The failure of post modern philosophy is a failure of the scientific method.

[Logik]

No, the confusion lies with you.

Well, manifestly not.

You have assumed that you can prescribe language onto me.

Not at all. I have simply taken relativism at its own word, and shown that it cannot even meet its own terms. I have prescribed nothing. Any "prescription" has come from epistemic relativism itself.

I know that murder is wrong. Do you ?

My last message covers that correctly. I can only point you to it.

And so you refuse to answer a simple yes/no question as to the epistemic wrongness of murder?

What is it that you are trying to hide? Your immorality perhaps?

[Immanuel Can]

And so you refuse to answer a simple yes/no question as to the epistemic wrongness of murder?

What is it that you are trying to hide?

Ad hominem. And, of course, totally irrelevant to the epistemic relativism question.

[Logik]

And so you refuse to answer a simple yes/no question as to the epistemic wrongness of murder?

What is it that you are trying to hide?

Ad hominem. And, of course, totally irrelevant to the epistemic relativism question.

It's not ad hominem if it's true. But you refuse to answer the question that would absolve you of guilt.

Do you know that murder is wrong?

If you were a moralist then you would surely say "yes".
So by modus tollens it follows that you are an immoralist?

[Immanuel Can]

And so you refuse to answer a simple yes/no question as to the epistemic wrongness of murder?

What is it that you are trying to hide?

Ad hominem. And, of course, totally irrelevant to the epistemic relativism question.

It's not ad hominem if it's true.

False. "Donald is orange," and "Donald is the US president" are both true; but the former is ad hominem to the latter, unless "non-orangeness" is a qualification of presidency.

But you refuse to answer the question that would absolve you of guilt.

Do you know that murder is wrong?

Refusing to say "yes" is a strange strategy indeed.

Ad hominem again. And it's evident that you're still not aware of the difference between epistemological and ethical relativism.

You may want to inform yourself of the difference before replying. Like relativism, this conversation is becoming tediously circular at the moment, and in charity, I'm beginning to suspect you of trolling: I don't want to suppose you are genuinely this persistently confused.

[Logik]

You may want to inform yourself of the difference before replying. Like relativism, this conversation is becoming tediously circular at the moment, and in charity, I'm beginning to suspect you of trolling: I don't want to suppose you are genuinely this persistently confused.

Again, falling short of the burden of proof. I am telling you that there is no difference. If you claim that there is - then you need to provide evidence.

1 distinction requires 1 bit of evidence.

[Immanuel Can]

I am telling you that there is no difference.

Yes, I see that.

It's just that you happen to be wrong. But you can Google that, so I'll leave it with you.

[Logik]

If philosophy is the "love of wisdom" then Immanuel Can must be the dumbest motherfucker on this forum.

How can you point fingers at postmodernism, when philosophy on its own is perfectly capable of such idiocy without help from the likes of Derrida.

I know that murder is wrong. Do you?

Yes, I see that.

It's just that you happen to be wrong.

[uwot]

An example of how absurd this can get, here in Canada, we support "MulticulturalismTM" and to appeal to the aboriginal part, we are actually encouraging them towards an 'alternative science' based upon unique aboriginal wisdom??!

The irony is that the people pushing hardest for an 'alternative science' are god-botherers like Mr Can.

I've heard. I've also heard that there's an "alternate justice system" based on the same.

Which is what every country in the world does.

[Walker]

On the contrary.
He buried you.

No I don't. You claimed that "relatively true" is a synonym for "false".

I rejected it. The burden of proof is with you.

I am telling you that the wrongness of murder is an epistemic example.

If there is only one thing I know - I KNOW THAT MURDER IS WRONG.

That old burden of proof sure is quick to switch sides.



In this situation it appears that Relative = Shifty

First one: the declarer must prove to the hearer.
Second one: the hearer must prove to the declarer.

Contradiction.

[Logik]

That old burden of proof sure is quick to switch sides.



In this situation it appears that Relative = Shifty

Another genius who doesn't understand how logic works.

First one: the declarer must prove to the hearer.

Correct. Because I was using language descriptively. I am describing my own epistemic state.

What evidence do I need to provide you with when I am simply reporting on my state of mind?

Second one: the hearer must prove to the declarer.

Correct. Because Immanual Can was attempting to prescribe language. He was trying to control how I should speak, how I should think and what I can and can't say about my own state of mind.

A little presumptuous, don't you think ?

Contradiction.

Suppose that I am contradicting myself (which I am not). Are you trying to convince us (like like his Highness of Dumb Fuckery Immanuel Can't was trying to convince us) that contradictions are wrong?

Surely he was arguing that "wrong" is just a value judgment? Are you on this bandwagon too?

Are you now telling us that contradictions are wrong, but murder isn't wrong?

Another fucking genius!

[Logik]

I am telling you that there is no difference.

Yes, I see that.

It's just that you happen to be wrong. But you can Google that, so I'll leave it with you.

Your word "know" is epistemic. But your term "wrong" is a value judgment, which belongs to the world of ethics, not to epistemology.

Pure fucking gold

According to the idiot-philosopher SAYING "I know that murder is wrong" is wrong.

So I guess your assertion of my "wrongness" belong to ethics also?

[Immanuel Can]

This idiot-philosopher can tell me that I am using language "wrong", but he can't tell us if murder is wrong.

Again, look up the difference between "morally wrong" and "factually wrong."

"Murder is wrong" is a value judgment. "Asmara is the capital city of England" is factually wrong.

See here: https://www.britannica.com/topic/fact-value-distinction

But epistemic relativism isn't even conceptually right. That is, even if one grants it all its own suppositions, it still self-defeats.

[Logik]

Again, look up the difference between "morally wrong" and "factually wrong."

"Murder is wrong" is a value judgment. "Asmara is the capital city of England" is factually wrong.

See here: https://www.britannica.com/topic/fact-value-distinction

But epistemic relativism isn't even conceptually right. That is, even if one grants it all its own suppositions, it still self-defeats.

Fuck, I gotta regain my composure to put together a retort. Here it goes....

(In Samuel L. Jackson voice [1]) Check out the big brain on Immanuel! You are a smart motherfucker, that's right!

You KNOW HOW TO ASSERT the "rightness" of concepts and the "rightness" of using linguistic labels, but you DON'T KNOW HOW TO ASSERT the wrongness of murder!

If I feel like renaming "London" to "Asmara" I can and I will. It's just a label!

As of this very moment I PREFER to call it Asmara instead of London. And so "Asmara is the capital city of England" just became factually correct.

You know what self-defeats even worse than "epistemic relativism"? Moral relativism.

I can and I am saying it: I know that murder is wrong.

Does that offend your "philosophical sensibilities"? Good! Because that's exactly my intention.If you think that there is something wrong with the above knowledge-claim that is a sure sign this dumb-fuckery is not postmodernism's fault. I am far more keen to pin the blame on linguistic prescriptivist and their sophistry.

Q.E.D.

#### References
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hrm-rPSCIBw

[Eodnhoj7]

Philosophy fundamentally comes down to a question over the nature of measurement...

Actually, that's science. Long story short-science is about what the universe does, which you can observe and measure. Whereas philosophy (in this instance) is about what the universe is. You can make up any old story about what the universe is to explain what it does. It's yer epistemology against yer ontology.

False, as the science itself is not just a classification but effectively is not applied to itself. Science does not study science as science, in the modern sense of the term, is grounded in empiricism.

...(hence quantitative and qualitative values at the practical ethical level) and as such what I argue strictly addresses either directly or by proxy the nature of postmodern philosophy as strictly a value system premised on the continual progression of "language" which effectively "mirrors" the progressive nature of facts in science.

The facts are the facts; they are only 'progressive' in that we find out more of them. Naturally, we develop language to accommodate the facts we discover.

"The facts are the facts" is the same aristotelian identity property you seek to deny.

The question is; "What is a fact?"

In trying to "fit in" with the public materialistic mindset philosophy mimiced the nature of the "wheel of science" which continually dissolves facts into further "facts" with any prior "facts" effectively being negated by the new ones. Hence most scientific facts are strictly just spontaneously localization of certain relations we use to guide how we percieve the world; hence ourselves.

No. They're just facts.

And what is a fact?

The problem occurs that this "progression" causes a continual divergence within the group and individual perspectives, evidenced in not just the identity crisis of the modern person but group incoherence and the generation gap.

Well, people interpret the facts differently, for all sorts of social and psychological reasons-none of which change the facts.

If that is a fact then by nature facts observe a progressive nature of continual seperation from prior facts. One fact progresses to another and is negated by the new "fact", effectively leaving the current fact (as subject to the same form and function of all facts) as "nothing".

A fact is merely "nothing" in and of itself under these terms.

The difference is that they applied this to "language"...hence the mass confusion.

Yup, communicating with another human being, using a language you both speak, can be confusing.

[Eodnhoj7]

"Creative Will" becomes a foundation then....

Conveniently ignoring the foundation of "creative will" - being alive.

Before you can do science OR philosophy, first you have to be alive....

So "life" is the foundation?