surreptitious57]

The scientific method may be the most brutal uncompromising methodology ever devised but this is no reason to put its practitioners
on to any pedestals even though the great ones nevertheless deserve it for their contribution to human understanding and knowledge

[Nick_A]

To give ones word and to stand by it was at one time considered an admirable principle. I will do this or that because I gave my word. Of course few actually meant it. Pragmatic considerations would come along and then ones word would become meaningless.

Living by ones word has become one of those principles falling into the category of "Do as I say, not as I do." A marriage vow for example is often accompanied with a pre-nuptial agreement necessary because people know the vow is meaningless. The vow is only meaningful to the lawyers who vow to make money off of broken vows.

The big question here is what value you place on your word? Is giving your word and standing by it a worthwhile principle or is it better for you just to live in accordance with the axiom "the ends justify the means" and use your word as simply a means to attain pragmatic ends? Would politics be possible for those who live by their word?

Do you believe living by your word is a strength or a dogmatic weakness? Would the world be a better place if people were able to live by their word?

Pragmatism serves short term goals while principles refer to long term goals. Do you give your word with an awareness of long term value or only to serve short term pragmatic goals? How can we reconcile our attraction to short term goals with our recognition of long term values?

[Walker]

To give ones word and to stand by it was at one time considered an admirable principle. I will do this or that because I gave my word.

Like morality, a proper progressive will hoist you up with the petard of keeping your word.

This is why Democrats are doing everything in their power to prevent a wall.

Trump promised a wall.
It got him elected.

Denying the wall is for the purpose of hoisting him with his own petard, and other than the political strategy that relies on the needs of citizens and thus their support as voters, that's all it is.

The hoisting by the progressives is based purely on politics, given the hoisters' 180 degree reversal of position on illegal immigration.

Conclusion (albeit with some skipped steps): The only principle in play for some folks is seizing power by any means necessary.

[Nick_A]

To give ones word and to stand by it was at one time considered an admirable principle. I will do this or that because I gave my word.

Like morality, a proper progressive will hoist you up with the petard of keeping your word.

This is why Democrats are doing everything in their power to prevent a wall.

Trump promised a wall.
It got him elected.

Denying the wall is for the purpose of hoisting him with his own petard, and other than the political strategy that relies on the needs of citizens and thus their support as voters, that's all it is.

The hoisting by the progressives is based purely on politics, given the hoisters' 180 degree reversal of position on illegal immigration.

Conclusion (albeit with some skipped steps): The only principle in play for some folks is seizing power by any means necessary.

That's another side of the question. The progressives live by the axiom "the ends justify the means." As such the lie is a necessary part of living by their principle with its goal of a socialist utopia. It is just hard for me to appreciate people willing to support the hardship and rapes of these illegal aliens during their trip to America and the open support of this invasion when they get here not to mention the drugs and children being made prostitutes in America just to support this imagined socialist utopian goal. Plato's dark horse is on a roll

The only principles progressives value are those they can give lip service to in order to cover for their pragmatic aim of a socialist utopia.

“The struggle between the opponents and defenders of capitalism is a struggle between innovators who do not know what innovation to make and conservatives who do not know what to conserve.” ~ Simone Weil

As usual she's one of the few who gets it. The loss of the value of principles serving the long term interests of humanity are abandoned by the progressives and largely forgotten by conservatives. Will enough of humanity remember in order to save the day? Don't bet on it.

[Arising_uk]

..As such the lie is a necessary part of living by their principle with its goal of a socialist utopia. It is just hard for me to appreciate people willing to support the hardship and rapes of these illegal aliens during their trip to America and the open support of this invasion when they get here not to mention the drugs and children being made prostitutes in America just to support this imagined socialist utopian goal. ...

Er!? What 'invasion', you Yanks and your hyperbole.

You don't think they are leaving to escape such things and are seeking your capitalist utopia?

But you're okay with your capitalist utopia having these kids as druggies and prostitutes?

You do realise it is your capitalist utopia that is fuelling this drugs trade, that your capitalist utopia appears to produce the largest drug need on the planet?

Plato's dark horse is on a roll

You really need to read Plato one day.

The only principles progressives value are those they can give lip service to in order to cover for their pragmatic aim of a socialist utopia. ...

You have zero idea of what a party promoting a 'socialist utopia' is as you only have two parties and both are right-wing.

As usual she's one of the few who gets it. The loss of the value of principles serving the long term interests of humanity are abandoned by the progressives and largely forgotten by conservatives. Will enough of humanity remember in order to save the day? Don't bet on it.

You think Jesus would have thought these people 'invaders' and rejected the children?