User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 68

  1. #41
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zangetshumody View Post
    Please will you explain your philosophy
    I am a member of Western Civilization and I am a Subject in a country that is part of the West.

    Western Civilization is based on Ancient Greek philosophy, Judaism, Christianity and the Enlightenment.

    The Enlightenment has given us evidence and inductive reasoning, as well as giving us freedom and equality.

    The Enlightenment has also given us modern medicine, modern economics, liberal democracy, science and technology.

    In particular the Enlightement abolished institutional slavery for the first time in history in the House of Commons in 1833.

    And under the Enlightenment, women gained their emancipation for the first time in history in Austalia and New Zealand in 1900.

    And in Ireland in 2009 and in Australia in 2014, independent Judicial Enquiries have exposed the extent of institutional child sexual abuse for the first time in history.

    So the Enlightenment has the runs on the board.

    And at a more abstract level, the Enlightenment gave us a habit of mind called counter-intuitive.

    And I am fortunate to have been born a Subject in a country based on the Scottish and English Enlightenment.

  2. #42
    Senior Member Zangetshumody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    I am a member of Western Civilization and I am a Subject in a country that is part of the West.

    Western Civilization is based on Ancient Greek philosophy, Judaism, Christianity and the Enlightenment.

    The Enlightenment has given us evidence and inductive reasoning, as well as giving us freedom and equality.

    The Enlightenment has also given us modern medicine, modern economics, liberal democracy, science and technology.

    In particular the Enlightement abolished institutional slavery for the first time in history in the House of Commons in 1833.

    And under the Enlightenment, women gained their emancipation for the first time in history in Austalia and New Zealand in 1900.

    And in Ireland in 2009 and in Australia in 2014, independent Judicial Enquiries have exposed the extent of institutional child sexual abuse for the first time in history.

    So the Enlightenment has the runs on the board.

    And at a more abstract level, the Enlightenment gave us a habit of mind called counter-intuitive.

    And I am fortunate to have been born a Subject in a country based on the Scottish and English Enlightenment.
    Pretty descriptions are not explanation. How did the enlightenment produce those things? If your response can be called an explanation, it is an explanation that hides the key to the knowledge you allegedly profess (as you provide no recourse to any substantiation).

    I'm not averse to you making claims that the enlightenment gave us certain things... but you must be able to explain the philosophical means by which it operates; OR again I say: how can anyone truly know you have any real understanding beneath the banner of "Enlightenment" you proclaim for yourself.

    Anyone can use pretty words, but if you can't share your understanding, how can you be so sure you are not acting out of ignorance (covered over by the vanity of relying on pretty sounding words like "Enlightenment").

    I am prepared to leave this point of discussion, as you have repeatedly ignored this point of contention, not even talking on it in your responses, and I'd rather not continue to harp on this issue any longer when you seem unable to distinguish between explanation and description.

    There is an important distinction to be understood about description and actual explanation:
    Description presupposes I have already bought into your model of thought to some extent, or that I at least wish to sample the nature of the fruit from your model's construction, because when reading descriptions I'm learning the terminology and perspective on things according to the system of that specific model. Description does not prove your system of belief is superior or that it should be preferred; only explanation can allow you to compare schema's. In short, describing your system in terms of how it HAS operated, does not explain to me why it should be preferred; you do actually need tell me how it currently operates:- tell how it will work in my mind in the now (you'll realize this excludes attempts to appeal to any external loci of understanding)!

    You have made every effort to describe 'the Enlightenment', and no effort to explain its philosophy. A historical account is not explanation, in philosophy it can be said to equivalate to appealing to the authority of a report; and I will not accept you moving away from the authority of reasoned explanation. Because without reasoned explanation as a basis of preferring tenants and premises (which every system is predicated on [which requires a way of appraising a priori]), dishonest reliance on outside authority will be used to supplement the fact that individuals are kept from actual understanding for him/herself.

    So far, I feel your explanation is currently in the following state:
    The Enlightenment model of thought did lots of morally good/right things the world could never have managed to accomplish without the Enlightenment.
    Without recourse to how the Enlightenment is understood through reasoning from the ground up:
    We should all just be devotees of the Enlightenment.
    Consequently if people want to make deductive arguments, we should tell them about what the Enlightenment has accomplished so they might stop being so deductive and become fellow devotees of the Enlightenment.

    I was not the person who first brought up the point on intellectual exploitation... but I have good sense of where it fits into this discussion.
    Last edited by Zangetshumody; 02-21-2014 at 08:42 AM. Reason: edited to be more fluid and clear
    Escape powerful genjitsu by averting your gaze from the eyes.

  3. #43
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zangetshumody View Post
    Pretty descriptions are not explanation. How did the enlightenment produce those things? If your response can be called an explanation, it is an explanation that hides the key to the knowledge you allegedly profess (as you provide no recourse to any substantiation).

    I'm not averse to you making claims that the enlightenment gave us certain things... but you must be able to explain the philosophical means by which it operates; OR again I say: how can anyone truly know you have any real understanding beneath the banner of "Enlightenment" you proclaim for yourself.

