Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 7:34 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 7:26 pm Read this thread for yourself

What do you think I've been doing?

Name one.

So, again you want me to do your work for you... just like I had to do before when you resisted being accountable for what you said.

I do not need to waste my time repeating what is in this thread. Just look for the words 'lie', 'lies', 'lying', and 'liar', in response to things you've said. Apparently, you see nothing strange or concerning about all of the people here who have accused you of this in the past two weeks (we could go back years -- a reputation of dishonesty and distortion that you clearly hold the Title for on this forum, with no one else even coming close.)

Could there be anything more compelling than that to show what you are actually in service to?

Kind of sad, yet amusing, that the Bible warns against such behaviors and creations as Christian extremists demonstrate, themselves. Self-fulfilling prophecies... perhaps to try to prove they were 'right' all along... as if no one else will notice what was really behind it.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 12:32 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 7:34 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 7:26 pm Read this thread for yourself

What do you think I've been doing?

Name one.

So, again you want me to do your work for you...

No. I just want to see if you have a point.

That somebody (like AJ, for example) alleges something (usually to avoid having to make a direct answer to a question) doesn't make that allegation remotely relevant or true, and certainly doesn't automatically require any answer from me.

But if you have some specific concern, I'm fine with addressing it.

If you don't, I consider the matter done.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 7:19 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 7:00 pm I.C., you seem to be quite adept at dancing around the distortions and lies you use...

Name one.

Oh that's easy, so let me save you the trouble, Lacewing. Here, Immanuel Can, is some low-hanging fruit - your most recent "dancing around the distortions and lies you use" from my own exchanges with you - the "dance" which prompted me to exit our supposed dialogue:

Your distortion and lie that Euthyphro's Dilemma is based on differences of opinion between the gods, and your doubling down on that distortion and lie even after I'd pointed out to you that it was false.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 4:17 am Your distortion and lie that Euthyphro's Dilemma is based on differences of opinion between the gods,

Heh.

Harry, that's not a "lie" or even a "distortion." Socrates explicitly says it.

Go and look. Here it is, verbatim:

Soc. Remember that I did not ask you to give me two or three examples of piety, but to explain the general idea which makes all pious things to be pious. Do you not recollect that there was one idea which made the impious impious, and the pious pious?

Euth. I remember.

Soc. Tell me what is the nature of this idea, and then I shall have a standard to which I may look, and by which I may measure actions, whether yours or those of any one else, and then I shall be able to say that such and such an action is pious, such another impious.

Euth. I will tell you, if you like.

Soc. I should very much like.

Euth. Piety, then, is that which is dear to the gods, and impiety is that which is not dear to them.

Soc. Very good, Euthyphro; you have now given me the sort of answer which I wanted. But whether what you say is true or not I cannot as yet tell, although I make no doubt that you will prove the truth of your words.

Euth. Of course.

Soc. Come, then, and let us examine what we are saying. That thing or person which is dear to the gods is pious, and that thing or person which is hateful to the gods is impious, these two being the extreme opposites of one another. Was not that said?

Euth. It was.

Soc. And well said?

Euth. Yes, Socrates, I thought so; it was certainly said.

Soc. And further, Euthyphro, the gods were admitted to have enmities and hatreds and differences?

Euth. Yes, that was also said.

Soc. And what sort of difference creates enmity and anger? Suppose for example that you and I, my good friend, differ about a number; do differences of this sort make us enemies and set us at variance with one another? Do we not go at once to arithmetic, and put an end to them by a sum?

Euth. True.

Soc. Or suppose that we differ about magnitudes, do we not quickly end the differences by measuring?

Euth. Very true.

Soc. And we end a controversy about heavy and light by resorting to a weighing machine?

Euth. To be sure.

Soc. But what differences are there which cannot be thus decided, and which therefore make us angry and set us at enmity with one another? I dare say the answer does not occur to you at the moment, and therefore I will suggest that these enmities arise when the matters of difference are the just and unjust, good and evil, honourable and dishonourable. Are not these the points about which men differ, and about which when we are unable satisfactorily to decide our differences, you and I and all of us quarrel, when we do quarrel?

Euth. Yes, Socrates, the nature of the differences about which we quarrel is such as you describe.

Soc. And the quarrels of the gods, noble Euthyphro, when they occur, are of a like nature?

Euth. Certainly they are.

Soc. They have differences of opinion, as you say, about good and evil, just and unjust, honourable and dishonourable: there would have been no quarrels among them, if there had been no such differences-would there now?

Euth. You are quite right.

Soc. Does not every man love that which he deems noble and just and good, and hate the opposite of them?

Euth. Very true.

Soc. But, as you say, people regard the same things, some as just and others as unjust,-about these they dispute; and so there arise wars and fightings among them.

Euth. Very true.

Soc. Then the same things are hated by the gods and loved by the gods, and are both hateful and dear to them?

Euth. True.

Soc. And upon this view the same things, Euthyphro, will be pious and also impious?

Euth. So I should suppose.

Soc. Then, my friend, I remark with surprise that you have not answered the question which I asked. For I certainly did not ask you to tell me what action is both pious and impious: but now it would seem that what is loved by the gods is also hated by them. And therefore, Euthyphro, in thus chastising your father you may very likely be doing what is agreeable to Zeus but disagreeable to Cronos or Uranus, and what is acceptable to Hephaestus but unacceptable to Here, and there may be other gods who have similar differences of opinion.

So it wasn't my error...it was yours.

Sorry, Harry...the facts just don't bear you out.

I get it, though. When somebody has been relying on the Euthyphro argument to stave off any need to take Theism seriously, it's more than a little disconcerting to realize that it's flawed at such a fundamental level. That's why you hated it, and accused me of "doubling down," I would guess.

But "doubling down" on the truth -- which you can now see it is -- is always the right thing to do. Stick by what you know is the case. And in this case, you can see I had it right.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 4:36 am

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 4:17 am Your distortion and lie that Euthyphro's Dilemma is based on differences of opinion between the gods,

Heh.

Harry, that's not a "lie" or even a "distortion." Socrates explicitly says it.

Go and look. Here it is, verbatim:

You're absolutely shameless. You quote an earlier part of the dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro and leave it up to the casual reader to assume that that's the part of the dialogue that has come to be known as Euthyphro's Dilemma - but it is not.

That which came to be known as Euthyphro's Dilemma comes later in the dialogue - a later part which you do not quote. Here's the full dialogue courtesy of the music lyrics site genius.com, and the relevant quote, which is the basis of that which has come to be known as Euthyphro's Dilemma is this (by Socrates):

The point which I should first wish to understand is whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods.

Prior to that, we have Socrates affirming, with respect to the differences of opinion between the gods that he (Socrates) "will amend the definition so far as to say that what all the gods hate is impious, and what they love pious or holy; and what some of them love and others hate is both or neither. Shall this be our definition of piety and impiety?"

Euthyphro agrees that it shall be. Thus, differences between the gods are no longer part of the dialogue: only agreements between the gods count towards piety or impiety. From there, the Dilemma is raised as per the above quote.

This is why you are totally misrepresenting the dialogue in terms of which part of it actually contributes to (what has been come to be known as) Euthyphro's Dilemma.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 4:36 am So it wasn't my error...it was yours.

The shock is all mine: that you think that you can get away with this gross misrepresentation on a philosophy forum of all places.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 5:14 am You quote an earlier part of the dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro and leave it up to the casual reader to assume that that's the part of the dialogue that has come to be known as Euthyphro's Dilemma - but it is not.

It is Euthyphro's Dialogue. And Socrates is laying down the fundamental principles he needs in order to make the later case.

One thing he needs is Euthyphro to concede that there's a rift between "good" and "what the gods approve." Without that, the rest just doesnt follow.

The point which I should first wish to understand is whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods.

That's a false dichotomy, premised on the very error I pointed out above.

First of all, you've got "gods" again, not "God." But that's minor compared to the deeper problem: and that is, that if, as above, Socrates has not established that "holy" and "beloved by the gods" are two different entities, then again, the whole thing turns into a false dichotomy.

The truth turns out to be that "holy" IS "what God loves," and also what God IS. The very concept "holy" has, Biblically speaking, it's total origin and highest expression in God Himself.

You may not like that. But that's how it is.

Prior to that, we have Socrates affirming, with respect to the differences of opinion between the gods that he (Socrates) "will amend the definition so far as to say that what all the gods hate is impious, and what they love pious or holy; and what some of them love and others hate is both or neither. Shall this be our definition of piety and impiety?"

Euthyphro agrees that it should be. Thus, differences between the gods are no longer part of the dialogue:

That's a non-sequitur.

It assumes the existence of "gods" again, and of a division between the "good" or "holy" or "pious" and God. Since that starting point can only be agreed upon by a polytheist like Euthyphro or Socrates, but is contrary to Monotheism, we don't even have the first premise of the argument that follows.

Again, you're just wrong, Harry. And my saying so doesn't make me evil or deceptive. It just means that I see how Monotheism is different from polytheism, and you're desperately trying to conflate them to preserve an argument that just doesn't work for Monotheism.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 5:23 am

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 5:14 am You quote an earlier part of the dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro and leave it up to the casual reader to assume that that's the part of the dialogue that has come to be known as Euthyphro's Dilemma - but it is not.

It is Euthyphro's Dialogue.

Which is another - though tortured - way of saying, "Well, yeah, you're right, but I can never acknowledge that, so instead I'll spin some alternative wording to deflect from the issue and act as though I'm right."

Listen, you intellectual imposter, I'm not interested in arguing with you over this. I withdrew from that argument a while back because, even though you are definitively wrong, and even though I've shown that, you are plainly incapable of admitting it. There is thus no meaningful basis for dialogue.

I contributed only to back Lacewing up that you are "adept at dancing around the distortions and lies you use". That much is plain to see.

For my refutation of your sophistical "solution" to the Euthyphro Dilemma - insofar as you are even capable of acknowledging what it actually is - I refer back to this post.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 5:36 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 5:23 am

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 5:14 am You quote an earlier part of the dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro and leave it up to the casual reader to assume that that's the part of the dialogue that has come to be known as Euthyphro's Dilemma - but it is not.

It is Euthyphro's Dialogue.

Which is another - though tortured - way of saying, "Well, yeah, you're right, but I can never acknowledge that, so instead I'll spin some alternative wording to deflect from the issue and act as though I'm right."

Look again, Harry...you'll see I'm right. What's more, I'm now certain you know I'm right.

Listen, you intellectual imposter,

Harry, I've come to understand that ad hominems are the sound of a mental gun clicking on an empty chamber. When you're out of bullets, sometimes you've just got to throw the gun, I guess.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 5:44 am I'm now certain you know I'm right.

If you were right, then you would be able to provide a variety of sources which affirm that (that which has come to be known as) Euthyphro's Dilemma is based on disagreements among the gods. Do take your time...

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 5:44 am

Listen, you intellectual imposter,

Harry, I've come to understand that ad hominems [blah blah blah]

If the shoe fits, you're going to have to wear it - and, in your case, it does. It's not an argument - it's a description, and a valid one.

Harry Baird to Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 5:36 am I contributed only to back Lacewing up that you are "adept at dancing around the distortions and lies you use". That much is plain to see.

Thank you, Harry.

Evidently I.C.'s lack of integrity and courage for honesty is NOT as glaringly obvious (nor as important) to himself as it is to those who point it out to him.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 1:40 am

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 12:32 am So, again you want me to do your work for you...

No. I just want to see if you have a point.

Several people here have pointed out that you lie and distort in your discussions with them.

I asked:

--> Why is it not possible to make/support your claims without using such tactics?

--> Could there be anything more compelling than that to show what you are actually in service to?

Immanuel Can wrote:

The truth turns out to be that "holy" IS "what God loves," and also what God IS. The very concept "holy" has, Biblically speaking, it's total origin and highest expression in God Himself.

True, the holy is all things that are of God and so holy must therefore be good.

It's false that God is highest expression of anything.'Highest' relates to 'high 'and 'higher'. But God is not a relative quantity: the divine nature is absolute.Holiness is the divine nature and is common to the three persons of the Trinity.

'Total' presumes an aggregate whereas 'origin' presumes God is undiversified.

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 10:55 am Immanuel Can wrote:

The truth turns out to be that "holy" IS "what God loves," and also what God IS. The very concept "holy" has, Biblically speaking, it's total origin and highest expression in God Himself.

True, the holy is all things that are of God and so holy must therefore be good.

This obviously assumes that everything God creates must be good, which is not supported by evidence.

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 11:08 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 10:55 am Immanuel Can wrote:

The truth turns out to be that "holy" IS "what God loves," and also what God IS. The very concept "holy" has, Biblically speaking, it's total origin and highest expression in God Himself.

True, the holy is all things that are of God and so holy must therefore be good.

This obviously assumes that everything God creates must be good, which is not supported by evidence.

That depends on how you define God. There's no point to any monolithic god that is not good.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 12:23 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 12:07 am.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 11:29 pmMy interest (personally of course) is in those antidotes to the infiltration of eastern ideas and the recovery by a people of those attitudes and elements that can define a new and better modality.

Sorry, but I don't quite get the gist of your meaning here.

As we move forward I will make efforts to explain. In my own case I’d say it is the very essence of what I am attempting to resolve.

Btw did you read any Gerhart Hauptmann?

The only thing I read so far are a few of his essays. Is there anything you specifically recommend by him that highlights your views? He must have impressed you somehow!