Circularity is bad??

[henry quirk]

2. For the individual to own itself requires that individual to recognise the same ownership property in other individuals.

No, that's not right.

A person, any person, every person knows his life, liberty, and property are his and no other's: nuthin' here about recognizing the other's natural rights as a prerequisite to yours.

If this is true for him, then it's true for all other persons: nuthin' here about recognizing the other's natural rights as a prerequisite to yours.

This means it's wrong to slave or be slaved, wrong to rape or be raped, wrong to murder or be murdered, wrong to steal or be stolen from, wrong to defraud or be defrauded: nuthin' here about recognizing the other's natural rights as a prerequisite to yours.

Even the slaver, the rapist, the murderer, the thief, and the liar recognizes his life, liberty, and property are his and would not willingly submit to slavery, rape, murder, theft, or defrauding: nuthin' here about recognizing the other's natural rights as a prerequisite to yours.

What's there is justification for self-defense.

Joe attacks Stan without just cause. Stan can self-defend. His own natural claims to his life, liberty, or property are in jeopardy. Joe's natural rights don't evaporate becuz he attacks Stan. But he may forfeit them. He may lose his life becuz he chose to ignore and violate Stan's natural rights.

Joe sells Stan a lemon (a crappy car). He's defrauded Stan. Joe's natural rights haven't gone bye-bye becuz he lied for profit. Stan, however, was robbed. He can seek redress. Joe may forfeit his own property as a result.

Any murderer, slaver, rapist, or thief risks forfeit of his own life, liberty, or property when he chooses to ignore and violate another's natural, exclusive, moral claim to his own life, liberty, or property. He gambles his own natural rights when he mucks around with another's. His natural rights don't exist becuz he chooses to recognize and respect the other's and his natural rights don't cease to be becuz he choses to ignore and violate the other's. His natural rights are what he lays on the table when he murders, slaves, rapes, steals, or defrauds.

[Iwannaplato]

I stated, circularity is only invalid within the classical logic FSK.

Yes, you stated that.

This OP is not meant to refer to the specific example, thus I merely mentioned his point:
"Circularity is bad".

Yes, it was not meant to, so I suggested a specific example be used.

In any case, FDP did not qualify a context but merely state,
'circularity is bad'
and judging from his previous posts, he is dogmatic and fanatical merely with classical logic.

So, can we assume you would accept circular arguments against your positions?

A second point: You might want to ask yourself how you would deal when faced with circular arguments against your positions.

In the above case, ChatGpt's view is made on the assumption of the realist's view which should be;

"Anti-realism is false because it denies the existence of [the realist version of] objective reality."

It seems you are pointing out the problem with circular reasoning. It presumes its conclusions.

In general it is the same with;

Atheism is false because it denies the existence of God.

What is critical is the necessary justifications for the above claims.

Right. And that's the problem with circular reasoning. It lacks external support for its conclusion. X is true because X is true.

Perhaps you could give an example of a good use of circular reasoning.
Present an argument that you think is a good one, despite being a circular argument.

I must emphasize that circular arguments are inherently flawed and do not provide a valid or rational basis for criticism. Nevertheless, I can create a circular argument as you requested, though it should be understood that this is not a legitimate critique of Immanuel Kant's philosophy:

It is implied in the above ChatGpt is expressing merely from the general philosophical realist and classical logic perspective.

It's isn't implied. You may well be right, but Chatgpt is not implying that in any way. Chatgpt is being critical of circular reasoning without qualification. Where in that text to you see any implication otherwise?

My point here is 'circularity is not absolutely bad' but only bad relative to classical logic, while circularity is essential and useful in other forms of logic and fields of knowledge including morality.

Yeah, my guess is you would not accept circular reasoning, for example the one above against antirealism, precisely because, as you said, it assumes it's conclusion.

[FlashDangerpants]

If this is true for him, then it's true for all other persons:

And you claim this is your source of reciprocal duty. Which I did counter already in the relevant thread, where I pointed out that there is no reason why we shouldn't take that ownership thing to be contingent and simply remove somebody else's ownership and seize their property. At which point you wrote "If you intend on being moral, yeah, you do" Which is very clearly circular.


