First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Close mindedness and willful ignorance.
320 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 2/22/13 , edited 2/22/13

longfenglim wrote:
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.


Of course it's blind faith. Solipism shows that almost everything is blind faith.

Also, just to let you know, using scientific sources to disprove solipsism would be circular logic (using your senses to prove that your senses are trustable).


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.


Well that's up to you, as said.


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.


Self-defeating in what way? In the way that it prevents you from asserting things? Yeah. But it also prevents others from asserting things; it's balanced in that sense.


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'.


That's because I consider right and justified different. Right is correct. Justified means partially reasonable.


Yet, since you tell us that we need not accept logic


Correct, you don't have to. It just means our communication will be poor.


then there is no method to justify any statement


Didn't you realize justification is relative to? I use it because there's forms of it that are nearly universal, but it's not completely universal. It's only effective versus those who accept it.


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.


It can make practical criticisms of things. For instance, I could criticize atheism for not having a divine law (which is appealing in my opinion). I could criticize theism for making unfalsifiable claims (which aren't so appealing in my opinion). Of course, as said, these are all relative. But that's what happens with postmodern pragmatism. You argue about what is practical and impractical, not what is right and wrong.


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.


Oh I can object to it all right. But I can only object to certain of it's properties that aren't practical to me. I can't object to it being 'obviously false', because it isn't that obvious.


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.


I guess your lucky that my pragmatism gives you the benefit of the doubt.
Wihl 
24272 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Lagrangian Librat...
Offline
Posted 2/22/13
I have enjoyed the discussion so far.

I will elaborate on my statement "facts are not universal truths". I see universal truths as concrete and hard. They are reality. Facts are the abstract representations that we currently use regarding the nature of an universal truth. Facts get proven wrong or are altered all the time as they are merely abstract symbols for things and as knowledge increases, it improves our abstract understanding of universal truths.

I would like to pose a question to the thread, "How does one get a close minded person to think beyond their current mindset?". Galileo Galilei would like to know, but it is a little late for him.

2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 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.


Of course, he fails to realise that he is incoherent, unintelligible, and very, very wrong, which I have so clearly demonstrated, that he found it fit to argue no more, seeing as it would be to his hurt. Instead, he does what he has been constantly accusing me of, of jeering, railries, insults, name-calling, patronising and condescending attitude, and a host of other crimes, that isn't, apperantly, applicable to himself. Let us map the course of his argumentation. He attempts, first, to blame me for his incompetency in English, says that I believe that historical texts are gospel truth, argue that all history is biased, and relative, back tracks, make another absurd claim and tries to convince people that a historical event only exist because everyone agrees that it exist, and would never have happened if we agreed that it didn't (I say, we should gather around and pretend that the Iraq and Afghan war never happened- we would get rid of the debts associated with those two wars, uncripple the crippled war veterans, the revive the millions of dead Iraqis and Afghans, etc. etc.), and then, with unseen audacity, claim to be an authority when all his arguments have been foiled! Ma foi! He marks himself as above a genius, he claims the title of an authority- an authority of what, he doesn't say, only that he is an authority! Whatever authority he is, he isn't, obviously, an authority on either Logic, English, or even basic Common Sense.


He wants to end it with a patrician sneer, that he is 'above it' as it were. This is ridiculous, as to be above it, one needs, first, to have some height, when he occupies the slot just below the mineral in God's Great Chain of Being.
51966 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / US
Offline
Posted 2/22/13

Wihl wrote:

I have enjoyed the discussion so far.

I will elaborate on my statement "facts are not universal truths". I see universal truths as concrete and hard. They are reality. Facts are the abstract representations that we currently use regarding the nature of an universal truth. Facts get proven wrong or are altered all the time as they are merely abstract symbols for things and as knowledge increases, it improves our abstract understanding of universal truths.

I would like to pose a question to the thread, "How does one get a close minded person to think beyond their current mindset?". Galileo Galilei would like to know, but it is a little late for him.



I think the answer is.. To put them into a situation that forces them to do so. Just like there are deal breakers, there are also deal makers.
That's the situation we must find !
320 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 2/22/13

longfenglim wrote:
No, it doesn't, Solipism only raises an entertaining metaphysical possibility, and rest the case for that based upon blind faith in itself- it assumes itself to be right, and then leaves it upon itself.


Of course it assumes itself right. It bases itself on the idea (which you hold to) that you need proof or evidence to believe in something. If you don't have proof or evidence for your senses, you thus cannot believe in them.


The belief in any other metaphysical possibility must rest within the possibility of science and logic.


