Philosophy Now Forum

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 2:56 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 2:45 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 2:27 pm

Well you wouldn't would you?

Of course not, and I hoped that this would be Truly obvious. But, obviously, it was not obvious.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 2:27 pm You are the one writing it, but I am looking at it from the perspective of a reader, who, I pressume, you want it to be understood by.

That is the 'thing', and which I have mentioned a few times already, not that I expect 'you' to be aware of it, seeing as how long since you have been on here "harbal". I have already explained on a couple of occasions that I am NOT writing for 'you', posters, to necessarily understand. I am writing to SHOW other readers just how simply and easily the brain, through the belief-system, along with while assuming, MISSES the messages that can be very simply and easily seen and noticed, if absolutely no assuming nor believing is involved.

And, as 'you', "harbal", have also proved True here, once again, it is 'assuming' and 'assumptions' that let 'you', people, down.

See, if you did not 'presume' that what I was saying and writing here was to be 'understood', by 'you', readers here, in the day and age when this was being written, then you would not have made the mistake of 'assuming' what the writer/speakers intention is, and, if you were Truly 'open' and 'curious', then you would have sought 'clarification'.

See, it is through 'clarification', itself, where if not all, just about each and every bit of 'confusion' and 'misunderstanding' can be cleared up or resolved.

Presuming, assuming, and believing prevents and stops 'clarification' from occurring, and it is through 'clarification' and 'clarity' where 'understanding' lives or lays, and prevails.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 2:27 pm I was just giving you (uninvited) feedback, it's certainly not for me to tell you how to write.

I KNOW exactly what you were 'intending' or 'trying to' to do.

I was just SHOWING how you, and I, could have written absolutely and irrefutably accurately and/or Factually.

See, I just more or less copied your words, which made my statement and claim Factually Wrong as well, and through 'clarification' or through OPEN and Honest answers to my clarifying questions, then it could have been SEEN how by just adding two more words BOTH of our sentence would have been irrefutably True, Right, and Correct.

Now I realise what's going on.

You are clearly nuts.

Maybe so, but it’s just as likely that he is on the spectrum.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 12:06 pm Could what you have 'observed' be wrong or incorrect in ANY way whatsoever?

Only if you are intentionally derailing every conversation.

Are your actions intentional; or unintentional?

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 2:11 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 1:16 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 1:15 pm

No.

And, 'inappropriate' is a very relative word.

Obviously, my capitalization is not 'inappropriate' at all, especially considering the very specific reasoning that I do it for.

What is that specific reasoning?

To show;

Just how easily distracted people used to get.

How people did not concentrate on the actual words, and what those could be referencing exactly, but rather would get distracted and talk about other things.

That even when words are emphasized, and even in capital letters, to convey a message people would miss the actual message being conveyed within the sentence or statement.

That once the true message/s are fully understood, then what will be noticed on re-read is that I emphasized the actual words that I was pointing out and wanting to be fully understood here.

How ironic that your solution to the problem is the very source of the problem itself.

If you're truly here to learn something, you should learn this: your communication style is almost universally disliked, it communicates more aggression than you probably intend, and it's contrary to your supposed goals. If you can, you should try changing it up. You'll find better engagement all around.

I'd actually be interested in continuing our conversation in the other thread, if I didn't have to read those words in the way you write them.

Slightly related question: when you read words on a screen, do you hear the words in your mind, or do you have some other experience of reading?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 6:39 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 12:06 pm Could what you have 'observed' be wrong or incorrect in ANY way whatsoever?

Only if you are intentionally derailing every conversation.

Are your actions intentional; or unintentional?

As I said before now, he’s probably on the spectrum.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 6:42 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 6:39 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 12:06 pm Could what you have 'observed' be wrong or incorrect in ANY way whatsoever?

Only if you are intentionally derailing every conversation.

Are your actions intentional; or unintentional?

As I said before now, he’s probably on the spectrum.

People on the spectrum are capable of taking feedback on communication styles and adjusting (most are, anyway, I know there's cases where they aren't)

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 6:36 pm
Maybe so, but it’s just as likely that he is on the spectrum.

Well you probably know him better than I do, so I'll consider that a strong possibility then. Thanks for pointing it out.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 6:42 pm As I said before now, he’s probably on the spectrum.

We are all on the spectrum. That's why it's called a spectrum, not categories.

The particular behavior he is incapable of is adjusting his own behavior based on other people's feedback.

He is incapable of learning. Even if he is here with the intention to learn.

