For TheBorg,
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-09-2016, 11:16 AM
RE: For TheBorg,
(02-09-2016 09:58 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(02-09-2016 08:55 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  You're not alone. I don't quite get it either. I think our knowledge and understanding of reality is very limited. There are all kinds of things we don't know, and possibly things we can never know. Hence I am very suspicious of all-encompassing metaphysical statements like the ones True Scotsman is making. I just don't think it's as simple as he thinks it is, or that we can have that degree of certainty about anything.

Just because our knowledge is limited, does not mean that we can not have certainty about some things that we do know. At least as long as we accept reason and logic we can. If we allow the arbitrary into the realm of cognition, all bets are off.

The principles I'm using here are axiomatic. There is a lot of confusion out there about what axiomatic means. An axiom identifies a fact that is perceptually self-evident, conceptually irreducible, universal, objective and undeniably true. There are only a mere handful of axioms and they are all base level recognitions. They are invulnerable to attack because they are defended by retortion. They would have to be true in order for anyone to deny them. So if you claim that we can't know that the axioms are true for certain, just go and try to refute them without affirming them. Go ahead. They are the axiom of existence, that there is a reality or existence exists. The axiom of consciousness, consciousness is consciousness of something. The axiom of identity, that to exist is to be something specific, that a thing is itself and not something other than itself. Go ahead and try to refute any of these without making use of them. It can't be done.

I deny that your "primacy of existence" is axiomatic -- unless you are "restating it" by saying that consciousness is consciousness of something. And even then, that is true of consciousness as we know it. It may or may not apply to the kind of consciousness that a God would have. If a mole or a bat could talk, and you asked it how many senses there are and what they're like, sight would not even enter the discussion. They have no experience of it and no concept of it. How do we know there aren't senses or forms of consciousness that are totally beyond our ability to comprehend? The human mind is not all-powerful. It has limits.

You remind me of the people over at Edward Feser's blog, who are absolutely convinced that Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics is an accurate description of reality, and hence, God must exist. You come to the opposite conclusion, but both you and they claim to have certainty about a metaphysical concept, and talk about in abstract terms that leave me largely groping for understanding. Since you contradict each other, at least one of you must be wrong. Why couldn't it be you?

I do not trust metaphysics. With or without God, material reality as we know it has either existed for all eternity, or it arose out of nothing at some point. I find both concepts incomprehensible. That doesn't mean there is no reality, but it does mean there are limits to what my mind can comprehend. You might be smarter than me, but you're not smart enough to have ultimate answers to all the ultimate questions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
02-09-2016, 11:58 AM
RE: For TheBorg,
(02-09-2016 09:04 AM)adey67 Wrote:  
(02-09-2016 08:55 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  You're not alone. I don't quite get it either. I think our knowledge and understanding of reality is very limited. There are all kinds of things we don't know, and possibly things we can never know. Hence I am very suspicious of all-encompassing metaphysical statements like the ones True Scotsman is making. I just don't think it's as simple as he thinks it is, or that we can have that degree of certainty about anything.

I like it that there's shit we don't know and possibly might never know life should always have a bit of mystery IMHO it keeps things interesting.

Me too. But at least we can know that we know the shit that we know.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2016, 12:01 PM
RE: For TheBorg,
(02-09-2016 11:16 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(02-09-2016 09:58 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Just because our knowledge is limited, does not mean that we can not have certainty about some things that we do know. At least as long as we accept reason and logic we can. If we allow the arbitrary into the realm of cognition, all bets are off.

The principles I'm using here are axiomatic. There is a lot of confusion out there about what axiomatic means. An axiom identifies a fact that is perceptually self-evident, conceptually irreducible, universal, objective and undeniably true. There are only a mere handful of axioms and they are all base level recognitions. They are invulnerable to attack because they are defended by retortion. They would have to be true in order for anyone to deny them. So if you claim that we can't know that the axioms are true for certain, just go and try to refute them without affirming them. Go ahead. They are the axiom of existence, that there is a reality or existence exists. The axiom of consciousness, consciousness is consciousness of something. The axiom of identity, that to exist is to be something specific, that a thing is itself and not something other than itself. Go ahead and try to refute any of these without making use of them. It can't be done.

