Extensive edit of previous post.
Also wanted to go back to the “sound argument vs. valid argument”.
Thinking about it more, this was a very important point raised by tunk. It is essentially what I’ve been trying to say this whole time. Your argument, although sound, is not necessarily valid as well. The relative “validity” is unknowable to us, as circumstances stand today. It also begs the question of why a valid argument must also be sound.
@AJ - Sorry if I was unclear, but that jump doesn’t seem to me like an equivocation. If I’m training for the 100m sprint, then my goal run the race is equivalent to run the race in the most optimal way, i.e. win it. It follows from the very fact that I aim at X that I should choose the most optimal means of achieving X. And if my goal is survival, then the best way to survive is to live in the most optimal way, i.e. flourish. Practically, all this does indeed turn into mere “life advice”, but why not give it a more rigorous foundation.
Well no, my definition of liberty is the same as Rothbard employs in his political economy, a state where every man is free to do as he wills with his own. And if if I am sovereign over my life surely it is within my rights to dispose of it.
I think what you were getting at there is the relationship between life qua ultimate value and suicide. Because I agree with you, on the surface it appears outrageous to say on the one hand that human beings should aim at life and on the other hand to say I would die for liberty. The question is, what is a good means to living life? It seems to me one necessary precondition is that I have absolute freedom of choice, i.e. liberty. It seems also reasonable that one should contribute to a world where everyone else has that freedom, since I stand to gain from trading and co-operating with others.
But what if I’m hit with the future prospect of a world in which liberty, one of the values that makes my life pre-eminently worth living will be removed or destroyed? A life without liberty would be meaningless, not to mention painful and terrifying. Paradoxically then, one might contribute more to one’s flourishing - or rather, contribute less to its diminution - by ending one’s life. Suppose, for example, that a resident of Libertopia is kidnapped by the enemy state of Krugmanistan and about to be tortured for vital information needed for an impending invasion. By dying, one would deliver the message, “I refuse to condone evil, and I act for the preservation of one of my greatest values.”
Of course, there are almost no practical cases of suicide where the person in question made an evaluation this calculated and rational. And indeed, suicide might be a rash and stupid thing for me to do, since circumstances could always change for the better later. In other words, in reality, most cases of suicide could probably be ruled out easily on moral grounds. So would I really die for liberty? I don’t know. But should I die for liberty if there are no other morally justifiable options? Yes.
Don’t you mean the reverse? That’s to say, my argument may be internally coherent (valid) but not necessarily applicable to the real world (sound)? Because that might well be true. But that’s why I stress that Aristotelian & Randian ethics is basically praxeological and founded on the action axiom.
Perhaps we agree at the endpoint, but flourishing isn’t necessarily the most optimal way to achieve the goal of survival (longevity), so I don’t think this is a rigorous foundation but an unnecessary confusion.
Well, no, flourishing means having a certain quality of life as well as quantity. That means good functioning, physically and psychologically. It doesn’t simply mean extending the number of years you live at whatever cost to yourself. That might very well be destructive.
For you to experience “liberty”, every person must be completely free to do as he wills with his own? That seems like a pretty tall order, and “his own” is a slippery slope into negation of your stated goals.
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
It seems to me one necessary precondition is that I have absolute freedom of choice, i.e. liberty.
[/quote]
You do not desire this, or you are contradicting yourself. You have chosen to intentionally limit yourself by adhereing to the spooks in your head. You’ve already excluded whatever you consider “not virtuous”, not only for your activity, but for the activity of others as well (“with his own”). This must require some sort of deference to authority, external or internal.
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
By dying, one would deliver the message, “I refuse to condone evil, and I act for the preservation of one of my greatest values.”
[/quote]
[quoteuser=“Stirner”]
Man, your head is haunted; you have wheels in your head! You imagine great things, and depict to yourself a whole world of gods that has an existence for you, a spirit-realm to which you suppose yourself to be called, an ideal that beckons to you. You have a fixed idea! Do not think that I am jesting or speaking figuratively when I regard those persons who cling to the Higher, and (because the vast majority belongs under this head) almost the whole world of men, as veritable fools, fools in a madhouse. What is it, then, that is called a “fixed idea”? An idea that has subjected the man to itself. When you recognize, with regard to such a fixed idea, that it is a folly, you shut its slave up in an asylum. And is the truth of the faith, say, which we are not to doubt; the majesty of (e. g.) the people, which we are not to strike at (he who does is guilty of — lese-majesty); virtue, against which the censor is not to let a word pass, that morality may be kept pure; — are these not “fixed ideas”? Is not all the stupid chatter of (e. g.) most of our newspapers the babble of fools who suffer from the fixed idea of morality, legality, Christianity, etc., and only seem to go about free because the madhouse in which they walk takes in so broad a space?