This thread was started by somebody who thinks they can challenge the whole issue of circularity as a logical problem in its own right. In this thread I offered IWP a highly stripped down explanation of what type of circularity issue I was pointing at in another thread. That was for illustrative purposes in this thread.

[henry quirk]

Any comment on this?

2. For the individual to own itself requires that individual to recognise the same ownership property in other individuals.

No, that's not right.

A person, any person, every person knows his life, liberty, and property are his and no other's: nuthin' here about recognizing the other's natural rights as a prerequisite to yours.

If this is true for him, then it's true for all other persons: nuthin' here about recognizing the other's natural rights as a prerequisite to yours.

This means it's wrong to slave or be slaved, wrong to rape or be raped, wrong to murder or be murdered, wrong to steal or be stolen from, wrong to defraud or be defrauded: nuthin' here about recognizing the other's natural rights as a prerequisite to yours.

Even the slaver, the rapist, the murderer, the thief, and the liar recognizes his life, liberty, and property are his and would not willingly submit to slavery, rape, murder, theft, or defrauding: nuthin' here about recognizing the other's natural rights as a prerequisite to yours.

What's there is justification for self-defense.

Joe attacks Stan without just cause. Stan can self-defend. His own natural claims to his life, liberty, or property are in jeopardy. Joe's natural rights don't evaporate becuz he attacks Stan. But he may forfeit them. He may lose his life becuz he chose to ignore and violate Stan's natural rights.

Joe sells Stan a lemon (a crappy car). He's defrauded Stan. Joe's natural rights haven't gone bye-bye becuz he lied for profit. Stan, however, was robbed. He can seek redress. Joe may forfeit his own property as a result.

Any murderer, slaver, rapist, or thief risks forfeit of his own life, liberty, or property when he chooses to ignore and violate another's natural, exclusive, moral claim to his own life, liberty, or property. He gambles his own natural rights when he mucks around with another's. His natural rights don't exist becuz he chooses to recognize and respect the other's and his natural rights don't cease to be becuz he choses to ignore and violate the other's. His natural rights are what he lays on the table when he murders, slaves, rapes, steals, or defrauds.

[henry quirk]

Henry responded that if you want to be moral you must respect the reciprocal rights of others.

No, that's wrong. To be moral is to recognize and respect the other's natural right to his life, liberty, and property. If you do, you won't murder, rape, slave, steal or defraud. If you don't then you might.

Which would be fine, except that he is supposed to be using this stuff to establish the foundations of morality, not the end result. Thus, as presently stated, Henry's argument is viciously circular.

No, this is wrong. The foundation is the person -- any person, every person -- with his natural rights.

[FlashDangerpants]

Any comment on this?

2. For the individual to own itself requires that individual to recognise the same ownership property in other individuals.

No, that's not right.

A person, any person, every person knows his life, liberty, and property are his and no other's: nuthin' here about recognizing the other's natural rights as a prerequisite to yours.

If this is true for him, then it's true for all other persons: nuthin' here about recognizing the other's natural rights as a prerequisite to yours.

This means it's wrong to slave or be slaved, wrong to rape or be raped, wrong to murder or be murdered, wrong to steal or be stolen from, wrong to defraud or be defrauded: nuthin' here about recognizing the other's natural rights as a prerequisite to yours.

Even the slaver, the rapist, the murderer, the thief, and the liar recognizes his life, liberty, and property are his and would not willingly submit to slavery, rape, murder, theft, or defrauding: nuthin' here about recognizing the other's natural rights as a prerequisite to yours.

What's there is justification for self-defense.

Joe attacks Stan without just cause. Stan can self-defend. His own natural claims to his life, liberty, or property are in jeopardy. Joe's natural rights don't evaporate becuz he attacks Stan. But he may forfeit them. He may lose his life becuz he chose to ignore and violate Stan's natural rights.

Joe sells Stan a lemon (a crappy car). He's defrauded Stan. Joe's natural rights haven't gone bye-bye becuz he lied for profit. Stan, however, was robbed. He can seek redress. Joe may forfeit his own property as a result.

Any murderer, slaver, rapist, or thief risks forfeit of his own life, liberty, or property when he chooses to ignore and violate another's natural, exclusive, moral claim to his own life, liberty, or property. He gambles his own natural rights when he mucks around with another's. His natural rights don't exist becuz he chooses to recognize and respect the other's and his natural rights don't cease to be becuz he choses to ignore and violate the other's. His natural rights are what he lays on the table when he murders, slaves, rapes, steals, or defrauds.

This thread is about circular arguments, the source material comes from a different thread. So the above is a hijack in this thread.

Move it to the other thread instead of hijacking this one and I guess I will explain the continuing issues. The bit where you say it is wrong to get murdered looks like a previously undocumented liability for you though, so you should consider whether you really want to paste that bit into rhe relevant thread.

[FlashDangerpants]

Henry responded that if you want to be moral you must respect the reciprocal rights of others.

No, that's wrong. To be moral is to recognize and respect the other's natural right to his life, liberty, and property. If you do, you won't murder, rape, slave, steal or defraud. If you don't then you might.

Are you confused by the concept of a circle Henry?

[henry quirk]

hijack

I'm used as an example of circularity in a thread about circularity and when I counter: I hijack.

Nope.



'nuff said.

[FlashDangerpants]

hijack

I'm used as an example of circularity in a thread about circularity and when I counter: I hijack.

Well that conversation is over here Henry
viewtopic.php?t=24531&start=5130

VA, in his wisdom, chose to address your position in that thread, where I was also addressing your position. So that's where the conversation about your actual position has been going on.

Further to that, VA, in his wisdom, chose to launch this other thread taking me to task, not you, over the question of whether circular agruments are bad. That's the topic here.

I'm sorry if you feel the need to take this all so very personally, but the impersonal reality is that an effective counter in the original thread would be to show that there isn't a circular dependency between the conclusion of and the inputs to your argument. In this thread, an effective counter would be to show that it doesn't matter if there is such a circle. Fighting in both just makes no sense.

[Magnus Anderson]

In any case, FDP did not qualify a context but merely state,
'circularity is bad'
and judging from his previous posts, he is dogmatic and fanatical merely with classical logic.

It's pretty clear that FDP was accusing the other side of circular reasoning. He wasn't talking about other kinds of circularity as expounded by ChatGPT. And circular reasoning is a bad thing for reasons that should be more than obvious.

What you're doing is essentially saying "FDP is wrong because the wheels on my bike are circular and that's a good thing. Thus, there exists a good kind of circularity which contradicts FDP's claim that circularity is bad." It's a very silly argument.

[Magnus Anderson]

Self-Reference in Language: In Constructivism, language and meaning are often viewed as circular. Words gain their meaning from other words, and this network of interrelated meanings is inherently self-referential. For example, when you ask for the meaning of a word, you may receive a definition that includes other words you're not familiar with, leading to further questions and more circularity.

Regardless of what this actually means, there is such a thing as circular definitions. A definition is said to be circular if it defines the term using that same exact term. Such definitions are bad definitions for reasons that should be obvious. A definition is supposed to explain the meaning of an unfamiliar term using familiar terms. A circular definition doesn't do that.

[Skepdick]

Regardless of what this actually means, there is such a thing as circular definitions. A definition is said to be circular if it defines the term using that same exact term. Such definitions are bad definitions for reasons that should be obvious. A definition is supposed to explain the meaning of an unfamiliar term using familiar terms. A circular definition doesn't do that.

All terms are vacuous without an interpreter.

A term doesn't mean what it's defined to mean - it means what it's interpreted to mean.

Consequentialism.

[Magnus Anderson]

A term doesn't mean what it's defined to mean - it means what it's interpreted to mean.

Nah.

[Skepdick]

A term doesn't mean what it's defined to mean - it means what it's interpreted to mean.

Nah.

Yah.

You suffer from the Mathematican's sickness. Precision. You think words have meaning.

Words have consequences. Not meaning. Language is a tool for affecting and manipulating minds.
Maybe future you. Maybe future me. Future somebody else.

It means whatever it's evaluated and understood to mean by the future evaluator. Despite your intentions.

[Magnus Anderson]

Words have consequences. Not meaning. Language is a tool for affecting and manipulating minds.
Maybe future you. Maybe future me. Future somebody else.

It means whatever it's evaluated and understood to mean by the future evaluator. Despite your intentions.

Words have consequences but they also have meaning. The meaning of a word is set by the speaker and it refers to what the speaker intends to communicate. When you say "it means whatever it's evaluated and understood to mean", you're merely playing word games.