I deny that your "primacy of existence" is axiomatic -- unless you are "restating it" by saying that consciousness is consciousness of something. And even then, that is true of consciousness as we know it. It may or may not apply to the kind of consciousness that a God would have. If a mole or a bat could talk, and you asked it how many senses there are and what they're like, sight would not even enter the discussion. They have no experience of it and no concept of it. How do we know there aren't senses or forms of consciousness that are totally beyond our ability to comprehend? The human mind is not all-powerful. It has limits.

You remind me of the people over at Edward Feser's blog, who are absolutely convinced that Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics is an accurate description of reality, and hence, God must exist. You come to the opposite conclusion, but both you and they claim to have certainty about a metaphysical concept, and talk about in abstract terms that leave me largely groping for understanding. Since you contradict each other, at least one of you must be wrong. Why couldn't it be you?

I do not trust metaphysics. With or without God, material reality as we know it has either existed for all eternity, or it arose out of nothing at some point. I find both concepts incomprehensible. That doesn't mean there is no reality, but it does mean there are limits to what my mind can comprehend. You might be smarter than me, but you're not smart enough to have ultimate answers to all the ultimate questions.

I see. You deny that the primacy of existence is axiomatic. Tell me, is your denial true because you want it to be true?

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2016, 12:07 PM
RE: For TheBorg,
(02-09-2016 11:16 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(02-09-2016 09:58 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Just because our knowledge is limited, does not mean that we can not have certainty about some things that we do know. At least as long as we accept reason and logic we can. If we allow the arbitrary into the realm of cognition, all bets are off.

The principles I'm using here are axiomatic. There is a lot of confusion out there about what axiomatic means. An axiom identifies a fact that is perceptually self-evident, conceptually irreducible, universal, objective and undeniably true. There are only a mere handful of axioms and they are all base level recognitions. They are invulnerable to attack because they are defended by retortion. They would have to be true in order for anyone to deny them. So if you claim that we can't know that the axioms are true for certain, just go and try to refute them without affirming them. Go ahead. They are the axiom of existence, that there is a reality or existence exists. The axiom of consciousness, consciousness is consciousness of something. The axiom of identity, that to exist is to be something specific, that a thing is itself and not something other than itself. Go ahead and try to refute any of these without making use of them. It can't be done.

I deny that your "primacy of existence" is axiomatic -- unless you are "restating it" by saying that consciousness is consciousness of something. And even then, that is true of consciousness as we know it. It may or may not apply to the kind of consciousness that a God would have. If a mole or a bat could talk, and you asked it how many senses there are and what they're like, sight would not even enter the discussion. They have no experience of it and no concept of it. How do we know there aren't senses or forms of consciousness that are totally beyond our ability to comprehend? The human mind is not all-powerful. It has limits.

You remind me of the people over at Edward Feser's blog, who are absolutely convinced that Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics is an accurate description of reality, and hence, God must exist. You come to the opposite conclusion, but both you and they claim to have certainty about a metaphysical concept, and talk about in abstract terms that leave me largely groping for understanding. Since you contradict each other, at least one of you must be wrong. Why couldn't it be you?

I do not trust metaphysics. With or without God, material reality as we know it has either existed for all eternity, or it arose out of nothing at some point. I find both concepts incomprehensible. That doesn't mean there is no reality, but it does mean there are limits to what my mind can comprehend. You might be smarter than me, but you're not smart enough to have ultimate answers to all the ultimate questions.

I don't even know what metaphysics means. I have to keep Googling it to remind myself.

met·a·phys·ics
ˌmedəˈfiziks/
noun
the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.

abstract theory or talk with no basis in reality.

"his concept of society as an organic entity is, for market liberals, simply metaphysics"


This whole conversation is just so far over my head. I don't understand the point true scotsman is trying to make and I don't understand if I'm even being understood.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2016, 12:27 PM
RE: For TheBorg,
(02-09-2016 12:07 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(02-09-2016 11:16 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I deny that your "primacy of existence" is axiomatic -- unless you are "restating it" by saying that consciousness is consciousness of something. And even then, that is true of consciousness as we know it. It may or may not apply to the kind of consciousness that a God would have. If a mole or a bat could talk, and you asked it how many senses there are and what they're like, sight would not even enter the discussion. They have no experience of it and no concept of it. How do we know there aren't senses or forms of consciousness that are totally beyond our ability to comprehend? The human mind is not all-powerful. It has limits.