[/quote]
I was using “valid” the same way I had been in previous posts, to stay consistent (“valid”=“true”). If I confused the terms “valid”, and “sound” I appologize.
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
But that’s why I stress that Aristotelian & Randian ethics is basically praxeological and founded on the action axiom.
[/quote]
But I would argue that your ethical system falls into the same “infinite loop” of a subjective ethical system, if one does not share your unquestioning faith in reason.
Um, yes, a state of “liberty”, at least insofar as libertarianism as I understand it is concerned, is a situation where my rights to personal sovereignty and property are unviolated as per the non-aggression principle. Clearly, we do not currently live in a state of liberty. I have news for you; I’m not the first one to point this out.
And now what – I adhere to “spooks in my head”? Of course, because clearly anyone who dares to suggest that the Holocaust was morally wrong must be some kind of a crank. We’ve moved beyond pointless superstitions like right and wrong in this sophisticated, industrial world, right? Serious debates about ethics no longer consist of anything more than a contest to see who can quote at length from various irrelevant authorities the most? If that’s your view, fine. I don’t share it.
I am not appealing to the “divine”, to “ghosts”, to “spooks”, or any other strawman garbage like that. You clearly haven’t made any attempt to understand my position at all. All I am saying is the following. The word “should” or “ought” is usually only meaningful with regard to some agent’s problematic hypothetical imperative, in Kantian terms – if Joe wants X, he should do Y, Y being a means to X. I doubt you dispute this.
Now, what if there is some goal which every human being can be shown to aim at? Say mud-wrestling. Then assertoric hypothetical imperatives become possible – e.g. all human beings should train for mud wrestling.
All I am suggesting is the possibility that there might exist such a thing, which we might call the “natural end” for man, i.e. a goal which he pursues by virtue of his nature and is affirmed every time he acts, to which certain means can be universally perscribed. I hardly think this belief is a necessary and sufficient condition for being held as an inmate in a lunatic asylum, despite Stirner’s protests. (And it’s usually a sign of serious mental illness to be convinced that everybody except you is crazy.)
Then you haven’t understood my argument. Man’s natural end would need to be a self-justifying end-in-itself that is beyond his choice (and, at the same time, affirmed by every choice). It is the solution to the regress problem.
Sigh. “Faith”, huh? You’re still pushing this line? The very fact that you’re still arguing with me shows I’m not the only person who holds this “faith.”
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
All I am suggesting is the possibility that there might exist such a thing, which we might call the “natural end” for man, i.e. a goal which he pursues by virtue of his nature and is affirmed every time he acts, to which certain means can be universally perscribed.
[/quote]
Really? I could’ve swore that you were asserting that there IS a natural end for which all people in all circumstances, for all time, and that you have discovered it (or read some others who have discovered it). Life and virtue, or something like that, right?
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
I am not appealing to the “divine”, to “ghosts”, to “spooks”, or any other strawman garbage like that.
[/quote]
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
Man’s natural end would need to be a self-justifying end-in-itself that is beyond his choice (and, at the same time, affirmed by every choice).
[/quote]
In this second quote, how are you not doing exactly what you deny doing in the first? It is laughable how wooden headed you are being in regards to the Stirner quote. I really think our though processes are too divergent to be making any sense to each other.
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
The very fact that you’re still arguing with me shows I’m not the only person who holds this “faith.”
[/quote]
Sigh. Still pushing this line? Performative contradiction, huh? I’ll give you another example of your supposed “performative contradiction”
“English is the only true language. It is the only one I speak.”
“I speak Spanish and English, there’s no way of proving English is superior to Spanish.”
“WOOP! WOOP! WOOP!, performative contradiction!!!, If Spanish is better, whay are you communicating in English? Gotcha! QED! QED! QED!”
The very fact that you’ve gone from an assertion of truth, to a “suggestion of possibility”, shows that I’m not the only person who has some “doubt”.
Yes, I do, personally, take the position that man’s natural end is his life, in addition to believing that there is such a thing as a natural end. This is indeed an “assertion of truth” on my part. I haven’t flip-flopped on my position. I was simply trying to get you to understand it.
Now, when I say, “man’s natural end would need to be a self-justifying end-in-itself that is beyond his choice”, I’m simply stating the conclusions of a process of reasoning. What gives rise to the regression problem of means is the very fact that your ends are justified only by reference to other ends which, by virtue of being the object of a choice, beg the question, “Why make that choice”? So obviously, if there was an end that was self-justifying and the choice of which you could not avoid making, that would end the regression problem.
I don’t see any reason to discard this reasoning as invalid. The approach you take, as far as I understand it, is the far different one of simply saying such reasoning processes are pointless and groundless. IWhatever. Just don’t accuse me of something I’m explicitly not doing, which is appealing to revelation or some such baloney.
?
Either humans act purposefully or they do not act purposefully. If they don’t, then this discussion is literally impossible.
But if they do, then there are certain implications of that fact. Namely, that they use means to achieve their desired ends. And if they have any ends at all, they must have an ultimate end. (Otherwise you get a regression problem.)
This has been a fun read guys, thanks- especially the banter like “if deepak chopra is your thing” or “You’re a logic bot!” haha adds some good spice.
You don’t need to engage in thought to engage in purposeful action. Action can be taken without any mental stream of thought behind it.
If you’d said “survival” instead of “flourishing,” this would make sense. You were saying the ultimate end is survival,* which sounded odd for precisely the reason you mention here. Maybe just a slip of the tongue earlier?
*“And if my goal is survival, then the best way to survive is to live in the most optimal way, i.e. flourish.” (Isn’t this reversed?)
And my position is that there is no way for a mere mortal to discover it, if there is some ultimate end.
I understand that you have applied logic and reason to reach your conclusion. I’m saying that your argument, although sound, is not necessarily valid, and that there is no way to prove or disprove it’s validity one way or the other (using “sound” as reasonable, “valid” as objectively true), unless we have achieved omniscience.
Thus, your argument suffers from the same regression problem, since your criteria for validation rests on an unprovable chosen presupposition, namely “logical=true”.
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
don’t accuse me of something I’m explicitly not doing, which is appealing to revelation or some such baloney.
[/quote]
But you are, my friend, you are. “logical=true”, and “sensory input=real” are your statements of faith. There is no way around that. What has lead you to that conclusion? It certainly can’t be logic itself, because that is about as circular as it gets. It may not be revelation per se, I imagine it is probably intersubjective consensus (which is why you implicitly believe in Man as the giver of truth), which is fine, but let’s call a spade a spade.
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
Either humans act purposefully or they do not act purposefully. If they don’t, then this discussion is literally impossible.
But if they do, then there are certain implications of that fact. Namely, that they use means to achieve their desired ends. And if they have any ends at all, they must have an ultimate end. (Otherwise you get a regression problem.)
[/quote]
Perhaps, but why should we limit ourselves in the world of illusion (dualism)? We two may act purposefully as it stands, but I would argue that isn’t necessarily the only way to consciously exist:
You have completely accepted the Western, materialistic mindset as the “truth”. All I am saying is that you are voluntarily limiting yourself to the little rationalist corner you’ve painted, then have the audacity to claim your worldview as “true”, which is just silly. Neither of us can prove who is “right” and who is “wrong”.
You’re saying coercion, the initiation of aggression, is not bad? Really? Care to elaborate?
Say you witness someone toss a grenade into a restaurant; that’s an initiation of aggression. That’s not bad? You find that ethically neutral? What’s wrong with you?
Purposeful action makes use of some means to arrive at a consciously chosen end. You can’t act purposefully without thinking in some way shape or form. Otherwise you are merely reacting involuntarily to physical stimuli.
@AJ - I don’t really understand your question. If you want to survive, you should flourish. That’s the point.
I can’t comprehend this statement. According your earlier post, the word valid means “true”. But truth has two components, internal coherence between ideas and relation to external facts. Traditionally, the term “valid” has been used to refer to the former and “sound” to the latter. A valid argument is one that is internally coherent. A sound argument is both internally coherent and applicable to reality. So when you say my argument is “sound” and not “valid”, you are literally saying nonsense. I infer that you are saying that my ideas may be interally coherent but not applicable to the outside world. But this isn’t true, because my argument is founded on the action axiom. If man acts purposefully, then he has an ultimate end. The action axiom is affirmed in every attempt to deny it. It doesn’t require that you be omniscient in order to deduce something from an obvious truth.
This is explicitly and obviously false and bears no relation to anything I’ve said. If a claim is “logical”, it presumably doesn’t commit some kind of fallacy, so it is interally coherent. But that doesn’t establish that the claim is “true”, since it remains to be seen whether the premises from which the claim was reasoned were correct. Certainly we should check our premises.
The first isn’t a statement I ever made, as I said. The second statement is rather curious. My argument for ultimate ends nowhere made any mention of sensory input and it really makes no difference to me if we are all just brains in a vat. But just as a point of curiosity, how do you propose to question sensory input without making use of sensory input? How do you draw a line between reality and hallucination without using your senses to identify reality in the first place?
I really don’t get this. I am happy to repeat my position on logic if you like. The three basic laws of logic (identity, excluded middle, non-contradiction) cannot possibly be “proven” or “demonstrated”, because proof and demonstration involve reasoning from first principles that must themselves be demonstrated; using the law of identity to prove the law of identity would be circular (technically, it would be viciously circular) and would indeed establish nothing.
However, what can be shown is that the person who attempts to deny the law of identity in doing so must employ the law of identity. That’s to say, the law of identify is confirmed by the fact that there are people who dispute the law of identity – otherwise, how could we identify them as doing so? The laws of logic are what make existence and discourse possible to begin with. They cannot rationally be denied, unless you want to act on your denial and consign yourself to go out of existence, at which point you would hardly be relevant any longer to any debate about logic. By reasoning from these laws, I am doing nothing objectionable, because the truth of these laws is affirmed by the very fact that you and I are arguing about them. Anyone who disagrees and continues to exist is, without exaggeration, an irrelevant hypocrite wasting his time.
The rest of your response is semantics. As long as you are conscious, you are acting purposefully by my reckoning, whether or not you are reading the Buddha or some such. And of course, you encapsulate all the errors you have made thus far by ending with the statement, “Neither of us can prove who is ‘right’ and who is ‘wrong.’”" Really? You are asserting as right that there is no way to prove what is right? Then how do you know that you are right when you say that?
OK, gonna do the point-by-point here. I know it bugs you, but I don’t want to miss anything, because the conversation is finally starting to progress again.
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
But truth has two components, internal coherence between ideas and relation to external facts.
[/quote]
What? That isn’t “truth” as I understand it. Wouldn’t that definition make the difference between “sound” and “valid” irrelevant? This seems to completely disregard incompleteness of knowledge, unless you are claiming that there is no external, objective truth, in which case all of our “truths” are strictly subjective.
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
A valid argument is one that is internally coherent. A sound argument is both internally coherent and applicable to reality.
[/quote]
LOL, how pray can one possibly know how well their arguments apply to reality? None of us can know what reality is!
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
I infer that you are saying that my ideas may be interally coherent but not applicable to the outside world.
[/quote]
Yes.
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
But this isn’t true, because my argument is founded on the action axiom. If man acts purposefully, then he has an ultimate end. The action axiom is affirmed in every attempt to deny it. It doesn’t require that you be omniscient in order to deduce something from an obvious truth.
[/quote]
And I am saying the action axiom presupposes duality, which I reject as illusory. Our perceptual limitations does not necessarily affirm a “truth”, as far as I’m concerned. In fact, quite the opposite.
Granted, you are not claiming just that “logical=true” as simply as all that. I guess it’s more like “logic+sensory input=true”, as you describe here.
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
A sound argument is both internally coherent and applicable to reality.
[/quote]
Assuming that, “sensory input=real”. This is a premise that I am skeptical of, and which you claim as valid, without any qualification.
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
how do you propose to question sensory input without making use of sensory input?
[/quote]
Easy. Observe your favorite room, perhaps make some notes. Alter your perception. Observe the room once again. Has it changed? What is the causal factor in this change? Your perception, or the room itself? Or, if you are pressed for time, try some of these out. Only the most dogmatic Humanist would deny that perception is a rather imperfect tool.
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
How do you draw a line between reality and hallucination without using your senses to identify reality in the first place?
[/quote]
We can’t draw that line, and we haven’t identified reality.
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
The three basic laws of logic (identity, excluded middle, non-contradiction) cannot possibly be “proven” or “demonstrated”, because proof and demonstration involve reasoning from first principles that must themselves be demonstrated; using the law of identity to prove the law of identity would be circular (technically, it would be viciously circular) and would indeed establish nothing.
[/quote]
Yes! This is why you must simply accept them, with no validation beyond your aesthetic choice. That is faith!
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
They cannot rationally be denied
[/quote]
Nor can they be rationally affirmed, as you stated rather eloquently. Big deal.
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
the truth of these laws is affirmed by the very fact that you and I are arguing about them. Anyone who disagrees and continues to exist is, without exaggeration, an irrelevant hypocrite wasting his time.
[/quote]
No, this is merely affirming that one must presuppose duality to communicate with an “other”. Again, this is merely indicative of our cognitive and perceptual limitations, better known as ignorance. Unless you can somehow prove your position, or disprove mine, we are both wasting our time, as far as that goal is concerned.
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
As long as you are conscious, you are acting purposefully by my reckoning, whether or not you are reading the Buddha or some such.
[/quote]
And your reckoning is as aimless as mine! Again, big deal. What makes you think you are better at knowing “truth” than I?
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
you encapsulate all the errors you have made thus far by ending with the statement, “Neither of us can prove who is ‘right’ and who is ‘wrong.’”" Really? You are asserting as right that there is no way to prove what is right? Then how do you know that you are right when you say that?
[/quote]
No I am not. Read that sentence very carefully. I am claiming both of us are too ignorant, and our minds too muddled to even come close to “truth”. I belive “truth” is out there do be discovered, but that both of us are still groping in the dark. I could very easily be wrong, you could too. I could also be right, you could too. But there isn’t any way for us (as it stands) to figure out who is “right”, and who is “wrong”.
You go with,
“logic+sensory input=true”,
I go with,
“It’s all an illusion”
There is no way to determine which qualitative method is more accurate. That’s what I’m saying.
No. Where did I say anything like that? I never made any statement about the accuracy of sensory input. Why do you keep attributing positions to me I don’t hold? This is tiring.
For one thing, even if it were true, as you claim, that we can’t trust sensory input, this would establish absolutely nothing because sensory input is obviously not the only way to affirm a premise. A premise could be a self-evident statement; for example, that two lines will not enclose a space, or that human beings act purposefully.
According to you, “the action axiom presupposes duality.” What does this mean? The action axiom doesn’t “presuppose” anything. That’s why it’s an “axiom”. It is inconceivable that it could possibly be false, because conceiving it means it must be true.
I think pointing out that human beings can hallucinate through drugs is a crude argument against the use of the senses. For one thing, how did you know that you took drugs? Through your senses. How can we identify hallucination? Through the senses. E.g. you might videotape yourself while you are high and watch it afterwards. Your sensory input is the same in both scenarios. The only difference is that in one, drugs altered the automatic brain processes by which that input was interpreted and integrated.
Funnily enough, you are asserting, I should point out, as an ultimate fact about reality independent of perceivers that there are no ultimate facts about reality independent of perceivers.
If I’m in a room and the lights are suddenly turned off, obviously things will look different. What do you expect? That neither means the room has changed or my perception is flawed as a source of information. That the same thing could be perceived differently in a different context merely supplies more information, not less. In this case, we know that light bounces off the room and into our eyes, and becomes the brain’s electrical signals. Get rid of light, and those signals disappear.
What you seem to be asking for is the ability to see not from particular angle or in a particular fashion but in a way independent of any means; in other words, by magic. Perceptions are automatic and reliable sources of information, though, like anything else in the world, limited (for instance, if you are colour blind). The difficulty is interpreting perception. For instance, I see a stick that bends in the water. Does it really bend or not? That’s a problem for the thinking mind, not for the senses.
This reflects an extreme misunderstanding of what I said. I went to great trouble to point out the fact that logic cannot be “proved”, .i.e there exists no “proof” of the law of identity, and there’s no point asking that it be proved. However, this doesn’t constitute a point against it. Stop pretending that it does. Logical relationships are shown to hold in a very different manner.
As I stated already, if the laws of logic can be disputed, that means they must be true, otherwise there could be no disputation. They are necessary facts. You keep insisting dogmatically that accepting them is an “aesthetic choice” based on “faith”. Now, we would expect, if the law of non-contradiction was true, that your statement denying the laws of logic could not simultaneously be such a statement and not be such a statement. Clearly, your statement fulfills the law and shows it must hold true. So in the end, you are not very convincing.
Any intelligent person will see that none of the above is an appeal to revelation. It is a grasp of necessary connections.
(Incidentally, I am wasting my time if I can’t disprove your position? Wasn’t this the question-begging of which you accused me? I also can’t prove that Santa Claus doesn’t exist. Is that an argument in favour of Santa Claus?)
This is a non-sequitur. From the fact that any method by which we might evaluate who is “right” and “wrong” might well be fallible, or at least employed fallibly by fallible human beings, it does not follow “right” and “wrong” are terms empty of content.
It will take more than that to convince me that I’m nothing more than a figment of your imagination.
If you are so above this (Sigh, this is tiring, blah, blah), let’s agree to disagree, since it is obvious we have already dug our respective trenches, and have commenced the shelling already.
On the other hand, if you really want to progress here, let’s give it a shot, huh? I’m going to stick with the quote/counter-quote setup. I am much more comfortable with this, and you have mischaracterized my argument in ways I would prefer to address specifically.
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
I never made any statement about the accuracy of sensory input.
[/quote]
Yes you have.
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
A sound argument is both internally coherent and applicable to reality.
[/quote]
Then how are you using “reality” here? You must presuppose that you have an accurate grasp of reality, in order to appeal to it.
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
even if it were true, as you claim, that we can’t trust sensory input, this would establish absolutely nothing because sensory input is obviously not the only way to affirm a premise.
[/quote]
I am having a hard time imagining cognition without observation preceding it. Do you have any examples?
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
A premise could be a self-evident statement; for example, that two lines will not enclose a space, or that human beings act purposefully.
[/quote]
Shenanigans. If you had never observed “lines”, and “space”, and “human beings”, and “purposeful action”, these premises would not be self-evident at all. That’s like me saying The hollowness of a unicorn’s horn is “self-evident”.
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
The action axiom doesn’t “presuppose” anything.
[/quote]
LOL, you really have no idea what I’m saying, huh? Doesn’t it at least presuppose humans? That is duality! As soon as you begin to characterize and classify any sort of phenomena, you are engaging in dualistic thinking.
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
It is inconceivable that it could possibly be false, because conceiving it means it must be true.
[/quote]
No. Just because it is inconceivable does not mean it is false at all. Before the genius of Einstein, spacetime was “inconceivable”, right? Don’t mistake your ignorance for truth.
Just like math, the goofy little rules of logic were created so people can try to make sense of the world. It really has no bearing on the world at all.
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
You are asserting as an ultimate fact about reality, independent of perceivers, that there are no ultimate facts about reality independent of perceivers.
[/quote]
No I’m not. I’m saying that if an ultimate reality does exist, then we (you and me) would have no way of knowing, as it stands. That is a very different argument.
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
That neither means the room has changed or my perception is flawed as a source of information.
[/quote]
Yes it does! You are getting an incomplete picture of the room, since you cannot see in the dark. The room could completely change, and then return as the switch was turned back on. You have no way to tell, except a belief that the room didn’t completely change and then return.
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
What you seem to be asking for is the ability to see not from particular angle or in a particular fashion but in a way independent of any means. In other words, by magic.
[/quote]
Essentially, yes. I’ve heard meditation works, too.
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
Perceptions are automatic and reliable
[/quote]
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
I went to great trouble to point out the fact that logic cannot be “proved”, .i.e there exists no “proof” of the law of identity, and there’s no point asking that it be proved. However, this doesn’t constitute a point against it.
[/quote]
Why not?
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
As I stated already, if the laws of logic can be disputed, that means they must be true, otherwise there could be no disputation. They are necessary facts.
[/quote]
No, no, a thousand times no! It means that in order to communicate to you in a way you can understand, I must try to make a coherent statement, by utilizing the rules of logic. That has absolutely no bearing on the “truth” of logic, in an ultimate sense.
If you were Francophone, I would have to use the rules of the French language in order to communicate with you. Does that mean that French is “true”?
If I want to play Monopoly, I have to use the rules of Monopoly. Does that mean the rules of Monopoly are “true”?
Of course it doesn’t. I don’t understand why you consider logic to have some special exemption.
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
I also can’t prove that Santa Claus doesn’t exist. Is that an argument in favour of Santa Claus?
[/quote]
No, but it does demonstrate how little you know, and therefore how little you can speak of “truth” in any case. That’s all I’ve been doing this whole time. I’m not arguing that your position is necessarily wrong, I’m arguing that we can’t know if it is right.
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
This is a non-sequitur. From the fact that any method by which we might evaluate who is “right” and “wrong” might well be fallible, or at least employed fallibly by fallible human beings, it does not follow “right” and “wrong” are terms empty of content.
[/quote]
“Right” and “Wrong” are empty of content as far as those fallible individuals can assert them. To go any further is to engage in magical thinking. Faith, if you will.
