Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2023 3:38 am When posters resort to ad hominem, it is indicative they don't have any effective counters to the arguments on hand.

Btw, I have stated many times, my participation in this particular forum is for my own very personal and selfish interests in refreshing the knowledge from my database and my projects.
I don't give a damn on the personal opinions others have on my views.

That's not the flex you think it is. It just kinda makes you look a bit like a psycho.

it

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2023 3:38 am When posters resort to ad hominem, it is indicative they don't have any effective counters to the arguments on hand.

So, when you use ad homs we can interpret this as you don't have any effective counters. Good to know. You do realize that you, with great regularly, explain how the psychology of the people critical of an arguement or conclusion you make is causing them to defend false positions, you are engaging in ad hom, right? You are aware of that, yes?

Also you just made an unwarrented rule. If someone uses ad homs this mean......

But actually people might get insulting - I am not sure you understand the difference between insults and ad homs - it might be because of they way you communicate and (don't quite) respond. A human is perfectly capable of getting nasty and making effective arguments. If you don't think so, then you must not think yourself capable of making effective arguments.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2023 8:15 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2023 3:38 am When posters resort to ad hominem, it is indicative they don't have any effective counters to the arguments on hand.

Btw, I have stated many times, my participation in this particular forum is for my own very personal and selfish interests in refreshing the knowledge from my database and my projects.
I don't give a damn on the personal opinions others have on my views.

That's not the flex you think it is. It just kinda makes you look a bit like a psycho.

You failure to understand the above stance of independence actually make you a psycho.

I believe the concept of the Triune Brain* is a very useful concept to understand which aspect of the brain is one focusing on.
* not Maclean's stack of 3 distinct parts on top of one another.

Since human evolved from one-celled organisms to reptiles to mammals then to homo-sapiens, I believe humans still retain the certain neural algorithms [not distinct parts] of the reptilian, mammalians' neural functions.

When one is focused on the finer aspects of philosophy that require the faculties of the higher human brain functions, there is no time to drop to the reptilian brain to make childish and immature ad homs.

Where I usually critique posters is where they do not and do not have the competence to make good use of the higher human brain functions of rational and critical thinking.
That's where I pointed out to someone their philosophical thinking is too primal, narrow, shallow, dogmatic and fundamentalistic.
This sort of criticisms still engage the higher functions, thus is not ad homs, i.e. not on their personality but rather on their intellectual and philosophical functions. The hope they will realize it and make improvements for their own good.

When posters revert to the reptilian brain to make childish immature ad homs, mocking remarks, and insults they are engaging 'reptilian' or emotional mammalian thinking, thus their critical thinking functions are shut off [because they have nothing rational to discuss]. This drop in intellectual capacity is instinctual to focus on the 4Fs to facilitate basic survival.

Since I make it a point to engage my higher thinking facilities, I spontaneously [no and not wasting time] do not revert to childish and immature ad homs which I had never initiated.
If I ever post any childish ad homs that is in response to an unprovoked ad homs from others.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2023 9:41 am I believe the concept of the Triune Brain* is a very useful concept to understand which aspect of the brain is one focusing on.
* not Maclean's stack of 3 distinct parts on top of one another.

Since human evolved from one-celled organisms to reptiles to mammals then to homo-sapiens, I believe humans still retain the certain neural algorithms [not distinct parts] of the reptilian, mammalians' neural functions.

When one is focused on the finer aspects of philosophy that require the faculties of the higher human brain functions, there is no time to drop to the reptilian brain to make childish and immature ad homs.

Where I usually critique posters is where they do not and do not have the competence to make good use of the higher human brain functions of rational and critical thinking.
That's where I pointed out to someone their philosophical thinking is too primal, narrow, shallow, dogmatic and fundamentalistic.
This sort of criticisms still engage the higher functions, thus is not ad homs, i.e. not on their personality but rather on their intellectual and philosophical functions. The hope they will realize it and make improvements for their own good.

When posters revert to the reptilian brain to make childish immature ad homs, mocking remarks, and insults they are engaging 'reptilian' or emotional mammalian thinking, thus their critical thinking functions are shut off [because they have nothing rational to discuss]. This drop in intellectual capacity is instinctual to focus on the 4Fs to facilitate basic survival.

Since I make it a point to engage my higher thinking facilities, I spontaneously [no and not wasting time] do not revert to childish and immature ad homs which I had never initiated.
If I ever post any childish ad homs that is in response to an unprovoked ad homs from others.

VA once again shoots himself in the foot imo. Humanity evolved higher brain functions, which helped them established the idea of the shared objective reality. Now VA wants to revert us back to a more primitive, solipsistic existence that is rather characteristic of narcissists and psychopaths.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2023 3:46 am ChatGpt: "From a philosophical standpoint, the idea that objective reality doesn't exist is often discussed within the context of solipsism, idealism, or various forms of anti-realism. These positions argue that reality is either entirely mental or constructed in some way, and they often lack empirical evidence to support their claims. From this perspective, it might be considered less rational. Let's rate it as 2 on the scale."

Because ChatGpt lumped up all the various anti-realism and idealism, it gave a rating of 2 on the scale of rationality.

ChatGPT looked at the issue from the perspective of philosophical positions that consider philosophical realism incorrect. So, FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, it gave it a low rating.

I asked Chatgpt to do the opposite evaulation and

The rationality and objectivity of metaphysical anti-realism, when viewed from the perspective of metaphysical realism, would typically be considered relatively low, perhaps close to one on a scale from one to ten.

Seriously, why does such basic thinking need to be done for you by other people?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2023 9:21 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2023 8:15 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2023 3:38 am When posters resort to ad hominem, it is indicative they don't have any effective counters to the arguments on hand.

Btw, I have stated many times, my participation in this particular forum is for my own very personal and selfish interests in refreshing the knowledge from my database and my projects.
I don't give a damn on the personal opinions others have on my views.

That's not the flex you think it is. It just kinda makes you look a bit like a psycho.

You failure to understand the above stance of independence actually make you a psycho.

You boast of your willingness to use others as means to your ends. Does that remind you of anything you have read in a philosophy book?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2023 9:41 am Where I usually critique posters is where they do not and do not have the competence to make good use of the higher human brain functions of rational and critical thinking.

Which is precisely an ad hominim argument. Instead of criticizing their arguments you focus on what you think or want to think are their personal capacities for thinking. That is a classical ad hom, and since you use it AND claim that people who use ad homs are necessarily incapable of effective arguments, you should consider yourself incapable of effective arguments.

That's where I pointed out to someone their philosophical thinking is too primal, narrow, shallow, dogmatic and fundamentalistic.
This sort of criticisms still engage the higher functions, thus is not ad homs, i.e. not on their personality but rather on their intellectual and philosophical functions. The hope they will realize it and make improvements for their own good.

An ad hom does not need to focus on the personality. It focuses on the person, 'to the man'. Instead of arguing against specific points made it focuses on what you think of the other person. This can be any trait the person has. You focus on the person and not the arguments, texts. It's an ad hom.

When posters revert to the reptilian brain to make childish immature ad homs, mocking remarks, and insults they are engaging 'reptilian' or emotional mammalian thinking,

To some degree this is correct. Yes. In those moments. Obviously they are using language - well beyond reptiles, but sure both what incorrectly gets called the mammalian and reptile brains are getting used in those times.

But you asserted, incorrectly, that if someone engages in this, it means one cannot in other moments write effective arguments. Sorry. Not true. Humans can engage in all sorts of acts using different facets of their minds/brains and you cannot rule out what they do in other moments by what they do in one.

And, of course, you engage in ad homs yourself. And insults.

thus their critical thinking functions are shut off [because they have nothing rational to discuss]. This drop in intellectual capacity is instinctual to focus on the 4Fs to facilitate basic survival.

Just as it seems to be for you, yes, it can be very pleasant, when dealing with a poor discussion partner, to let off steam and leave behind critical thinking and insult the shit out of someone. And then go back to arguing using more nuances and subtle heuristics that no mammal or reptile seems to be capable of.

Since I make it a point to engage my higher thinking facilities, I spontaneously [no and not wasting time] do not revert to childish and immature ad homs which I had never initiated.

Oh, but you do engage in both insults and ad homs, so according to you you are not capable of effective critical thinking. I happen to think your hypothesis, expressed with no justification is false. So, despite the fact that you, VA, use ad homs and insults, I do not think this rules out you demonstrating effective critical thinking and reason in other instances.

If I ever post any childish ad homs that is in response to an unprovoked ad homs from others.

So, when triggered by other peoples' insults and ad homs, your reptile brain takes over, you do the same thing they did, but presumably you think you can then go back to making well reasoned posts. So, it is possible to move from ad homs and emotionally driven communication to more analytic communication.

You could simply have acknowledged that you also use ad homs - instead of going through convoluted 'reasoning' that really yours aren't ad homs - and that one can be capable of different types of communication at different times, that there can be all sorts of motivations for shifting to more emotional or more mocking communication and you have not the slightest evidence that it's caused by some inability to effectively criticize your arguments.

It would only have gained some respect, at least from me. But, well, if you experience this as working for you and have nothing to compare your approach with..........