For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
You believe, in an "unqualified" way, that you know there is no God? That would be quite an epistemological achievement.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 2:28 pmThe world is. Unqualified.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 2:17 pm ...in an Atheistic world. That was my conditional clause. We must not forget it.
Bullshit. You are very slippery in English.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 3:15 pmYou believe, in an "unqualified" way, that you know there is no God? That would be quite an epistemological achievement.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 2:28 pmThe world is. Unqualified.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 2:17 pm ...in an Atheistic world. That was my conditional clause. We must not forget it.
So what rational line of thought compels you to this "unqualified" conclusion?
So you've produced somewhere a valid and sound argument demonstrating that morality is objective. But you think objectivity is made up.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 11:35 amAppeal to authority. The dictionary merely points out common use of words. It is descriptive not prescriptive.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:22 am here's a dictionary definition of the word 'objective':
Ironically - the meaning of words is agreed upon by tacit CONSENSUS through common use.
But I am willing to indulge your definition just long enough so I can beat you over the head with it. That is - hold you accountable to it.
So then you should have absolutely no problem telling me the OBJECTIVE RULES by which you evaluate "rational and sound arguments" so that you can tell them apart from the "irrational and unsound arguments"?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:22 am (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Notice that, by this definition, objectivity has nothing to do with consensus, and everything to do with facts - true factual assertions - true regardless of what anyone believes or claims to know - true even if the consensus is 100% rejection.
You should have absolutely no problem telling me the OBJECTIVE RULES by which you ASSERT whether something is "true" or "factual" as opposed to "false" and "non-factual".
You should have absolutely no problem telling me the OBJECTIVE RULES by which you INTERPRET and LABEL the information you acquire via your sense. Seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, feeling and perceiving!
The OBJECTIVE RULES you use to parse ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsing ) the meaning of everything you experience.
All I ask for is transparency and intellectual honesty. I am waiting.
In reciprocation - I will tell you that I intend on using the Regress argument ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regress_argument ) over and over and over. For evey definition you give me or any distinction you try to draw. Until you figure out that I can DECIDE to work towards consensus or DECIDE to work towards disagreement. And I have all the tools to do either one effectively!
I will give you no quarter and will not allow you to "ground" or define objectivity. Until you acknowledge and accept the symbol grounding problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem
Because objectivity is made up! By humans. By consensus. Just like how words acquire meaning. By consensus.
Probably because you know I've called you out on your bullshit.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:22 am I can't be arsed to scroll back and find your valid and sound argument demonstrating the objectivity of morality. My bad and my loss, no doubt.
For shits and giggles - you can even call me an atruist. I reject truth like atheists reject god.
Equivocation. We have two definitions for 'objectivity' on the table. We have not yet come to CONSENSUS on which one to use going forward.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 3:35 pm So you've produced somewhere a valid and sound argument demonstrating that morality is objective. But you think objectivity is made up.
Strawman and a deflection. I am asking you to produce the OBJECTIVE (by YOUR definition) rules for evaluating the soundness and validity of arguments.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 3:35 pm And you deny the possibility of distinguishing a valid and sound argument from an invalid and unsound argument, which must include your own arguments.
Strawman and a deflection. I am asking you to produce the OBJECTIVE rules for asserting truthfulness and factuality of the assertions you make.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 3:35 pm And you reject any way to evaluate the truth value of a factual assertion, which must include the truth value of your own assertions.
Non-sequitur. Deflection?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 3:35 pm I should think you find the smell of bullshit up your own arse pretty over-powering.
It was your "English." You said it, I didn't. I just asked you what made you so absolute in your belief that there is no God.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 3:16 pmBullshit. You are very slippery in English...Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 3:15 pmYou believe, in an "unqualified" way, that you know there is no God? That would be quite an epistemological achievement.
So what rational line of thought compels you to this "unqualified" conclusion?
Non-sequitur.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 3:47 pmIt was your "English." You said it, I didn't. I just asked you what made you so absolute in your belief that there is no God.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 3:16 pmBullshit. You are very slippery in English...Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 3:15 pm
You believe, in an "unqualified" way, that you know there is no God? That would be quite an epistemological achievement.
So what rational line of thought compels you to this "unqualified" conclusion?
And I don't yet note a relevant response to that. One would think it should be a very easy question to answer, if you possess "unqualified" certainty....
I don’t “misunderstand” English. I recognize the flaws in English. It is laden with ambiguity, tautology and equivocation. It has no standards for interpretation which is why you can create new (meaningless) words out of thin air. Like "objectivity" and "truth". If one is not careful it is very easy to end up running in one place, talking about the same phenomenologies using new, fancy words. Philosophy does that a lot.Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 3:53 pm What I love about this forum the most is that every now and then, someone comes along and shows a kind of crazy I haven't seen before. This one for example misunderstands simple English words like he was from another planet, then converts the words into bits and builds a computer code out of them, seemingly effortlessly. Human creativity truly is vast and I always like to see what it can come up with.
No, I showed you why your definition of objectivity as distributed consensus is incorrect, because it amounts to an appeal to popularity, which is a fallacy. And the equivocation is yours, when you say objectivity is made up.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 3:43 pmEquivocation. We have two definitions for 'objectivity' on the table. We have not yet come to CONSENSUS on which one to use going forward.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 3:35 pm So you've produced somewhere a valid and sound argument demonstrating that morality is objective. But you think objectivity is made up.
And yet you are using the one to 'contradict' the other - that's a shoddy tactic. I can't tell if you are being malicious or ignorant.
Strawman and a deflection. I am asking you to produce the OBJECTIVE (by YOUR definition) rules for evaluating the soundness and validity of arguments.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 3:35 pm And you deny the possibility of distinguishing a valid and sound argument from an invalid and unsound argument, which must include your own arguments.
Strawman and a deflection. I am asking you to produce the OBJECTIVE rules for asserting truthfulness and factuality of the assertions you make.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 3:35 pm And you reject any way to evaluate the truth value of a factual assertion, which must include the truth value of your own assertions.
If we have different OBJECTIVE rules, then we will reach different assertions!
I want to ensure we have CONSENSUS on the OBJECTIVE RULES by which we EVALUATE each other's arguments.
Non-sequitur. Deflection?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 3:35 pm I should think you find the smell of bullshit up your own arse pretty over-powering.
It's not an appeal to popularity. I am not arguing that something is "right" because lots of people believe it. I am arguing that something is INVENTED because lots of people WANT/NEED it. Are human desires and needs "real" ?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 4:07 pm No, I showed you why your definition of objectivity as distributed consensus is incorrect, because it amounts to an appeal to popularity, which is a fallacy.
That is not equivocation.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 4:07 pm And the equivocation is yours, when you say objectivity is made up.
False dichotomy AND argument from ignorance AND appeal to authority! I haven't accepted or rejected anything and those are not the only options.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 4:07 pm If you reject the existence of facts - true factual assertions about features of reality - then this discussion is pointless
Another false dichotomy AND argument form ignorance. BECAUSE nobody can say which this is a matter for epistemology - therefore the claim is either true, false, unknown or unknowable.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 4:07 pm There either is or isn't a god; so the factual existence-claim there is a god is (classically) true or false - even if no one can say which. Its truth or falsehood isn't a matter of distributed (?) consensus.
I'm sorry, but you're making so many mistakes here that it's hard to know where to begin. And I have neither the time now nor the energy to sort them out. I don't believe you've demonstrated that or how morality is objective, but perhaps others are finding your contribution useful.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 5:05 pmIt's not an appeal to popularity. I am not arguing that something is "right" because lots of people believe it. I am arguing that something is INVENTED because lots of people WANT/NEED it. Are human desires and needs "real" ?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 4:07 pm No, I showed you why your definition of objectivity as distributed consensus is incorrect, because it amounts to an appeal to popularity, which is a fallacy.
but here is the catch. In this one sentence you have commited SIX fallacies all ot once!
1. Appeal to authority
You pointed me to a dictionary for the definition of a word when no authority on language exists.
Humans invent language/words. Not dictionaries.
2. Appeal to popularity
Because dictionaries are descriptive (of the POPULAR use of words) you too are appealing to popularity by referring to the dictionary.
You are appealing to the POPULAR USE of words.
3. Performative contradiction
From the previous point. You are USING language (logos) which is a system of communication which emerges from POPULISM.
4. Argument from ignorance
You fail to recognise that you have adopted the USE of LANGUAGE from other HUMANS. Without ever questioning their correctness (a lot like religion!)
5. Hypocrisy
You accuse me of the same things you are doing.
6. The fallacy fallacy
You have accused me of a fallacy, allowing yourself to dismiss my argument when you are continuously engaging in performative contradictions about the very claims you deny!
That is not equivocation.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 4:07 pm And the equivocation is yours, when you say objectivity is made up.
Humans made up the language you speak.
Humans made up the concept AND the word "objective".
False dichotomy AND argument from ignorance AND appeal to authority! I haven't accepted or rejected anything and those are not the only options.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 4:07 pm If you reject the existence of facts - true factual assertions about features of reality - then this discussion is pointless
The existence of facts may be true, false, unknown OR unknowable!
But you are getting ahead of yourself. I am still waiting for us to reach CONSENSUS on the meaning of:
* true
* factual
* objective
* reality (is tomorrow real?)
You are also appealing to the correspondence theory of truth ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspon ... y_of_truth ).
When as many as 20 other "theories of truth" exist ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth )
What OBJECTIVE STANDARDS did you use to DECIDE which theory is "most true"? Maybe your one is wrong?
I have an idea on how we can reach CONSENSUS here. WHY are you making any claims/descriptions/assertions about reality? And which aspects of it? It's a VEEERY big place. Language doesn't even begin to capture it.
Another false dichotomy AND argument form ignorance. BECAUSE nobody can say which this is a matter for epistemology - therefore the claim is either true, false, unknown or unknowable.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 4:07 pm There either is or isn't a god; so the factual existence-claim there is a god is (classically) true or false - even if no one can say which. Its truth or falsehood isn't a matter of distributed (?) consensus.
We can't even agree on the meaning of something as trivial as "objectivity". How do you think we will agree on the meaning of "god"? Or "truth" without some prior CONSENSUS?
Look! You believe that you can distinguish 'mistakes' from 'non-mistakes'Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 5:50 pm I'm sorry, but you're making so many mistakes here that it's hard to know where to begin. And I have neither the time now nor the energy to sort them out. I don't believe you've demonstrated that or how morality is objective, but perhaps others are finding your contribution useful.
That means, "[It] does not follow."TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 3:49 pmNon-sequitur.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 3:47 pmIt was your "English." You said it, I didn't. I just asked you what made you so absolute in your belief that there is no God.
And I don't yet note a relevant response to that. One would think it should be a very easy question to answer, if you possess "unqualified" certainty....
"It does not follow" that if you claim "unqualified" certainty, you actually know what you're talking about? Is that what you mean? Because it seems quite obviously to follow from the claim that you possess "unqualified" knowledge, that you ought to be able to give your evidence and the premises that conduce to your conclusion...Oh dear.Respond in formal logic please. I want to play on your turf.
Your own barrage doesn't follow! You have gone on a tangent about something I never said.
Hahahahaha. That's an oxymoron. (In my conception of) Philosophy the field hasn't had claims to anything "technical" in a few hundred years.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 7:02 pm Just a suggestion: if you use a technical philosophical term
Are you appealing to objective meaning now? You can't even nail down 'truth' and now you want to muddy the waters with even more ambiguity?
Yes. I am that guy! Telling you. From where I am standing it's definitely not going well for youImmanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 7:02 pm If you use such thing and you don't know what it means, then very likely somebody's going to come along who knows what it means, and how it is really used, and it's not going to go well for you.
Given the lack of specifics this is not a claim that can be asserted as true or false in context of current human knowledge.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 4:07 pm For example, there either is or isn't a god; so the factual existence-claim there is a god is (classically) true or false - even if no one can say which. Its truth or falsehood isn't a matter of distributed (?) consensus.