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
It will take more than that to convince me that I’m nothing more than a figment of your imagination.
[/quote]
And it will take more than that to convince me that you have any grasp on the truth.
I’m aware that point-by-point reples are more “comfortable” for you. They’re more comfortable for everyone. I generally avoid them because they allow you to avoid having to understand your opponent’s argument, and make the poster come across as rather annoying. But with you I occasionally have to give in a little.
No I don’t. That an argument’s premises need to be validated before the conclusion can be taken as true doesn’t imply anything about whether sensory input is the best means for making that validation. I said this already and I’ll say it again.
I don’t need to have “observed” lines and space to grasp the implications of such concepts. I don’t even know how “lines” and “space” could ever be “observed”. The fact that two lines can’t enclose a space and that man acts follows from the very definition of those concepts. If I can conjure up their definitions, then I can conjure up their implications. Perhaps I might need someone to explain to me what a line is to begin with. But that isn’t necessarily so.
No I’m not. I’m saying that if an ultimate reality does exist, then we (you and me) would have no way of knowing, as it stands. That is a very different argument.
[/quote]
That’s exactly the same argument. There is no difference.
I already acknowledged that seeing a dark room is getting incomplete information about the room. But, as I said, this isn’t a flaw of perception but rather one of its virtues. All means to our various goals are imperfect. But if I turn on the light, I get more information than I would otherwise, thanks to my perceptions. My senses helped me identify this cause and effect relationship. Seeing nothing in the dark is ultimately not a lack of information, but rather an abundance of it.
It’s funny how you think just uttering phrases or linking to Wikipedia constitutes an argument. It doesn’t. If you are “meditating”, you must still use your senses in order to do all the things which meditation requires: breathing, finding a quiet place, closing your eyes, etc. And, as I already said, we wouldn’t even know what “hallucination” was without our senses. A schizophrenic is still receiving the same sensory input as anyone else. It’s only his means of integration and interpretation of that input is being messed with. It’s like a radio signal in English being jammed and translated into Guatemalan.
This is an interesting statement. For one thing, It’s not that the laws of logic are employed only in communication. They are employed in existence itself. Anything that exists falls under the domain of these laws, including such notions as “truth” or “false”. Accepting your analogy, the “goofy little rules of logic” are the rules of reality.
So there certainly is an analogy to the rules of French. If a sentence violates the rules of French (assuming a certain set of fixed rules), then what is being spoken is no longer French. Similarly, if there was some entity which violated the laws of logic, it could not exist in reality. And seeing as how truth is defined as internally coherent and applicable to reality, then yes, any statement which violated the law of identity could not be true. Of course, by the very definition of the word be, there could not even “be” such a thing.
I will refrain from commenting on the rest of your post, since it’s just a series of assertions. For someone who poses as a skeptic, you seem rather convinced of your “grasp on the truth”, to say the least.
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
The fact that two lines can’t enclose a space and that man acts follows from the very definition of those concepts.
[/quote]
Right. The fact that these positions are self evident says nothing of the world outside the narrow scope of these concepts. Man has created these constructs for himself. As you say,
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
I don’t even know how “lines” and “space” could ever be “observed”.
[/quote]
Why would you think that concepts that are admittedly nothing more than mental exercises have any bearing on ultimate reality?
That’s like me claiming,
“All flibbles will never flurble.”
The question now becomes,
“If so, so what?”
Unless you can somehow demonstrate the relevance of these concepts vis a vis reality at large, I fail to see the point of bringing them up.
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
If I can conjure up their definitions, then I can conjure up their implications.
[/quote]
Yes. Conjuring is right (still not magical thinking?). Easy as slapping a “name” on to some “thing” you’ve created in your head, or perceived (and then mentally processed).
Remember when I called you a Humanist (Man as the giver of truth)? This what I was talking about. In fact, you go on to grant yourself the power of creating the world you observe around you,
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
It’s not that the laws of logic are employed only in communication. They are employed in existence itself. Anything that exists falls under the domain of these laws, including such notions as “truth” or “false”. Accepting your analogy, the “goofy little rules of logic” are the rules of reality.
[/quote]
[quoteuser=“John 1.1”]
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[/quote]
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
Seeing nothing in the dark is ultimately not a lack of information, but rather an abundance of it.
[/quote]
As you say, only if there is a light we can reach. What I’m saying is that we don’t have a light (in other words, been “enlightened”), so we are left groping in the dark, until we find the light.
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
If a sentence violates the rules of French (assuming a certain set of fixed rules), then what is being spoken is no longer French. Similarly, if there was some entity which violated the laws of logic, it could not exist in reality.
[/quote]
This only follows if you are “assuming a certain set of fixed rules” in both instances. I am currently questioning that the “certain set of fixed rules”, you’ve chosen to follow are the true “certain set of fixed rules”.
Oh wait, these are probably just more of those pesky assertions… hmm, I wonder if you ever use those things? OK, found some:
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
That’s exactly the same argument. There is no difference.
[/quote]
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
If you are “meditating”, you must still use your senses in order to do all the things which meditation requires: breathing, finding a quiet place, closing your eyes, etc.
[/quote]
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
we wouldn’t even know what “hallucination” was without our senses.
[/quote]
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
A schizophrenic is still receiving the same sensory input as anyone else.
[/quote]
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
It’s only his means of integration and interpretation of that input is being messed with.
[/quote]
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
And seeing as how truth is defined as internally coherent and applicable to reality, then yes, any statement which violated the law of identity could not be true.
[/quote]
You’re still missing half of the qualification. “Applicable to reality”? How do know how applicable your deductions are? Please answer that for me. You keep sqruirming out of those sections of my posts.
[quoteuser=“tunk”]
For someone who poses as a skeptic, you seem rather convinced of your “grasp on the truth”, to say the least.
[/quote]
Quote me where I have made a positive argument. I’ve been doubting yours this whole time, and offering contrary hypothesis, but claims of truth? I don’t think so.
I thought I would link to The Relativity of Wrong by Isaac Asimov. It’s not exactly relevant to the current discussion, but I think it would be interesting to you guys.
@gotlucky - I enjoyed that essay, hadn’t read it before. Thanks.
U srs? U best be trollin. Here’s a couple of examples off the top of my head.
Simple: check the premises, as I stated several times. If the premises are true, the conclusions will be true.
Perhaps you should remind someone to bring a candle to your next hippie seance. This is nice rhetoric. That’s all I can say about it.
As far as I can tell, you’ve been the one constantly referring me to cultish shaman rituals and Buddhist texts as authorities for the claims you make. And yet somehow, I am expected to believe that I am engaging in appeals to revelation. No one is buying this cheap tactic and you should give it up. Perhaps incense worship is something you enjoy engaging in. Fine, whatever, lovely. But some people may not share your taste, and so you might try to stop pretending that everyone who disagrees with you is just another “follower”.
Yes, the laws of identity, noncontradiction, and excluded middle are laws of reality. I stand by this statement and I don’t apologize for making it. Why? Because there is nothing conceivable that does not fall under the domain of those laws. Anything that exists exists as itself and is not simultaneously itself and not itself. If you doubt this, try and disprove it. And, in fact, I would go so far as to call these rules “self-evident” and “fixed”, however much of a heresy to some committed relativists and nihilists that might be. By definition, there is no way a plant could exist as both “plant” and “not-plant” (unless you’ve done some innovative scholarly work of which I’m unaware showing that it can). I can explain this concept, but I can’t comprehend it for you.
All the statements from me you quoted were arguments, not assertions (with admittedly the exception of the first one). You were too hasty in your reply and didn’t notice. This is yet more testament to the failures of the point-by-point method. Not conducive to very rigorous thinking.
Yes, perception even in a dark room provides you with information. Perception is a means by which inputs are converted into data with which your mind is fed. Blaming the perception mechanism because the information being fed into it is occasionally lacking is like denouncing computers because there are bad typists. Yes, if you are meditating, you must still use your senses to find a room, close your eyes, etc. – unless you could somehow explain to me how you might close your eyes without using your senses (somehow, I just know the answer will yet again involve illegal drugs). Yes, the only way we can identify “hallucination” is through sense-data; even a child knows the difference between dreams and reality, and between being harmed in a nightmare and being harmed in the real world. Yes, obviously a schizophrenic is receiving the same sense-data as you or me and is just interpreting it differently; try tazing him in one of his panics and see what happens.
Pardon me while I roll on the floor laughing.
Let me tell you something; if you are “offering contrary hypothesis”, you are making claims of truth. Each of us is making a positive claim about the world and bears a burden of proof. Specifically, in your case, it would be the claim that
And as I said, you are just committing the age-old skeptic’s fallacy of asserting as an absolute truth that there are no absolute truths.