"when you read words on a screen, do you hear the words in your mind, or do you have some other experience of reading?"

what an excellent question. i hear an inaudible voice with no sound that reads the words to me as i look at them.

i hear the sound of myself without a voice, iow. i know, makes no sense, but honest phenomenology permits us no other way to describe it. the experience produces a very peculiar kind of qualia it's difficult to talk about clearly. Ergo, the nonsensical way I described it.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 6:52 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 6:42 pm As I said before now, he’s probably on the spectrum.

We are all on the spectrum. That's why it's called a spectrum, not categories.

Right, of course. I meant on the spectrum in the vernacular sense, I.e. autism or somewhere near it.

Thank you for correcting me.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 7:02 pm "when you read words on a screen, do you hear the words in your mind, or do you have some other experience of reading?"

what an excellent question. i hear an inaudible voice with no sound that reads the words to me as i look at them.

i hear the sound of myself without a voice, iow. i know, makes no sense, but honest phenomenology permits us no other way to describe it. the experience produces a very peculiar kind of qualia it's difficult to talk about clearly. Ergo, the nonsensical way I described it.

I can relate to that. I'm not sure how explicit or clear my head voice is.

The reason I ask is because it's possible that Age doesn't read with that verbal-mental side. I know speed readers don't.

So for me, and I think most other people, when you see a word in all caps, that voice in my head is reading it to me slightly louder and much slower. To emphasize it, right?

And doing that every now and then, maybe one word per paragraph, that's totally cool. Some words are worth emphasizing, no problem with that at all.

But when you're doing it EVERY FIVE FUCKING WORDS, it starts to feel like... well, like exactly what it would feel like if someone were speaking loudly and slowly to you in real life. You're being spoken down to, treated like a naughty child, at best.

When you SLAM the DOOR it DISTURBS everyone else in the HOUSE.

If Age doesn't have that auditory experience as he's reading, maybe he just literally can't relate.

There was a point where I thought it was because Age didn't understand that, but there's some evidence that he understands but just doesn't care. There's an off chance that reading some of this might bring him a new layer of understanding here, maybe he would care if he really understood, I'm not sure.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 2:11 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 1:16 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 1:15 pm

No.

And, 'inappropriate' is a very relative word.

Obviously, my capitalization is not 'inappropriate' at all, especially considering the very specific reasoning that I do it for.

What is that specific reasoning?

To show;

Just how easily distracted people used to get.

How people did not concentrate on the actual words, and what those could be referencing exactly, but rather would get distracted and talk about other things.

That even when words are emphasized, and even in capital letters, to convey a message people would miss the actual message being conveyed within the sentence or statement.

That once the true message/s are fully understood, then what will be noticed on re-read is that I emphasized the actual words that I was pointing out and wanting to be fully understood here.

So in other words you are a troll.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 2:24 pm What 'you', people, seem to forget is that a sound and valid argument is irrefutable

You are boring ken, fuck off.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 2:48 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 2:24 pm What 'you', people, seem to forget is that a sound and valid argument is irrefutable, which makes that argument an actual Truth,

Well we can all insist our arguments are irrefutable, can't we?

Of course. But if they are, or are not, 'irrefutable' can be very simply seen and very easily recognized.

If an argument is sound and valid, or not, does not depend on how much one 'insists' it is.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 2:48 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 2:24 pm But as can be seen throughout this forum is that absolutely everyone of the 'arguments' put forward here, in 'trying to' argue or fight for some particular position is not sound and valid, and therefore really not worth even repeating ever again.../...The 'holes' in every one of the so-called 'arguments' presented in this forum can be and are clearly seen and noticed.

Do you include your own arguments in this assessment?

YES.

Unless shown and proved otherwise.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 2:48 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 2:24 pm
If, and when, a sound and valid argument is presented, then that is and will be a Fact, which no one could refute. Until then 'you' are all just 'trying to' 'argue' over, literally, nothing worth arguing over.

Okay, I'll put you down as being in the "doggedly sticking to your guns no matter what" camp then.

LOL ONCE AGAIN, the point was completely and utterly MISSED.

I present my 'arguments' to be critiqued, and then what is false, wrong, or incorrect within them, which is seen and recognized, is then highlighted and pointed out, to be looked at, and then why what is seen as being false, wrong, or incorrect is explained, so that we can then discuss further.

I have never presented absolutely anything, which is not open to being changed to what is irrefutably true, right, and correct.

So, how and why you made your assumption here, and came to your conclusion here, only you know. Your assumption and conclusion here could not be any further from what the actual and irrefutable Truth is here exactly.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:53 pm

So, how and why you made your assumption here, and came to your conclusion here, only you know. Your assumption and conclusion here could not be any further from what the actual and irrefutable Truth is here exactly.

Age, you've got me fair and square. Victory is yours.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 2:52 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:52 am 1a) should our main objective be to stick doggedly to our guns,
2a) should our prime purpose be to try to arrive at the truth without having an unshakeable certainty that we already know what it is to start with
1b) to indoctrinate
2b) to learn

So I took some liberties with your post. !a and 1b are rephrasings as are 2a and 2b. Or as you say the b versions are putting the a versions another way.
OK. I think there's a lot of room to have other reasons and also these aren't mutually exclusive. For examples...
1) one could be sticking doggedly to one's guns in order to learn possible weaknesses in your own argument and the arguments of others, so you can be even more dogged in the future. (you might be polite and acknowledge those weaknesses or you might not, but my point is that learning can be coupled with doggedly sticking with one's position) So, not mutually exclusive.

A great point and just as good recognition.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 2:52 pm 2) One might be arguing to stem the (easy) spread of certain ideas. IOW you are not indoctrinating. you don't expect to convince many people (and after a couple of decades of this, I think this is very rare).

I have found that while one is steadfastly believing that their own position is irrefutably true, there is actually no use in even trying to show otherwise, to those while they are believing the opposite is true. People with a belief are just not open in any way at all, to be able to see anything opposing their own beliefs. So, if one is 'arguing' to stem the spread of certain ideas, then just explain what, where, why, how, and/or when in those certain ideas there are false, wrong, and/or incorrect claims, and then just spread what is irrefutably True, as well.

Also, i have never written absolutely anything here in trying to convince any one of any thing. Either what I write is irrefutably True or it is not, and, if it is not, then I would dearly love to be shown where, when, how, and/or what is wrong, and thus why it is not irrefutably True.

Furthermore, instead of 'trying to' convince "others" of any thing, why not just express an actual Truth that no one could refute?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 2:52 pm But you might want to make it harder for others to indoctrinate OR to feel completely at ease with their positions. There could be all sorts of motivations: spite, for justice and the good of the universe, experimentation, playing to the gallery for honorable or other reasons (for example, to reach the people sitting on the fence). So, other reasons for doing this.

I am sure there are others. I guess in a way if I look at your schema one might think someone arguing against pedophilia and retaining the same position is not interested in learning and wants to indoctrinate.

But don't take that as simply criticism. I think the topic is a good one and I certainly know what brings it up.

What 'brings 'it' up'?

Anyhow, there is no 'should' in what 'you', human beings, do here, because 'you' are all absolutely free to do whatever so pleases you. Being told what one 'should' do, only takes away one's own autonomy, which then takes away a part of what being a human being really is.

Unless, of course, someone disagrees or disputes this, then they are absolutely free to show and explain why.

So, 1a) 'should' our main objective be to stick doggedly to our guns, and, 2a) 'should' our prime purpose be to try to arrive at the truth without having an unshakeable certainty that we already know what it is to start with

Now, in the opening post what these are in reference to is, 'philosophical debate', which, itself, can really be just an oxymoron anyway.

See,

The 'philosophy' word, once meant, love-of-wisdom, which, essentially, could just mean having a love-of-learning. The surest way to obtain 'wisdom' is through learning, and the quickest way 'to learn' is through just being Truly open, while being 'curious' and fully wanting to learn more and anew.

While the 'debate' word refers to picking a point of view, and then fighting for, or trying to argue for, that point of view, which essentially means some sort of belief in that view is needed. The so-called 'art of debate' is taught to students, so that they can better prepare "themselves" to fight or argue for what they already believe is actually irrefutably true. So, for these people their prime purpose is to not try to arrive at the truth, and this is because they, literally, believe, wholeheartedly, that they have the unshakable truth, already.

So, what this means is that, with those definitions, one could never really have a so-called 'philosophical debate', as I was saying, that term is an 'oxymoron'.

Now, if one's main objective is to so-call "doggedly stick to their guns", or, in other words, just keep presenting what they believe is irrefutably and/or unshakably certainly true, then they are absolutely free to do so. Or, if one's main objective is to just wait and see what the actual irrefutable Truth is exactly, and comes-to-be, then they are absolutely free to do so, also.

I find the latter one a much better thing to do in Life, However, if one already has 'seen' what the actual irrefutable Truth is exactly, then, from my perspective, there is nothing wrong in learning how to formulate sound and valid arguments for actual and irrefutable True Facts. The issue one has, however, is formulating ones that are able to overcome and quell "others" false, wrong, or incorrect beliefs and assumptions.

1b) The Wrongness of, 'to indoctrinate', speaks for itself.

2b) 'to learn', to me, is just what a so-called "philosopher" wants, and it is the 'young' of the human being species who are the True "philosophers" in Life.