    Anyone can use pretty words, but if you can't share your understanding, how can you be so sure you are not acting out of ignorance (covered over by the vanity of relying on pretty sounding words like "Enlightenment").

    I am prepared to leave this point of discussion, as you have repeatedly ignored this point of contention, not even talking on it in your responses, and I'd rather not continue to harp on this issue any longer when you seem unable to distinguish between explanation and description.

    There is an important distinction to be understood about description and actual explanation:
    Description presupposes I have already bought into your model of thought to some extent, or that I at least wish to sample the nature of the fruit from your model's construction, because when reading descriptions I'm learning the terminology and perspective on things according to the system of that specific model. Description does not prove your system of belief is superior or that it should be preferred; only explanation can allow you to compare schema's. In short, describing your system in terms of how it HAS operated, does not explain to me why it should be preferred; you do actually need tell me how it currently operates:- tell how it will work in my mind in the now (you'll realize this excludes attempts to appeal to any external loci of understanding)!

    You have made every effort to describe 'the Enlightenment', and no effort to explain its philosophy. A historical account is not explanation, in philosophy it can be said to equivalate to appealing to the authority of a report; and I will not accept you moving away from the authority of reasoned explanation. Because without reasoned explanation as a basis of preferring tenants and premises (which every system is predicated on [which requires a way of appraising a priori]), dishonest reliance on outside authority will be used to supplement the fact that individuals are kept from actual understanding for him/herself.

    So far, I feel your explanation is currently in the following state:
    The Enlightenment model of thought did lots of morally good/right things the world could never have managed to accomplish without the Enlightenment.
    Without recourse to how the Enlightenment is understood through reasoning from the ground up:
    We should all just be devotees of the Enlightenment.
    Consequently if people want to make deductive arguments, we should tell them about what the Enlightenment has accomplished so they might stop being so deductive and become fellow devotees of the Enlightenment.

    I was not the person who first brought up the point on intellectual exploitation... but I have good sense of where it fits into this discussion.
    Plainly there is no satisfying you because you want me to argue on your grounds of deductive reasoning. It's like suggesting we continue to fight with you in Afganistan against a socially backward enemy whose main armament is the Improvised Explosive Device (IED). But in this case the IED is the a priori presumptions of any deductive argument.

    However I am not prepared to fight on your socially backward grounds of deductive reasoning, so I have no interest in defending the a priori.

    However there are many philosophers of the Enlightenment. In fact the street near me is named after a philosopher of the Enlightenment. He is called Jeremy Bentham. And he is philosopher of Utilitarianism which we can say is a philosophy of Oz.

    But rather than trying to convince you Utilitarianism is better than medieval Catholic theology, I simply quote the Bible and say, By their fruits shall ye know them.

  4. #44
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,545

    Default

    Let us analyse medieval catholic theology -

    The medieval scholastics said that as deductive logic is used to prove a mathematical theorem, so deductive logic can be used to prove the existence of God.

    The logical problem is that the second part of this sentence does not follow logically from the first part.

    The advantage is that the whole sentence is plausible and is perfect for the use in propaganda de fidei, because propaganda isn't true or false, rather propaganda is plausible.

    The same faulty logic was used by the medieval scholastics in saying that as a watch has a watch maker, the world has a world maker. And this is also plausible propaganda de fidei.

    So from our analysis we can conclude that deductive logic cannot be used to prove the existence of anything, even God; and also that deductive logic cannot be used to disprove the existence of anything, even God.

    To establish the existence of anything, to establish the facts, we had to wait for the Enlightenment and inductive logic.

    @Zangetshumody

  5. #45
    Senior Member Zangetshumody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    Let us analyse medieval catholic theology -
    So from our analysis we can conclude that deductive logic cannot be used to prove the existence of anything, even God; and also that deductive logic cannot be used to disprove the existence of anything, even God.
    That is your analysis.
    Of course deductive logic can be used to prove things.
    Obviously you can't just use deductive logic to prove something, you need to involve an ordered use of a priori in the formulation of one's premises to have any substance for the deductive reasoning to employ. [in my view the highest a priori is God, or love, or light (which is God in creation)].

    So my line has been, you must be able to explain things while relying on ordered a priori for your premises:
    and you try rope me in with some 'medieval catholic theology'/'medieval scholasticism', the examples of which you provide omit any use of a priori.

    I would call you out on your straw man approach, but since you have already awarded yourself immunity from responding in any form that contains deductive reasoning. My time is not well spent in continuing this exchange.
    Last edited by Zangetshumody; 02-23-2014 at 12:00 PM. Reason: added "ordered" and in the same line changed 'as your premises' to "for your premises"
    Escape powerful genjitsu by averting your gaze from the eyes.

  6. #46
    Member krypton1te's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    43

    Default

    Often we have a difficult time distinguishing what is real and what isn't. What is unreal is often associated with imaginary and fantasy (due to the traditional definition we have been conditioned to believe), whereas real is what is here, what is occurring now, stretching to natural laws, science, etc. It is what "exists." Yet, even when we "think" of something, it is still real. It is real in the mind, it exists mentally.

    Even science has a difficult time fathoming the mental mind. Do human beings have that mental aspect? Is it entirely physical? Can it be explained my science? It is simply unfathomable, and is continuously questioned.

    The mind is strange. It has a habit to believe what we think is true, but it doesn't mean that it is. Our rationality is what examines it... all thought has a gate that it must cross and be admitted through. Its passing is what determines whether or not it is real.

    We are the origin of every thought and idea that has occurred throughout history. And the beautiful thing? the universe is our origin. And when thought deeply enough, the unreal is real. Everything exists.

    Love is love. There is no unreal or real aspect to it. If it seems unreal then it is either a lie or infatuation... not love. Love is what it is.
    Two things fill me with wonder —
    the starry heavens above me and
    the moral law within me.

    Immanuel Kant
    _____________________________________________


    Tell me what a person finds sexually attractive
    and I will tell you their entire philosophy of life.

    Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged)

  7. #47
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zangetshumody View Post
    That is your analysis.
    Of course deductive logic can be used to prove things.
    Obviously you can't just use deductive logic to prove something, you need to involve an ordered use of a priori in the formulation of one's premises to have any substance for the deductive reasoning to employ. [in my view the highest a priori is God, or love, or light (which is God in creation)].

    So my line has been, you must be able to explain things while relying on ordered a priori for your premises:
    and you try rope me in with some 'medieval catholic theology'/'medieval scholasticism', the examples of which you provide omit any use of a priori.

    I would call you out on your straw man approach, but since you have already awarded yourself immunity from responding in any form that contains deductive reasoning. My time is not well spent in continuing this exchange.
    Your a priori is God for whom there is no evidence.

    So if we apply inferential logic to a lack of evidence, it is unlikely your God exists.

    But this makes no difference to you because your a priori is an act of faith. In other words, you take the existence of God for granted. And so you beg the question of God.

    I understand your Church teaches the doctrine of Faith and Reason, which seems fine at first blush, but on closer inspection we find that Faith is a priori and Reason is only applied to Faith. This is good propaganda de fidei, but is unfortunately done in bad faith.

  8. #48
    Senior Member Zangetshumody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    Your a priori is God for whom there is no evidence.

    So if we apply inferential logic to a lack of evidence, it is unlikely your God exists.

    But this makes no difference to you because your a priori is an act of faith. In other words, you take the existence of God for granted. And so you beg the question of God.

    I understand your Church teaches the doctrine of Faith and Reason, which seems fine at first blush, but on closer inspection we find that Faith is a priori and Reason is only applied to Faith. This is good propaganda de fidei, but is unfortunately done in bad faith.
    The a priori that God is love, and that God is light (in creation) is bad faith?
    I can't imagine what you take to be good faith.
    You can't convince me that God not existing is an example of a better faith, because such a proposition cannot be explained to be one (as my positive statements can). Not that your in the business of explaining any semantic move you make.
    And thus ends the discussion that your not capable of engaging in.
    Escape powerful genjitsu by averting your gaze from the eyes.

  9. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zangetshumody View Post
    The a priori that God is love, and that God is light (in creation) is bad faith?
    I can't imagine what you take to be good faith.
    You can't convince me that God not existing is an example of a better faith, because such a proposition cannot be explained to be one (as my positive statements can). Not that your in the business of explaining any semantic move you make.
    And thus ends the discussion that your not capable of engaging in.
    Maybe you're approaching it from the wrong angle. Instead of "God is love and light," think "Light and love are God." Then inductively work your way up to understanding what God really is...

  10. #50
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zangetshumody View Post
    The a priori that God is love, and that God is light (in creation) is bad faith?
    I can't imagine what you take to be good faith.
    You can't convince me that God not existing is an example of a better faith, because such a proposition cannot be explained to be one (as my positive statements can). Not that your in the business of explaining any semantic move you make.
    And thus ends the discussion that your not capable of engaging in.
    An a priori is arbitary. Anything can be an a priori whether it is the Trinity or a teapot in orbit around Mars. And choosing the right a priori and applying deductive logic, we can prove almost anything.

    So arguing from a priori with deductive logic is ruse of propaganda. It can be plausible and prove almost anything, and so prove almost nothing.

    So rather than arguing from a priori with deductive logic, try arguing from evidence using inductive logic.

Similar Threads

  1. What is the best thing someone ever said to you?
    By fidelia in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-14-2016, 01:03 AM
  2. [INFP] What is the best way to tell an INFP you love them?
    By demaugustus in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 05-05-2016, 03:20 PM
  3. What is the best part of an Oreo cookie?
    By The Ü™ in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 02-14-2014, 11:22 AM
  4. What is the craziest bit of technology you have read about in SF?
    By macjoven in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-14-2009, 08:15 PM
  5. What is the best country to live in?
    By JAVO in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 04-28-2008, 05:44 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO