Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-02-2017, 11:24 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(22-02-2017 11:12 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(22-02-2017 10:43 AM)Naielis Wrote:  It's become apparent that I've "learned" a great deal more about philosophy than anyone here.

Oh my. That's impressive. And at 17 no less. Must be one of them prodigies who started uni at 12 and a Rhodes scholar at 16. Which schools did you study at again? Did you major in PHIL and are now hoping for a job as a ponderous barista? Or did you realize nobody's gonna pay you to jerk off in front of them and went with the CS major and PHIL minor like a good realist? Have you had any world famous PHIL professors? Or are you one of them arrogant self-taught metaphysical masturbators who was never shown how to jerk off properly? Nobody's gonna pay you to jerk off in public unless you know how to do it properly.

I never said I was a genius. I said I knew more than you about philosophy. I've researched it more than you. And that is apparent in our conversation.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2017, 11:26 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
At work.

Tired, stressed. Just resolved leaking body fluids and I find some of the above statement/sentences rather conflating.

The supposed 'Evidence' example? It's a parody. Real life criminal evidence has a whole plethora of 'Other' factors such as 'Direct chains' and so on.

For the writer to behave such a way would be more in the manner of creating staw men to knock down rather than arguments to build up.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2017, 11:27 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(22-02-2017 09:44 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Sure. I think it means the scientific community shouldn't dismiss the dualistic approach too eagerly.

They don't. Dualism has been rejected as unnecessary and incoherent as a result of centuries of investigation.

(22-02-2017 09:44 AM)Naielis Wrote:  There are great arguments for dualism.

It's funny. No one seems to actually be able to present any, despite all of these apparently being so readily available.

(22-02-2017 09:44 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Materialism still faces the challenges of justifying the underlying principles that allow for science to work.

I don't think you really understand what materialism is, or how it relates to science.

(22-02-2017 09:57 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(22-02-2017 08:49 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Saying "nuh-uh" does not make fallacies magically disappear.

That was my point. You can't speak fallacy into existence. I simply responded to your bare assertion with bare assertion.

The issue there, Naielis, is that it was not bare assertion.

(22-02-2017 09:57 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Do you not remember the part where they explained that the terms have an established content. Benjamin Franklin refers to the man. They were talking within that context.

Yes. I said this. And "the guy who said the 'healthy, wealthy, and wise' thing" also refers to that man. But, for no reason at all, one is labeled as "rigid" while the other is not. One is considered necessarily true, while the other is not.

The idea is incoherent.

(22-02-2017 09:57 AM)Naielis Wrote:  You need to get out of the materialist dogma for a second

This has absolutely nothing to do with materialism.

(22-02-2017 09:57 AM)Naielis Wrote:  and remember that words have content.

Yes. Yes, they do.

As I have said many, many times at this point, Naielis, you do not understand semantics. You do not have a firm enough grasp on how language works to make the kinds of arguments that you insist on trying to make. As such, you likewise do not understand the refutations of those arguments, and end up running in circles saying "nuh-uh" rather than providing any kind of coherent rebuttal, and ignore the more salient points in favor of chasing down irrelevancies like this (as I said, the whole bit about rigid descriptors is entirely irrelevant, since the argument fails regardless).

"Benjamin Franklin" refers to an entity.

"The guy who said the 'healthy, wealthy, and wise' thing" refers to the same entity.

"Benjamin Franklin" and "the guy who said the 'healthy, wealthy, and wise' thing" are semantically equivalent.

The argument attempts to assert that "Benjamin Franklin" is a "rigid" descriptor, because, in Kripke's own words, "it makes no sense to say that someone else, other than Benjamin Franklin, might have been Benjamin Franklin", but in the same breath, he claims that it makes sense to say that "the guy who said the 'healthy, wealthy, and wise' thing" might designate another entity.

This is incoherent.

There is no actual difference between the two terms when it comes to their semantic properties. Kripke merely asserts that one is rigid and the other is not because... because, really.

And then he goes on to make the overly-narrow-definition statements that I have addressed in my other posts, which falls flat on its face even accepting that everything he said about rigid descriptors is true.

None of this is a coherent objection to anything. Its failure has nothing to do with "materialist dogma". It is, very simply and plainly, a man who does not really understand how language works.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2017, 11:31 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(22-02-2017 10:43 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Can we please stop with the patronizing comments.

He said, immediately following it with-

(22-02-2017 10:43 AM)Naielis Wrote:  It's become apparent that I've "learned" a great deal more about philosophy than anyone here.

- and wearing a straight face the entire time.

No, Naielis. You haven't learned a great deal more about philosophy than anyone here. You just have an obscenely overblown ego.

You are seventeen. There are people here, myself included, who actually have studied this, in depth, in serious academic contexts. You have access to SparkNotes and a fascination with names.

Get off your high horse, sit down, and learn something.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
22-02-2017, 11:33 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(22-02-2017 11:26 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

Tired, stressed. Just resolved leaking body fluids and I find some of the above statement/sentences rather conflating.

The supposed 'Evidence' example? It's a parody. Real life criminal evidence has a whole plethora of 'Other' factors such as 'Direct chains' and so on.

For the writer to behave such a way would be more in the manner of creating staw men to knock down rather than arguments to build up.

What? Fingerprints aren't evidence because there are other factors?

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2017, 11:38 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
At work.

(22-02-2017 11:33 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(22-02-2017 11:26 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

Tired, stressed. Just resolved leaking body fluids and I find some of the above statement/sentences rather conflating.

The supposed 'Evidence' example? It's a parody. Real life criminal evidence has a whole plethora of 'Other' factors such as 'Direct chains' and so on.

For the writer to behave such a way would be more in the manner of creating staw men to knock down rather than arguments to build up.

What? Fingerprints aren't evidence because there are other factors?

NO Naielis.

Criminal investgations/cases etc WORK IN A FAR MORE COMPLICATED MANNER THAN AS DESCRIBED IN YOUR GIVEN EXAM0LE.

Now, given the fact that your supplied example is shown to have a flaw (Possibly minor but I am not currently cognisant enough atm) will you acknowledge your point needs adjusting?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2017, 11:39 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(22-02-2017 11:31 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(22-02-2017 10:43 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Can we please stop with the patronizing comments.

He said, immediately following it with-

(22-02-2017 10:43 AM)Naielis Wrote:  It's become apparent that I've "learned" a great deal more about philosophy than anyone here.

- and wearing a straight face the entire time.

No, Naielis. You haven't learned a great deal more about philosophy than anyone here. You just have an obscenely overblown ego.

You are seventeen. There are people here, myself included, who actually have studied this, in depth, in serious academic contexts. You have access to SparkNotes and a fascination with names.

Get off your high horse, sit down, and learn something.

Yes I did say it with a straight face... what's the problem there. I have access to Stanford and IEP. I have access to Jstor. I have access to the works of Aristotle and Kant. I don't need SparkNotes. Also, if you've studied philosophy in an academic context, how do you not know what skepticism is?

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2017, 11:41 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(22-02-2017 11:24 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(22-02-2017 11:12 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Oh my. That's impressive. And at 17 no less. Must be one of them prodigies who started uni at 12 and a Rhodes scholar at 16. Which schools did you study at again? Did you major in PHIL and are now hoping for a job as a ponderous barista? Or did you realize nobody's gonna pay you to jerk off in front of them and went with the CS major and PHIL minor like a good realist? Have you had any world famous PHIL professors? Or are you one of them arrogant self-taught metaphysical masturbators who was never shown how to jerk off properly? Nobody's gonna pay you to jerk off in public unless you know how to do it properly.

I never said I was a genius. I said I knew more than you about philosophy. I've researched it more than you. And that is apparent in our conversation.

Apparent to YOU. Not apparent to anyone else. No one said you thought you were a genius.... liar. You have no clue how much anyone knows about anything. What is very clear, is that you have a tantrum when others do not accept the importance of things YOU think are important. Yet your ability to support their importance is virtually non-existent. That IS very childish. Grow up.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2017, 11:41 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(22-02-2017 11:38 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

(22-02-2017 11:33 AM)Naielis Wrote:  What? Fingerprints aren't evidence because there are other factors?

NO Naielis.

Criminal investgations/cases etc WORK IN A FAR MORE COMPLICATED MANNER THAN AS DESCRIBED IN YOUR GIVEN EXAM0LE.

Now, given the fact that your supplied example is shown to have a flaw (Possibly minor but I am not currently cognisant enough atm) will you acknowledge your point needs adjusting?

What are you talking about? There is no flaw at all. They weren't talking about criminal investigations. They were talking about what evidence is considered to be outside of philosophy: "For the forensics expert, evidence might consist of fingerprints on a gun, a bloodied knife, or a semen-stained dress: evidence is, paradigmatically, the kind of thing which one might place in a plastic bag and label ‘Exhibit A’."

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2017, 11:43 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(22-02-2017 11:41 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(22-02-2017 11:24 AM)Naielis Wrote:  I never said I was a genius. I said I knew more than you about philosophy. I've researched it more than you. And that is apparent in our conversation.

Apparent to YOU. Not apparent to anyone else. No one said you thought you were a genius.... liar. You have no clue how much anyone knows about anything. What is very clear, is that you have a tantrum when others do not accept the importance of things YOU think are important. Yet your ability to support their importance is virtually non-existent. That IS very childish. Grow up.

I never said he said I thought I was a genius... liar.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: