First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Close mindedness and willful ignorance.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 2/21/13 , edited 2/21/13

TAO_Arecibo wrote:

Why do you think it is not worthy of consideration though?


There is no evidence to give it weight.


I'd disagree. I'd say 'feasibility' as you used it is a relative subject, and thus, depending on who you'd ask, things for one person might not be 'feasible' for another.


Let's take that line of argument- I say that it is infeasible, by your own doctrine, since feasibility is relative, I must be right, and therefore, that position must be infeasible. QED.


IPlease show me that knowledge exists independently of all experience. I don't think you can do it. The only a priori that I can think of that actually fits that is self-existence (I think therefore I am), and that relies on logic (which you may choose to trust or not to trust).


Two mistakes, I have already shown you that there are some knowledge that are wholly independent from experience, Kant's A Prioris, such as A priori Analytic (All bachelors are unmarried) and A Priori Synthetic (7 + 5 = 12), which do not depend on our experiencing bachelorhood or 7 + 5. In fact, even our experience and senses must first be grounded in an a priori that exist outside of experience- when we have a group of sensation, if the Empircist's claims are true, then there is nothing that allows me to connect these experiences together. Thus, I must rely on an a priori to make the connection between the burning sensation on the tip of my fingers and touching a burning stove.

Second, Descartes' aphorism is, within itself, illogical and not a priori. There is nothing that says that cogitare requires the first person pronoun ego, and therefore nothing that justifies cogito, and cogito, in itself, already assumes an existence of a ego, and therefore, it does not follow that it proves 'sum', and thus, is illogical. The most one can get from his thought experiment is this, 'There exist a process called thinking'.


No I didn't. You need to reread my posts. They are different, yes, however, there is no practical difference when discussing them because of the communication barrier (it's impossible to perfectly convey your thoughts). In other words, ideas only reachable inside your own head. Everything else is sense dependent (and thus communication dependent).


Words are, in and of itself, meaningless, and it is only the thoughts that I apply to it that gives it meaning. Without ideas, words are simply nothing, simply scrawls, sounds, and symbols. It is wrong, then, to say that ideas are only reachable inside our own head, when words themselves depend completely upon our cognition. There is a clear practical difference, equivilent to the difference between the motorcar and its passengers.




I'll respectfully disagree. As a postmodern pragmatist, I tend to be very good at finding meanings.


Postmodernist do not find meaning at all. Proof can be seen in your misinterpretation of Kant.


I'm thinking you don't know enough postmodernists. In fact, I'm obsessive about reading other people's thoughts, and that includes the authors. So, to be quite honest, your criticism makes no sense to me. As a postmodern pragmatist, it's my job to see all viewpoints, that means both a literary critic's viewpoint as well as the author's viewpoint as well as possible reader viewpoints as well as cultural meaning, etc. To leave anything out is not the way of a pragmatist. And while not all postmodernists are pragmatists, most of them see the prudence of seeing other people's point of view.


Here, you have reduced Philosophy to the study of texts as text, rather than as thoughts, and treating Philosophic work as Literature. Great Philosophy is not always wedded with good writing, and the best philosophers are not usually the best writers, with some exceptions (Plato, Nietzsche, Pascal), most of our outstanding philosophers are not outstanding writers (Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, Spinoza), and it really doesn't matter if people find Kant dull, Hegel hermetic, Spinoza tiring, or Aristotle lacking in Plato's literary brilliance, the reader's viewpoint and the critic's viewpoint doesn't matter, what marks a good philosopher is his thoughts, and it is upon that alone which he is judged.



I'd digress. Punctuation, grammar, and lexicon are important where anybody, the reader, the author, even those literary critics you don't like... where any of them see it as worthy of note, it's important. What one person sees from a story is not necessarily what another does, and there is no objectively right way to see it. There is the original way, in other words, the author's intent, but it is not the only way, and it's certainly not the exclusively right way.


W.K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley rightly warns us to take the middle path when dealing with literature, between the extremity of haphazard guessing at the Author's intention (Intentional Fallacy), or else studying literature based solely upon its affect upon the reader (Affective Fallacy). An example of Intentional Fallacy would be the whole career of the ignomous but wildly famous Harold Bloom, whose theory of misreading and Oedipal struggle with a poetic father is based upon both unsound psychology and a distinct lack of common sense- which shows in several of his essays, such as where he made Hugo aware that he needs a Milton to Oedipally struggle against, and so wrote religious poems, the writers of the New Testament working to struggle against the J author (nevermind the unsoundness of the Documentary Hypothesis), and so wrote the New Testament. On the other end, we have Critics following Barthes. When Roland Barthes wrote his famous Death of the Author, he has avoided the first (for fundamentally opposing reasons that the New Critics shunned it), only to let the text drown in the second. The text can only be criticised based upon the effect is has on the reader, on what the reader makes of it, simply put, relativism in literature. Is there an authoritative way of interpreting the poem- of course, one that is most founded upon the text, contained within itself. That would be, as it were, the 'Right way' to read a poem, simply because it is most grounded upon the text itself, rather than upon speculations upon the author.



Undoubtedly you can. But you can also interpret it in your own way to develop new values and useful techniques. You are not bound to the way others have viewed it before. You can look at it completely differently if you wish to.


An interpretation of the someone's philosophy can only be considered more founded or more right when there is more evidence to show that this position has more support within the Philosopher's corpus. The study of philosophy is bounded by the constraints of the the Philosopher's Corpus, the Philosopher himself, the Philosopher's time period, etc. etc. It would, therefore, be absurd to assign position upon a certain philosopher that would be wholly achronistic, not founded upon his thought or text, etc. etc., such as, for example, saying that Descartes was an Atheist (which stands in contradiction to both his text, and the time he lived).


You really don't understand. It's not that words change, thought that happens. It's that words have different meanings to different people. When I say 'orange', the same thoughts are not going to come to you as which come to me. We (most likely) have different experiences, interpretations, conceptions, and paradigms which relate to the word 'orange'. We don't necessarily think about it the same way.


If words were really relative to the people, then all I have to do to express my thought is simply to change the language in which I express it. Regardless, if I were to say orange, we are in general agreement that in standard English, it means both a certain type of fruit and the colour associated with the fruit, a variety of colours between red and yellow. That is all that is necessary to express an idea about 'orange', for example, in the sentence 'I think that oranges are tasty', we can percieve immediately that I am using the word 'orange' in the sense of the fruit, and stating my opinion on this particular fruit, that it is tasty. Does it matter if you hate oranges, had a traumatic experience with oranges, were raped by one, disagree upon its tastiness, does that change how you would interpret my sentence- absolutely not, you would understand it to mean what it means. Just so with most writing, it does not matter what experience you have with a certain word or a concept associated with a certain word, so long as you understand what is meant, you have no hinderance to understanding what is being said.


Ah but they are. Again, you can't show that you think the same way as someone else, and thus, it falls under relative, does it not?


You are misinterpreting me, and I shall admit that it is my fault for not being clear enough. Where I said 'thoughts', I meant 'the thoughts which I would like to express', and that thought does not change even if language is relative. If it were so, all I need to do is to simply 'translate' my thoughts into the language of my listeners- simply forcing relativity upon the text is not enough to make the thoughts expressed by the text, and that Philosopher's position, relative to the reader.


And what would a solipsist have to say?


He would be in agreement with you, since the Sophist make his living denying the existence of truth, and then resorting to rethorical devices rather than reasoning and logic to prove his point, as you have, in your nigh nihilistic denial of truth, value, and almost everything, really.
28514 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Delaware
Offline
Posted 2/21/13

Blah blah blah. You neither refute my claims nor use reasoning to justify your own. Rather, make outlandish accusations, to the point of ridiculousness and amusement, and restating the obvious in as many ways possible whilst stumbling besides the point. Likely in an attempt to disparage through rhetoric rather than argumentation. And again, though it's probable more logorrheic tirades will proliferate, I will try to explain, seeing as how you failed to comprehend what I was saying the first time. I never said facts weren't 'universal truths', just that not all facts are 'universal truths'- if you'd look back at my previous posts, I said that. Like I said, fact is a polysemous word, having multiple meanings. In science, an objective and verifiable observation. In philosophy, a true proposition or something that makes a proposition true. In law, a statement proven true, through court, etc. Do you understand now? Probably not. Let me say this then, the definition of fact will differ as it pertains to the individual's beliefs whereas 'universal truth' does not. Problem is your inability to grasp this simple truth. The reason you believe all facts to be synonymous with 'universal truth' is, apparently, due to your adherence to the dogma of universalism. I'd be curious to know what you recognize as 'facts' and how you discern the absolutes from the relatives and instances, if it were not for your repulsive and condescending behavior.

As far as my second point... what?... Well, good job, you can make general, true statements that are besides the point. But the thing is, I never said there are no historic facts, just that they are not 'facts' given the premise. I was stressing that these 'facts' are biased, intersubjective, and adulterated, which is the opposite of the given definition. It's true that an event, at the very least, more than likely occurred, but any specifics beyond that is up to debate. But I was not claiming otherwise, silly boy. Just that 'fact' in history, the interpretation of events, is not objective nor unconditional, it is all relative. And if I were so inclined, I could surely argue the fact of a 'known' event from ever occurring, and vice versa. However, I tire of your insults and blatant disregard. May god have mercy on your wretched soul.
320 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 2/21/13

longfenglim wrote:
There is no evidence to give it weight.


Is evidence required for belief though? Not necessarily; that's a matter of opinion (I happen to disagree).


Let's take that line of argument- I say that it is infeasible, by your own doctrine, since feasibility is relative, I must be right, and therefore, that position must be infeasible. QED.


You must be right in your own head. Not objectively right. You don't understand relativism too well.


Two mistakes, I have already shown you that there are some knowledge that are wholly independent from experience, Kant's A Prioris, such as A priori Analytic (All bachelors are unmarried) and A Priori Synthetic (7 + 5 = 12), which do not depend on our experiencing bachelorhood or 7 + 5.


And I showed you that they were not truly a priori. I showed you that people can have different ideas about what 7, 5, 12, and bacheloorhood mean. Even more than that though, I doubt that one can comprehend what twice of something is without physical experiences, meaning it's not a priori.


In fact, even our experience and senses must first be grounded in an a priori that exist outside of experience- when we have a group of sensation, if the Empircist's claims are true, then there is nothing that allows me to connect these experiences together. Thus, I must rely on an a priori to make the connection between the burning sensation on the tip of my fingers and touching a burning stove.


That's not an empiricist claim, that's a solipist claim (senses may not be interpretable). And you have not identified an a priori that allows you to do that.


Second, Descartes' aphorism is, within itself, illogical and not a priori.


And how is it illogical?


There is nothing that says that cogitare requires the first person pronoun ego, and therefore nothing that justifies cogito, and cogito, in itself, already assumes an existence of a ego, and therefore, it does not follow that it proves 'sum', and thus, is illogical. The most one can get from his thought experiment is this, 'There exist a process called thinking'.


Okay, try denying your own existence without using the word 'I' or anything that implies it/has it in inside of it's set. If it's true that the cogitare (thinking) does not imply the ego (self), then you should be capable of doing that. I think your statement is incorrect.


Words are, in and of itself, meaningless, and it is only the thoughts that I apply to it that gives it meaning.


But thoughts aren't objective, and are blocked by the communication barrier. You can't communicate thoughts through the five senses which are commonly recognized (there could be other senses, but that's a whole 'nother issue).


Without ideas, words are simply nothing, simply scrawls, sounds, and symbols.


Most definitely. But that doesn't mean the same sound, the same word, can't mean two things.


It is wrong, then, to say that ideas are only reachable inside our own head, when words themselves depend completely upon our cognition.


An another person's words depend completely on their cognition. Your cognition and their cognition aren't necessarily the same.


There is a clear practical difference, equivalent to the difference between the motorcar and its passengers.


There is a difference inside our own heads, but we can't even comprehend the difference in other people's heads. We have to assume it. And, as you know, one assumption justifies other people to make their own similar assumptions (if you hold to the idea that one piece of logic should be useful elsewhere).


Postmodernist do not find meaning at all.


Maybe some postmodernists. Postmodern pragmatists find meaning plenty. In fact, part of the way we interpret writing is based on finding our own meanings in things. There's this great quote by Rorty, unfortunately I'm not able to find it right now, but it talks about how religious art has value because people find meaning in it, though it's value is not an objective measure. In other words, meaning is something individuals find.


Proof can be seen in your misinterpretation of Kant.


I haven't read Kant. If I'm misinterpreting him, it's kinda because you aren't presenting him in the clearest of manners.


Here, you have reduced Philosophy to the study of texts as text, rather than as thoughts


Incorrect. I study both, and use both.


and treating Philosophic work as Literature.


Not really. I treat philosophy as communication.


Great Philosophy is not always wedded with good writing, and the best philosophers are not usually the best writers, with some exceptions (Plato, Nietzsche, Pascal), most of our outstanding philosophers are not outstanding writers (Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, Spinoza), and it really doesn't matter if people find Kant dull, Hegel hermetic, Spinoza tiring, or Aristotle lacking in Plato's literary brilliance, the reader's viewpoint and the critic's viewpoint doesn't matter, what marks a good philosopher is his thoughts, and it is upon that alone which he is judged.


I have no idea how this relates to what I was talking about, honestly. You and I aren't on the same page.


W.K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley rightly warns us to take the middle path when dealing with literature, between the extremity of haphazard guessing at the Author's intention (Intentional Fallacy), or else studying literature based solely upon its affect upon the reader (Affective Fallacy).


You assume that the only right way to read a philosophical paper is the way the author intended. I don't assume that.


An example of Intentional Fallacy would be the whole career of the ignomous but wildly famous Harold Bloom, whose theory of misreading and Oedipal struggle with a poetic father is based upon both unsound psychology and a distinct lack of common sense- which shows in several of his essays, such as where he made Hugo aware that he needs a Milton to Oedipally struggle against, and so wrote religious poems, the writers of the New Testament working to struggle against the J author (nevermind the unsoundness of the Documentary Hypothesis), and so wrote the New Testament. On the other end, we have Critics following Barthes. When Roland Barthes wrote his famous Death of the Author, he has avoided the first (for fundamentally opposing reasons that the New Critics shunned it), only to let the text drown in the second.


Again, I have no idea where you are going with all of this. It doesn't relate to my post.

[quote. The text can only be criticised based upon the effect is has on the reader, on what the reader makes of it, simply put, relativism in literature. Is there an authoritative way of interpreting the poem- of course, one that is most founded upon the text, contained within itself. That would be, as it were, the 'Right way' to read a poem, simply because it is most grounded upon the text itself, rather than upon speculations upon the author.

And that's where we disagree. I don't think there is an authoritative way to read literature, or a poem, or anything. I don't think there is a 'right way' to read the poem. There is the original author's way, but it isn't the 'right' way necessarily.


An interpretation of the someone's philosophy can only be considered more founded or more right when there is more evidence to show that this position has more support within the Philosopher's corpus. The study of philosophy is bounded by the constraints of the the Philosopher's Corpus, the Philosopher himself, the Philosopher's time period, etc. etc. It would, therefore, be absurd to assign position upon a certain philosopher that would be wholly achronistic, not founded upon his thought or text, etc. etc., such as, for example, saying that Descartes was an Atheist (which stands in contradiction to both his text, and the time he lived).


Again, you are assuming an objective universe. Again, you are assuming that there is an objective way to read poetry. Seriously dude, you need to start from the basis of why you accept correspondence theory in the first place. Star there, and then work your way up.


If words were really relative to the people, then all I have to do to express my thought is simply to change the language in which I express it.


Except that it doesn't pass the communication barrier. Again. You can't perfectly express your thoughts.


Regardless, if I were to say orange, we are in general agreement that in standard English, it means both a certain type of fruit and the colour associated with the fruit, a variety of colours between red and yellow.


We are in general agreement, but that's because we both accept correspondence theory (but for me, only some of the time). In addition, we both agree in the practicality of the small assumptions we have to make due to the communication barrier making it impossible to explain ideas fully. However, someone can disagree if they want. And then your entire definition blows up in your face. Because they aren't required to accept corresponding theory, and they aren't required to think that making those small assumptions to get around the communication barrier is good.


That is all that is necessary to express an idea about 'orange', for example, in the sentence 'I think that oranges are tasty', we can percieve immediately that I am using the word 'orange' in the sense of the fruit, and stating my opinion on this particular fruit, that it is tasty.


Except we don't perceive it. We assume it. And that is my entire point. Someone could be completely justified assuming something different.


Does it matter if you hate oranges, had a traumatic experience with oranges, were raped by one, disagree upon its tastiness, does that change how you would interpret my sentence- absolutely not, you would understand it to mean what it means.


How would you fully describe salty to someone who has never tasted salt? You can't. that's why a person's experience with the object matter. A person who eats sushi a lot is going to think of sushi in a different way then a person who has only had it once in their life (and even more so a person who has never had it).


Just so with most writing, it does not matter what experience you have with a certain word or a concept associated with a certain word, so long as you understand what is meant, you have no hinderance to understanding what is being said.


But in order to understand what is meant, you assume.


You are misinterpreting me, and I shall admit that it is my fault for not being clear enough. Where I said 'thoughts', I meant 'the thoughts which I would like to express', and that thought does not change even if language is relative.


But we cannot communicate thoughts without language of some sort (body language included). Thus, the thoughts we express become relative outside of our own head.


If it were so, all I need to do is to simply 'translate' my thoughts into the language of my listeners- simply forcing relativity upon the text is not enough to make the thoughts expressed by the text, and that Philosopher's position, relative to the reader.


Sure it is. Can you be sure you understand the thoughts in the precisely same way the philosopher did? Not at all. And thus, relative.


He would be in agreement with you, since the Sophist make his living denying the existence of truth, and then resorting to rethorical devices rather than reasoning and logic to prove his point, as you have, in your nigh nihilistic denial of truth, value, and almost everything, really.


The solipists use logic plenty. It's really quite simple. 1) Most people ethically accept the idea that truth and evidence are necessary for belief (not me, btw). 2) We cannot provide proof or evidence that our senses are accurate. 3) Thus, we cannot believe in our senses. That's all a solipist has to say. Quite logical. Of course, as said, I disagree with #1.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 2/21/13 , edited 2/21/13

TAO_Arecibo wrote:

Is evidence required for belief though? Not necessarily; that's a matter of opinion (I happen to disagree).


Evidence is a prerequisite for belief- to believe without evidence is mere faith, which should be left to Churches, and not be passed off as feasible philosophy. You may believe in the unfeasible, it does not make it any more feasible.


You must be right in your own head. Not objectively right. You don't understand relativism too well.


You hold that there is no objectivity, therefore to make the claim that 'I am not objectively right' would be absurd as saying what is wholly black can also be wholly white or wholly red. Since you preach relativism, I can say, as with Socrates to Protagoras, that I contend that you are wrong and relativism is not true, and since your theory hold that I am right, therefore, it follows that I am right and you are wrong, and relativism is untrue, QED.


And I showed you that they were not truly a priori. I showed you that people can have different ideas about what 7, 5, 12, and bacheloorhood mean. Even more than that though, I doubt that one can comprehend what twice of something is without physical experiences, meaning it's not a priori.


No, it is a priori simply because it is independent of experience, regardless of what people take the symbols 7, 5, 12, =, +, or Bachelor to mean, because the idea of 'bachelor', 7, 5, 12, =, and + are such that they are esentially that they are. You make the mistake, as you continue to, of conflating the signifier with the signified, the ideas themselves are a priori, and to question language is not to question the ideas.


That's not an empiricist claim, that's a solipist claim (senses may not be interpretable). And you have not identified an a priori that allows you to do that.


You are quite wrong on what empiricists believe and what solipists believe. Empiricist claim that all knowledge comes from experience, the solipist, to the contrary, claim that there is no knowledge beyond the self. The weakness of Epistomological Empiricism is this- they claim that knowledge comes from experience, but something must connect these knowledge together, and that something is innate and not experienced. This knowledge which allows us to connect related events and form a generalisation, and since this knowledge is not a posteriori to the event (for experiencing events can, at the most, create seperate, unconnected sensations), it is a priori.


Okay, try denying your own existence without using the word 'I' or anything that implies it/has it in inside of it's set.


Easy, I can do that in but a single word: there is nothing.

If we go back to Descartes' example: there is thought.

There is thought is not the same as I am thinking, and Descartes is only allowed the former so far as his premise is concern.


If it's true that the cogitare (thinking) does not imply the ego (self), then you should be capable of doing that. I think your statement is incorrect.


Cogitare does not necessary need an ego, and therefore, the word 'Cogito' is completely invalid, as all we can say is that there is the process of thinking. These thought does not necessarily need a self, and, indeed, certain Buddhist sects have made it a doctrine to deny that the self exist altogether.



But thoughts aren't objective, and are blocked by the communication barrier. You can't communicate thoughts through the five senses which are commonly recognized (there could be other senses, but that's a whole 'nother issue).


You are confusing what is being meant by 'thoughts' here, perhaps intentionally, each person has a thought, but that those thoughts are his, and that his thoughts are what they are is an objective fact, and if he commit to paper, his thoughts are his own, and not relative to another person. He can communicate that thought, adequetly enough, by various means of human communication, by writing, speech, sign language, and I can ascribe a certain idea that he holds or has held by citing whatever means he used to communicate that idea and point out that he expressed those ideas. The barrier is one that exist, but not as significant as you make it to be, so long as he does not stray too far from the bounds of Standard English Grammar and Orthography, there is very little that hinders me from understanding him.


Most definitely. But that doesn't mean the same sound, the same word, can't mean two things.


But, within context, we are able to percieve the distinct meaning he wishes to give it.


An another person's words depend completely on their cognition. Your cognition and their cognition aren't necessarily the same.


If we are in agreement over the rules of grammar and lexicon, and I read it fully and within context, then what was meant to be said and what was percieved to be said would be in near perfect match.


There is a difference inside our own heads, but we can't even comprehend the difference in other people's heads.


If we were to hold an earnest conversation or debate, then we can comprehend what is being argued and what is being said, what was meant, and argue back, with arguments they would understand with equal clarity, and that is enough information we need, enough entry into the mind of other people, and there is no problem. In short, you are making a fuss over nothing at all- so what if we are unable to know the mind of another- the only way to do so is to be that other person- in a philosophical debate, all that matters is that what is that we understand their arguments.


We have to assume it. And, as you know, one assumption justifies other people to make their own similar assumptions (if you hold to the idea that one piece of logic should be useful elsewhere).


There is no need to assume they understand what is being said, or what other people think, they make those manifest in their argument, in their writings, etc.



Maybe some postmodernists. Postmodern pragmatists find meaning plenty. In fact, part of the way we interpret writing is based on finding our own meanings in things. There's this great quote by Rorty, unfortunately I'm not able to find it right now, but it talks about how religious art has value because people find meaning in it, though it's value is not an objective measure. In other words, meaning is something individuals find.


For one thing, Postmodernists rarely find meaning, from Derrida, to Lyotard, to Rorty, to all those other Charlatans and Sophists. Interpreting writing to you seems, more or less, checking the surface without plunging the depths.


I haven't read Kant. If I'm misinterpreting him, it's kinda because you aren't presenting him in the clearest of manners.


I assume that you have had some familiarity with Kant, which is why you can say that 'I disagree with Kant on such and such point', without my ever having brought up Kant in the first place.



Incorrect. I study both, and use both.

Not really. I treat philosophy as communication.


No, you seem to be treating philosophy as text, and then reading it simply as text, rather than for the thoughts. Hence, your following of the Postmodern fethishisation of Words, Text, and imbuding them with near mystic powers, forgetting that all it is is simply a mode by which we communicate an idea.


I have no idea how this relates to what I was talking about, honestly. You and I aren't on the same page.


It is a critique of your cavalier treatment of philosophic text as merely the surfaces, letters, symbols, grammar, rather than looking for the ideas, because your own doctrine seems to be more focus upon those superficialities than the profundity of thoughts. Philosophic Text are not literature, nor are them meant to be taken as such, rather, they are a vehicle used to communicate the author's idea.


You assume that the only right way to read a philosophical paper is the way the author intended. I don't assume that.


No, the only right way is to read it as the author intended it, because the text is only a vehicle of transporting the author's thought. There is absolutely no other way to read a philosophic text but that how the author intended it to be read and interpreted.


Again, I have no idea where you are going with all of this. It doesn't relate to my post.


You have committed the same error as Mr Roland Barthes.


And that's where we disagree. I don't think there is an authoritative way to read literature, or a poem, or anything. I don't think there is a 'right way' to read the poem. There is the original author's way, but it isn't the 'right' way necessarily.


Like Roland Barthes, you are wrong to say that there is no authoritative way to read literature, poems, etc. For example, is there a reading more founded on the text than another reading, of course, is there a reading that is most founded upon the text, definitely. A reading most founded upon the text is the authoritative way to read a poem, something that the New Critics understood well, and which you do well to learn.


Again, you are assuming an objective universe. Again, you are assuming that there is an objective way to read poetry. Seriously dude, you need to start from the basis of why you accept correspondence theory in the first place. Star there, and then work your way up.


So, you assume your theory is right, and there is no such thing as an objective universe as well as no objective way to read a poem, and then dogmatically insist upon the truth of your theory while, at the same time, accusing me of assuming the truth of the correspondence theory. I do not assume its truth, because the truth of the theory is practically self-evident- a thing is true if and only if it corrolate to a fact about our universe. 'John is a man' is a truth statement because it corrolates to several concepts within the universe, 'John', 'being' and 'man'. Even to say that 'there is no objective universe' is to make a truth claim, since it corrolates to something that exist called 'the universe', and then stating something about it, 'that it isn't objective'. These claims, however, can also be demonstrated or falsified with respect to the universe.




Except that it doesn't pass the communication barrier. Again. You can't perfectly express your thoughts.


Perfectly =/= adequetly

Perfection is not necessary.


We are in general agreement, but that's because we both accept correspondence theory (but for me, only some of the time). In addition, we both agree in the practicality of the small assumptions we have to make due to the communication barrier making it impossible to explain ideas fully. However, someone can disagree if they want. And then your entire definition blows up in your face. Because they aren't required to accept corresponding theory, and they aren't required to think that making those small assumptions to get around the communication barrier is good.


It is not because we adhere to a theory of truth that we are in agreement, it is because we both use the same medium, the English language, and both adhere to its rule. It does not matter if he accept this theory or that theory of truth, it remains so that he understand fully what is being meant when I make a statement such as 'I think that oranges or tasty'.


Except we don't perceive it. We assume it. And that is my entire point. Someone could be completely justified assuming something different.


No, no they aren't, there is no justification for thinking otherwise. Because, in standard English, orange means either the fruit (n.), of or relating to the fruit(adj.), the colour (n.), or of that colour(adj.). Grammatically, it is clear that 'oranges' is being used as a noun, being the subject of the verb 'to be', and since you cannot make a colour plural, the only possible way of interpreting it is to mean the fruit. Thus, if that is your point, your point is simply facile sophistry which collapses beneath reason.


How would you fully describe salty to someone who has never tasted salt? You can't. that's why a person's experience with the object matter. A person who eats sushi a lot is going to think of sushi in a different way then a person who has only had it once in their life (and even more so a person who has never had it).


It is irrelevent what he thinks of it, to make a sentence comprehensible, he needs only to know the meaning of it. For example, he needs only to know what sushi is to comprehend the sentence 'I ate sushi last night'. Likewise, he only need to know that salty is a taste to understand what is being meant when someone complains of something tasting 'too salty'. They are irrelevent to understanding what is meant.


But in order to understand what is meant, you assume.


I only assume that he is using a certain language, and that is the only assumption being made.


But we cannot communicate thoughts without language of some sort (body language included). Thus, the thoughts we express become relative outside of our own head.


No, the thoughts I express can now be objectively ascribed to me if I communicate it, because language is an adequet mode of expressing ideas.


Sure it is. Can you be sure you understand the thoughts in the precisely same way the philosopher did? Not at all. And thus, relative.


I can understand the thoughts being expressed precisely as he intended them to be understood, simply because his text, in its capacity as a vehicle of his thoughts, transported his thoughts quite adequetly, and so, it is not relative, and I can ascribe this and that to this philosopher, this and that to that philosopher.


The solipists use logic plenty. It's really quite simple. 1) Most people ethically accept the idea that truth and evidence are necessary for belief (not me, btw). 2) We cannot provide proof or evidence that our senses are accurate. 3) Thus, we cannot believe in our senses. That's all a solipist has to say. Quite logical. Of course, as said, I disagree with #1.


Quite illogical, since while 1 is true, neither 2, or 3 are true, nor does it logically follow from one. It is illogical to jump from 1 to 2, simply because there is no evidence for 2, and therefore, by 1, we should discount 2 altogether.
Posted 2/21/13
Sigh* I'm going to answer Vega's question.

Some people need to see to believe.
320 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 2/21/13

longfenglim wrote:

Evidence is a prerequisite for belief- to believe without evidence is mere faith, which should be left to Churches, and not be passed off as feasible philosophy. You may believe in the unfeasible, it does not make it any more feasible.


Well then you cannot believe you can trust reality then. Because there is no evidence showing that your senses are trustable.

And as said, I disagree, I think evidence is not a prerequisite for belief.


You hold that there is no objectivity, therefore to make the claim that 'I am not objectively right' would be absurd as saying what is wholly black can also be wholly white or wholly red.


Not necessarily. You could simply consider it a logical extension that the only objective statement in a relative world would be that objectivity does not exist. Of course, those who don't accept logic aren't bound to that statement.

And also, I'm not a true relativist. I'm a pragmatist. However, I believe you have dismissed relativism prematurely, which is why I am using it so much.


Since you preach relativism, I can say, as with Socrates to Protagoras, that I contend that you are wrong and relativism is not true, and since your theory hold that I am right, therefore, it follows that I am right and you are wrong, and relativism is untrue, QED.


Again, you don't really get pragmatic relativism. Pragmatic Relativism doesn't hold that you are right. It simply holds that you are not wrong. There is another thing in between them called justification. The opposite of wrong is justified, in this case, not right.


No, it is a priori simply because it is independent of experience, regardless of what people take the symbols 7, 5, 12, =, +, or Bachelor to mean, because the idea of 'bachelor', 7, 5, 12, =, and + are such that they are esentially that they are. You make the mistake, as you continue to, of conflating the signifier with the signified, the ideas themselves are a priori, and to question language is not to question the ideas.


You know, I have a feeling we are just talking past each other. You don't seem to be getting what I am saying. So I'll just quit it here.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 2/22/13

TAO_Arecibo wrote:


Well then you cannot believe you can trust reality then. Because there is no evidence showing that your senses are trustable.

And as said, I disagree, I think evidence is not a prerequisite for belief.



This, then, is nothing less then blind faith. You tell me that there is no evidence showing that my sense are trustable, on the contrary, I can cite several scientific sources that disproves Mind-body dualism, and therefore your particular brand of Solipism.


Not necessarily. You could simply consider it a logical extension that the only objective statement in a relative world would be that objectivity does not exist. Of course, those who don't accept logic aren't bound to that statement.


I already made that argument, wherewith you deny the validity of logic altogether. But it remains that I decided to follow your game, and since your game tells me that logic need not apply, I am only pushing the boundry of your illogicity.


And also, I'm not a true relativist. I'm a pragmatist. However, I believe you have dismissed relativism prematurely, which is why I am using it so much.


Because Relativism is ultimately a self-defeating proposition, something that you seem to admit to, which is why you decide to throw out reason, logic, and sense, and replace it with a new form of irrationality.


Again, you don't really get pragmatic relativism. Pragmatic Relativism doesn't hold that you are right. It simply holds that you are not wrong. There is another thing in between them called justification. The opposite of wrong is justified, in this case, not right.



So, you decide to switch words around, instead of something being 'right', it is 'justified', whereas no statement can be wrong, some statement can be 'more justified than others', another way of what the rest of the world calls 'being right'. Yet, since you tell us that we need not accept logic, then there is no method to justify any statement, therefore, producing an absolutely sterile philosophy which has neither claims to its rightness within its own paradigm, nor has, therefore, can it go forth and even produce argument, because an argument implies that one side is wrong, or at least mistaken upon a certain point. The illogical extention of this sterile philosophy would be to admit that since the argument produced by the other side is not objectively wrong, then one cannot object to it- one would merely be stating an opinion just as not wrong as their opinion.


You know, I have a feeling we are just talking past each other. You don't seem to be getting what I am saying. So I'll just quit it here.


If we are talking past each other, then it is but that you lack the clarity and rigour for us to understand you, nor do you make an effort to either of the two.

Banned
31569 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / The Void.
Offline
Posted 2/22/13
longfenglim = Cognitive dissonance at it's finest.
28514 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Delaware
Offline
Posted 2/22/13

-Vega- wrote:

longfenglim = Cognitive dissonance at it's finest.


Longfenglim = Megalomania/Senses of Grandeur at it's finest- needs mental help
Banned
31569 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / The Void.
Offline
Posted 2/22/13

tehstud wrote:


-Vega- wrote:

longfenglim = Cognitive dissonance at it's finest.


Longfenglim = Megalomania/Senses of Grandeur at it's finest- needs mental help


I agree!

2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 2/22/13 , edited 2/22/13

tehstud wrote:

I see this game you are trying to pull me into, not happening though. You breakdown my argument from a whole to specifics and then nitpick every instance instead of arguing my point as a whole.


He insist that his whole is somehow coherent, when every part, even within context, is incoherent.


I had but 3 points to make. One, some facts are 'universal truths', not all, which should be implied from my first post- it was and is my original position, child.


He claims to have had but 3 points, what he neglects to mention is that not a single one of these point are either coherent logically, or written in intelligible English.



Two, 'fact' is a polysemous word, the meaning of fact differs in differing studies and beliefs which I gave example to, if need be, I can explain each in detail. And you keep saying 'it is defined as such' [in MW], but I already gave ONE of many of the MW definitions for 'fact' that make your statement to be false.


Quite amazing, he returns to his original criticism, that he is completely incompetent in English, and then tries to shift the blame onto me. I fail to see how his absolute lack of competence in English is somehow a failing on my part.


Let me restate, AGAIN, you fail to recognize the hierarchical order, the levels of taxonomy, of the word 'fact', where you define all 'facts' in the strongest form of the word, being 'universal truths'- like saying, all fruit are apples, instead of some fruit are apples


So, now he admits that I have failed because I have used the word 'Fact' correctly, where I should have joined in and adhere to his usage rather than to standard English.


Three, history IS biased, adulterated, and intersubjective, meaning accordance among multiple people whilst not being objective nor absolutely true, so your Manchester 1819 is irrelevant, since I never said it was subjective. This does not refute events from ever taking or not taking place, which you assumed.


His arguments remains incoherent- one the one hand, he claims that history is biased, adultered, and invented, and based upon people without an objective truth to it. On the other hand, he claims that events did take place. Thus, troops did not actually or objectively fire at and slashed their way through protestors in Peter's Field, Manchester, we simply agreed that they did, or, the wounds of those maimed in combat in far off Afghanistan are not actual wounds, but imagined ones which we all agree to exist. Not only was he content to ascribe to me a position I have never took up (that historical records are gospel truths), he manages to confuse his own argument with his lack of sense, he manages to disprove himself against an imagined position.



Ignoring the fact that you just made an absolute, negative statement... you say god/absolute authority/creator is a 'non-existent entity [who cannot pass judgment]', inferring you don't believe in such a thing, that doesn't make sense seeing as how you're a staunch believer in universalism.


Because the only way to be an atheist, according to Mr Tehstud, is to be a complete nihilist, and deny that there exist any objective reality or any value at all. He, obviously, has not met too many Atheists.


So it's safe to assume you believe in an unintentional reality. So, how can ever truly know these 'universal truths' without an absolute authority who sets absolute standards to measure ANYTHING against?


He think that there needs to be a God so that a sentence like, say, 'John is a man', understanding who John is, what 'man' means, and following the rules of English, is true. And that science, that human endeavour to search for truth, requires God to make it comprehensible. Quite odd, indeed, is the fact that a vast majority of scientists are Atheists, given that the basis of their profession is that the universe exist, natural laws exist, and these laws are universal.



But I digress. You believe yourself to be beyond reproach and contradiction, an absolute genius who's words and ideas are sacrosanct... which makes you delusional, which makes you dangerous... seek mental help. Ciao.


One needs only to read this to see that my 'argument' with him to see that I am an absolute genius, or else that he is doing his very best to encourage such delusions, given that he has been putting forth weak, idiotic, and wholly incoherent arguments.

38425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 2/22/13

longfenglim wrote:

One knows a man by the company he keeps- an associate of -Vega- is surely at his mental capacity: somewhere below single cell organisms at the bottom of the sea and bacterias living in a dung pile.


How are they below single cell organisms at the bottom of the sea and bacterias living in a dung pile?
Banned
31569 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / The Void.
Offline
Posted 2/22/13 , edited 2/22/13
That's all longfenglim has after his shit gets ruined in a debate, he just flings shit/insults like a monkey.
28514 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Delaware
Offline
Posted 2/22/13 , edited 2/22/13
Longfenglim repeatedly, consciously and unconsciously, affirms that he is an absolute genius, his words and ideas to be true and beyond doubt. Anyone who believes such is surely insane. He deems anyone who doesn't agree with, argues with, or even cannot understand, his delusions to be incoherent, intelligible, and thus, wrong. Engaging in argument with one such as this, is like arguing with a temperamental child- clenching fist and stomping feet whilst holding breath when authority says no.

Assuredly, anyone who has had the misfortune of discussing anything with this child will notice this.
Banned
31569 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / The Void.
Offline
Posted 2/22/13 , edited 2/22/13

tehstud wrote:

Longfenglim repeatedly, consciously and unconsciously, affirms that he is an absolute genius, his words and ideas to be true and beyond doubt. Anyone who believes such is surely insane. He deems anyone who doesn't agree with, argues with, or even cannot understand, his delusions to be incoherent, intelligible, and thus, wrong. Engaging in argument with one such as this, is like arguing with a temperamental child- clenching fist and stomping feet whilst holding breath when authority says no.

Assuredly, anyone who has had the misfortune of discussing anything with this child will notice this.


I agree. He is the very definition of this thread I created.

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.