Again, science relies on the senses. You can't use it to dismiss solipism. You can use logic, but you can only do it in relative, meaning people can end up disagreeing with you.


Solipism depends on the existence of a mind that is seperate from the body. Science already shown that that is not the case.


And here you assumed a body exists without proof or evidence besides your senses. Circular logic.


Fine, but you have no reason to believe you exist either, simply because there is thoughts. These thoughts do not necessarily belong to a self- therefore, there is no need for self.


This is how 'I think therefore I am' comes in. You can't say 'I don't exist' without being self-contradictory. Again, for those who don't hold logic as valid, it wouldn't make a difference, but for those who do, it does.


There is thinking, but you are not entitled, as a solipist, to say that this thinking belongs to an entity called 'me'.


No, actually it's the other way around. Solipists assign 'me' to whatever is doing the thinking, not the thinking to 'me'.


Why should it matter if it were up to me?


It matters because it's your choice. You can choose not to adhere to logic if you don't want to. That's your decision.


I have already demonstrated its self-defeating nature with the Socrates and Protagoras example.


And I refuted those examples, showing that you misunderstood the nature of relativism (which avoids claims of objective truth).


It does not prevent me from asserting things, I can claim them universal facts, but relativists cannot assert anything in protestation, because that would mean that you would have to admit to an objective truth, that all things are relative, bringing forth a self-contradiction within your own doctrine.


And as I mentioned earlier, you can be a relativist and hold to one objective truth; that the only objective truth is that there are none other than this one, for instance. It's an 'all but' operation, persay.

As I mentioned earlier, though, I'm not a true relativist. But the position is most definitely tenable.


What is correct is the opinion that is most logically sound and supported by the most evidence, your 'justified'.


No, not necessarily. In fact, you can have (at least in my opinion) two opposing opinions which are both justified. You can look at most political issues to see what I mean; both sides have good points, though they conflict, and so, in a sense, they are both justified, despite disagreeing with each other.

Having supporting evidence IS very useful for being justified, but it isn't the only way something can be justified in my perspective.


So, you admit to being the cause of our poor communication?


No, what I meant was that you can assert things I disagree with all you want, and it won't make a difference other than we'll end up talking past each other. In other words, our communication won't have much in terms of practical results. That's what I meant by 'poor communication'.


If justification uses an objective principle, it is no longer relative.


Justification isn't objective. Some forms of it are close to universal though because most humans like it quite a bit.


That objective principle is called logic.


People aren't necessarily mandated to adhere to logic, however. That's their choice.


Regardless of what people think, the Earth revolves around the Sun, and will continue to do so. Logic and Maths often brings about surprising results because it is bounded by an objective principle in and of itself, and independent of humans. And, if someone does not choose to accept it, he would choose to be wrong.


Well, that's your opinion.


It would be unable to make practical criticism, because practical and impractical implies a universal standard for these things


Not in the ways postmodern pragmatists mean practical, generally. Classical pragmatists accept some universal standards, but even then, they'd reject the way you are using it, as being too close to objectivism. To a postmodern pragmatist, however, practical simply means the best worldview from your perspective. That is a relative concept.

And do we believe it can be practical of other people to believe pragmatism is wrong? Yep. Though we disagree with them on it, obviously.


No, you cannot object to it, simply because your standard of practicality, by your own theory, does not necessarily match that of another person, nor is it possible to claim that your standard of practicality is more or less practical than his, and so, when someone makes a claim, you cannot counter that it is impractical, for that depends upon your own relative standards.


And why does it matter of our standards of practicality are different? As long as they are close enough, I'll be able to make an argument that will appeal to him or her. And if they are different, then I will use other arguments that appeal more to that person. In other words, you use what is best. For yourself, you use what is best in your view. When talking to others, you use what you think will be best in their view (to be convincing).


Ultimately, you can't make objections at all, since you would merely be stating an opinion like him, and his opinions would be, ultimately, no more or less wrong or 'impractical' than your own.


You can state objections that are opinions. People do that in politics all the time! Using relative objections is something that happens every day, and I prefer it that way.


Your pragmatic relativism is ultimately self-defeating and untenable as philosophy.


You can believe that if you want.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 2/23/13

TAO_Arecibo wrote:

Of course it assumes itself right. It bases itself on the idea (which you hold to) that you need proof or evidence to believe in something. If you don't have proof or evidence for your senses, you thus cannot believe in them.


Actually, that is not logical- the absence of evidence does not allow one more than agnosticism, and Solipism is full denial of the material and the body. Since it has made a positive claim, it must provide positive proof, and since it cannot prove itself, it is illogical and unreasonable to accept it. We can only believe in something if we have proof of it, the opposite, we must necessarily disbelieve something for lack of proof, is invalid.



Again, science relies on the senses. You can't use it to dismiss solipism. You can use logic, but you can only do it in relative, meaning people can end up disagreeing with you.

And here you assumed a body exists without proof or evidence besides your senses. Circular logic.


Ignoring your gripes against science, let us look more philosophically into Solipism. Solipism requires that the mind exist both independently of the body, and that it is transcendental, neither of which has been proved. Science, as it stands, shows more evidence for the monistic view of our mind and body (that is, that they are one), rather than the dualistic view (that they are seperate), and for Solipism to make itself valid, it must prove, first, that mind is, in fact seperate from body and transcendental, otherwise, to deny the body would be to deny the mind as well.


This is how 'I think therefore I am' comes in. You can't say 'I don't exist' without being self-contradictory. Again, for those who don't hold logic as valid, it wouldn't make a difference, but for those who do, it does.


'I think, therefore I am' is an invalid proposition, as Russel (and Nietzsche, so I have heard) have shown. Thinking does not require an agent of thought, 'I', and thoughts can well exist without a thinker (Look up Metaphysical Platonism).


Now, if you are not convinced, let's look at it logically:

1. There exist thoughts.

2. I am the agent which performs the action of thinking.

3. I exist.

The leap from 1 to 2 is invalid, because there is no reason to say that 'I' am this agent, or that an agent is necessary for there to be thoughts. All that can be made out is that 'there is thoughts'.

Following this, I can say 'I do not exist' and still make sense, because that act is simply denying that there exist the self, which is the 'I'.



No, actually it's the other way around. Solipists assign 'me' to whatever is doing the thinking, not the thinking to 'me'.


Invalid, you cannot assign a 'me' to the thinking, because that presupposes the thoughts being caused by an agent, when we are not entitled to even that by their own logic.



It matters because it's your choice. You can choose not to adhere to logic if you don't want to. That's your decision.


You are presupposing that I have something called 'Free Will', and thus, able to 'decide'.


And I refuted those examples, showing that you misunderstood the nature of relativism (which avoids claims of objective truth)

And as I mentioned earlier, you can be a relativist and hold to one objective truth; that the only objective truth is that there are none other than this one, for instance. It's an 'all but' operation, persay.

As I mentioned earlier, though, I'm not a true relativist. But the position is most definitely tenable..


The position is even more untenable- if there is no truth but that there is no truth (excepting itself, as it were), then why is that truth objectively true? What makes it universal and objective, but not some other truth, or some other absolute truth? Of course, as all dogmatism require the suspension of logic, so too must this form of relativism suspend logic to exempt itself.



No, not necessarily. In fact, you can have (at least in my opinion) two opposing opinions which are both justified.


Does not disprove my claim, so 'No, not necessarily' is invalid.



You can look at most political issues to see what I mean; both sides have good points, though they conflict, and so, in a sense, they are both justified, despite disagreeing with each other.


You don't hold very strong political beliefs, do you? I hold that the side that is based more on the facts is the correct one. If they are in conflict, it is not because both side has good points, it is because both side have points, and we, the electorates, are responsible for deciding which side is more based upon the facts of the situation than the other. Another criticism, the word 'good' itself implies a standard of 'good' or 'bad' that is binding to all, not relatively, so you cannot say that 'both side have good points', simply because there is no standard on which you can say that this is good or that is bad.



Having supporting evidence IS very useful for being justified, but it isn't the only way something can be justified in my perspective.


No, regardless of your opinion, having evidence is the requirement for being justified. SInce that is a fact, your opinion and your perspective really doesn't matter.


No, what I meant was that you can assert things I disagree with all you want, and it won't make a difference other than we'll end up talking past each other. In other words, our communication won't have much in terms of practical results. That's what I meant by 'poor communication'.


You use the word assert, when you simply assert that all things is opinion, and that logic is not entirely valid, and that there is no truth but that there is no truth, etc., etc. If we are talking pass each other, and our communication having no practical result, it is because you have asserted a group of things, I try to play along, and then you assert more things in contradiction to the things you just asserted.



Justification isn't objective. Some forms of it are close to universal though because most humans like it quite a bit.


People aren't necessarily mandated to adhere to logic, however. That's their choice.


Wrong, because Justification requires the objective principle of Logic, and so, one may check one's justification, criticise it within that mode, etc. etc., just as Mathematicians may criticise each other's proofs, show that this step does not follow, or that step does not follow, they must adhere to the objecitive principle of logic.

If they choose not to, they choose to do so at the expense of being wrong.





Well, that's your opinion.


It is an objective fact.


Not in the ways postmodern pragmatists mean practical, generally. Classical pragmatists accept some universal standards, but even then, they'd reject the way you are using it, as being too close to objectivism. To a postmodern pragmatist, however, practical simply means the best worldview from your perspective. That is a relative concept.

And do we believe it can be practical of other people to believe pragmatism is wrong? Yep. Though we disagree with them on it, obviously.


No criticism may issue because your worldview is not objectively correct, and so, my critique still aplies.


And why does it matter of our standards of practicality are different? As long as they are close enough, I'll be able to make an argument that will appeal to him or her. And if they are different, then I will use other arguments that appeal more to that person. In other words, you use what is best. For yourself, you use what is best in your view. When talking to others, you use what you think will be best in their view (to be convincing).


You are missing the point- the entire endeavour of arguing is wholly pointless within that paragdim because your system of pragmatism is not the same as the other person's, nor are your needs that of the other person. They are not wrong in your theory, and you are not right, you have forfieting all right to argue at this point.




You can state objections that are opinions. People do that in politics all the time! Using relative objections is something that happens every day, and I prefer it that way.


Your objections, then, are not valid, and, to say the least, not any more valid than his, and if you are aware that your objectives are simply relative to yourself, and not binding upon him, then you must admit that, for you, all acts of arguing are simply a form of baiting. He isn't wrong, if you did not believe him to be wrong in some way, you really have no reason to argue with him.


You can believe that if you want.


Another unjustified statement of Free Will.

28792 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F
Offline
Posted 2/24/13
This thread was quite interesting and rather entertaining.
A few people on here seem to be suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

http://mastercodeprofessional.com/library_files/Kruger-Dunning---Unskilled_and_Unaware_of_It_(2009).pdf


This study was awarded the 2000 Ig Nobel Prize in Psychology, by the way.
Just saying...
Wihl 
24272 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Lagrangian Librat...
Offline
Posted 2/24/13
Interesting paper. I hope they extend the work to a more general population I laughed all the time I read the paper. It matched my experiences teaching.

Great find.
Banned
31569 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / The Void.
Offline
Posted 2/28/13

SeraphimAda wrote:

This thread was quite interesting and rather entertaining.
A few people on here seem to be suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

http://mastercodeprofessional.com/library_files/Kruger-Dunning---Unskilled_and_Unaware_of_It_(2009).pdf


This study was awarded the 2000 Ig Nobel Prize in Psychology, by the way.
Just saying...


Interesting paper. I hope I'm not suffering from that effect.

28792 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F
Offline
Posted 2/28/13

-Vega- wrote:


Interesting paper. I hope I'm not suffering from that effect.




There's a german saying I like a lot: Einsicht ist der beste Weg zur Besserung. (Insight is the best way to improvement.)

Banned
31569 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / The Void.
Offline
Posted 2/28/13

SeraphimAda wrote:


-Vega- wrote:


Interesting paper. I hope I'm not suffering from that effect.




There's a german saying I like a lot: Einsicht ist der beste Weg zur Besserung. (Insight is the best way to improvement.)



That saying is true.

28514 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Delaware
Online
Posted 2/28/13

SeraphimAda wrote:

This thread was quite interesting and rather entertaining.
A few people on here seem to be suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

http://mastercodeprofessional.com/library_files/Kruger-Dunning---Unskilled_and_Unaware_of_It_(2009).pdf


This study was awarded the 2000 Ig Nobel Prize in Psychology, by the way.
Just saying...


ME!? or the self-proclaimed 'absolute genius' everyone is arguing with.
28792 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F
Offline
Posted 2/28/13

ME!? or the self-proclaimed 'absolute genius' everyone is arguing with.


I didn't necessarily mean anyone in specific. I believe we're all guilty at one point or another.
I was just thinking that this discussion went way out of hand.
As adults, we should treat each other with more respect and the awareness that a discussion in a virtual forum is lacking the aspects of gestures, facial expressions and intonation and can be read in a very subjective manner. Especially, if someone has a hair up their ass.
Sometimes arguing is just futile and will drag you down a nasty spiral of accusations and name calling.
I don't think that's what we're here for...



17562 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F / Los Angeles
Offline
Posted 8/3/13
It's the most frustrating thing in the world.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.