If you could name names, or cite specific examples that would really help. I don’t read or recall every debate here. If you don’t want to do it publicly, then send me detail by PM. You’re not a foolish guy, so I am sure you are saying something worthwhile, but I’ll be damned if I can figure out what it is.
Are you saying that two different epistemological frameworks meet in a grocery store and A asks B a question. B provides A with an answer, but A doesn’t like the answer and then merely states, “We’re in two completely different epistemological frameworks so we’ll drop it.” Yet A and B are applying their knowledge in the real world. But they don’t talk about it. They don’t try to discover the truth of what is. So they go on applying their two differing opinions without hashing it out. Eventually these two differing opinions may reach a huge impasse - it’s a showdown between Rothbard and Bernanke - and now one will call the shots and the other will lay in wait for some future day unless they hash it out and get it over. It would have been better a long time ago when they were children, but they’ve grown up now and their knowledge is making an impact upon the world. Now it’s getting serious. So what to do now? Is that something you’re asking.
lol… I should have re-wrote it. While I was typing it I felt a bit confused but thought maybe it could be weeded out. It was sloppy on my part.
AM, AJ, and sometimes BP. BP seems to put something on the table sometimes, but then throws in comments on how he could rationalize killing innocents. He’s trying to make a point - but he doesn’t spit it out. This is when he’s being like AJ. Counter the other person’s argument but don’t provide one to replace it. continually probe for a weak spot - then strike and attack. Yet never put an idea in play on their own behalf. AM is always trying to play the semantics game, defining, redefining words. Yet he’s not offering any knowledge based on a particular position he personally holds. It’s all overly critical. It’s one thing to be critical, but another to be critical but not offer an alternative. If this is just me, then I need to clear my head.
technically, i don’t know if it’s that.
No, I’m asking… um… well, I’m asking what I wrote. I can’t come up with such vivid imagery for it, so it’ll have to stand on its own.
Lilburne,
The cop out would be the person saying they are relying on a different epistemological framework and simply state that without offering any argument or position of their own. So in all honesty they don’t have one and are thereby just lying in wait, like a wolf behind the bushes, ready to run out and poke holes in the others argument without any solutions to offer in replacement. No solutions means no knowledge of their own to offer. Merely arguing to defeat the other, but not to provide a truth of their own to replace it with.
A benefit of that approach is clarity. It’s for the same reason why in Oxford debates the two sides argue over affirming or denying one proposition, and not multiple.
And all three of them have expressed positive positions multiple times.
Well what if one honestly doesn’t know with certainty any positive truths regarding the philosophical topic at hand, only that the other is arguing speciously? Should he just make stuff up?
I really can’t argue with that. So therefore the default seems to be differing epistemologies. I find their positions to be unperceptive of justice or injustice and therefore either one (justice and injustice) could easy walk right in the front door and they wouldn’t know it.
To state if the other is arguing speciously is to perceive something wrong based on what then? If there is no truth foothold to measure the discussion, then what is measuring the assertion that the other person is wrong?
Just because they deny universal objective justice doesn’t mean they deny subjective or inter-subjective justice. But that’s a topic for another thread.
Based on logic, which is not necessarily an object of the particular philosophical topic being discussed.
human logic is universal?
Capacity for logic is not universal, but the laws of logic are.
i agree. I logically begin ontologically with life is, liberty is, and property is and then derive my ethics from this.
Property is an ethical concept, it doesn’t exist in an ontological sense. There is no property sans ethics.
Ah my apologies, I thought you were asking how many different ultimate ends there could be in the sense as something besides the ultimate end of social preference. Well my personal eudiamonia is a life of intellectual advancement.
If you know the position then why ask the question? Seems like a waste of time unless you just like testing people.
I am Anarchist Cain [:P] I’m not demanding that people go to Long’s lectures. He is a philosopher and I happen to agree with his viewpoint and in agreeing with him, I am filled with the desire to spread his ideas in order to encourage more to hear his argument.
Who is being the cadre now?
I never claimed that I can legitimately rationalize killing innocents, I was rejecting argumentation ethics style arguments.
Oh, I have been quite clearly making a point - you just apparently have been missing it.
I’ve been painstaking trying to tell him why conflating ethics with ontology is absurd over the course of multiple threads.