If we accept — you may not — that BigMike’s position is in truth grounded in fallacy, one is left to define the fallacy as accurately as possible. The fallacious belief, as all fallacies, all intellectual errors, will result in consequences, and generally negative consequences. My reference here is to Weaver’s statement that “ideas have consequences”. We have to sort through erroneous ideas and if possible discover the root of the fallacy, and then reestablish the foundation of “proper ideation”.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2025 6:36 am It's possible that BigMike is using some kind of AI program to assist in his writing. In some sense, though, his writing still presents an argument so focusing on the method he's using could amount to a fallacy of relevance with regard to the argument he's presenting. Just FYI.
BigMike has had important relevance for me because “he” (it, them) has focused the idea-set into an intense concentration. A consequential, determining idea-set that involves establishing as a truth-claim a new, scientistic anthropology. Man, a biological robot, determined, unfree, in a cosmos without a relationship to an order of ideas, metaphysical and supernatural in nature, and of that order defined as intellectual (c.f. the definition offered of intellect).
With strong adamancy BM’s object is to weaken and destroy this conceptual link, and then to exclaim that those who live in accord with it, who “believe” in it “are intrinsically evil”. Mere hyperbole? I do not think so. The idea of the existence of a supernatural potency (the divine, God, a realm of metaphysical truth, etc.) and the relationship to it, is being portrayed as sickness, deviancy and — quoting Mike — as “intrinsically evil”.
You, Flash, the Philosophical Master Wilbur Boneman, and 49/50ths of the philosophers who contribute here and are proponents of modern philosophy, share BM’s basic position. And you (for the sake of example) suffer under the weight of the conflict which is the distorting declared understanding that is “atheism”. Your position is complicated by obvious factors but you are “emblematic” of an intellectual impasse.
In this sense BG expresses the essence of the modern position. It is radical postmodernist in my view.
I recognize that the Master Intellects who share their marvelous ideas here fundamentally disagree with the thrust of my assertions, but I am merely trying to clarify the nature of the conflict. It has a precise root.
And to show real wonderfulness as I go humbly along …
Now, it will come to pass that AI will become 1,000 times more adept at “argument”, and AI will be employed in social, cultural and idea manipulation as an extension and a tool of war. Fourth degree warfare, fifth degree, it has various names. And who will not be able to stand up against a powerful adversary? Those without sufficient grounding in sound argumentation; a background in ideas; a relationship with our cultural and civilizational history.
Like the majority who write here: illiterates in demonstrable ways. This is not mere insult, it is a vital fact.
BigMike represents a danger. He emblemizes a man, an intellect, organized “mathematically” but skewed in one tendentious, determined direction: to destroy the intellectual/conceptual pathway to a “core” reality. To follow his argument one must de-intellectualize oneself (again “intellectual” in my sense of the definition I offered).
In my view? Mike says he battles what is “evil” and is awaiting the day “it” dies out so that a new man, and a new anthropology, is established by what is implied as a state apparatus with control over the education system. The implications are real and they are consequential.
I really suggest that some intellectually narcissistic fools begin a somewhat closer and more serious analysis of what is taking shape in our world today.