You remind me of the people over at Edward Feser's blog, who are absolutely convinced that Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics is an accurate description of reality, and hence, God must exist. You come to the opposite conclusion, but both you and they claim to have certainty about a metaphysical concept, and talk about in abstract terms that leave me largely groping for understanding. Since you contradict each other, at least one of you must be wrong. Why couldn't it be you?

I do not trust metaphysics. With or without God, material reality as we know it has either existed for all eternity, or it arose out of nothing at some point. I find both concepts incomprehensible. That doesn't mean there is no reality, but it does mean there are limits to what my mind can comprehend. You might be smarter than me, but you're not smart enough to have ultimate answers to all the ultimate questions.

I don't even know what metaphysics means. I have to keep Googling it to remind myself.

met·a·phys·ics
ˌmedəˈfiziks/
noun
the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.

abstract theory or talk with no basis in reality.

"his concept of society as an organic entity is, for market liberals, simply metaphysics"


This whole conversation is just so far over my head. I don't understand the point true scotsman is trying to make and I don't understand if I'm even being understood.

Trust me you are far more qualified to comment than I am, I understand you but realise that I am a fuckwit you are the girl, for sure don't doubt yourself
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes adey67's post
02-09-2016, 12:35 PM
RE: For TheBorg,
(02-09-2016 12:01 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(02-09-2016 11:16 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I deny that your "primacy of existence" is axiomatic -- unless you are "restating it" by saying that consciousness is consciousness of something. And even then, that is true of consciousness as we know it. It may or may not apply to the kind of consciousness that a God would have. If a mole or a bat could talk, and you asked it how many senses there are and what they're like, sight would not even enter the discussion. They have no experience of it and no concept of it. How do we know there aren't senses or forms of consciousness that are totally beyond our ability to comprehend? The human mind is not all-powerful. It has limits.

You remind me of the people over at Edward Feser's blog, who are absolutely convinced that Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics is an accurate description of reality, and hence, God must exist. You come to the opposite conclusion, but both you and they claim to have certainty about a metaphysical concept, and talk about in abstract terms that leave me largely groping for understanding. Since you contradict each other, at least one of you must be wrong. Why couldn't it be you?

I do not trust metaphysics. With or without God, material reality as we know it has either existed for all eternity, or it arose out of nothing at some point. I find both concepts incomprehensible. That doesn't mean there is no reality, but it does mean there are limits to what my mind can comprehend. You might be smarter than me, but you're not smart enough to have ultimate answers to all the ultimate questions.

I see. You deny that the primacy of existence is axiomatic. Tell me, is your denial true because you want it to be true?

No. I have no "wants" in this discussion. I don't care one way or another whether or not my denial is "true". Axioms are funny things, though. We like to think that they are self-evident, but that's not always the case. What they really are is a set of things that we agree to agree on so that we can have a discussion. I'm a mathematician at heart, and I know from experience that you can build a perfectly consistent (but entirely different) system just by starting with slightly different axioms. Witness Euclidean vs. non-Euclidean geometry. One was "self-evident" for 2000 years, but now it seems that the other one fits reality better.

The people over at Feser's blog have their axioms, too. And in their system, God must exist. You can go over there and fight it out with them if you like. I deny that either of you has the degree of certainty that you think you have. I make no definite claims in these matters. I'm happy to say "I don't know". I think your claim is considerably more likely to be true than theirs. But I don't claim to know that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2016, 12:36 PM
RE: For TheBorg,
BTW kingschosen and Aliza are theists we should be proud to number among our own and let us respect them for that. Respect is due.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like adey67's post
02-09-2016, 12:39 PM
RE: For TheBorg,
(02-09-2016 12:07 PM)Aliza Wrote:  I don't even know what metaphysics means. I have to keep Googling it to remind myself.

met·a·phys·ics
ˌmedəˈfiziks/
noun
the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.

abstract theory or talk with no basis in reality.

"his concept of society as an organic entity is, for market liberals, simply metaphysics"


This whole conversation is just so far over my head. I don't understand the point true scotsman is trying to make and I don't understand if I'm even being understood.

I like the second definition: "abstract theory or talk with no basis in reality". But I'm not certain of that either.

Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
02-09-2016, 01:30 PM
RE: For TheBorg,
(02-09-2016 12:35 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(02-09-2016 12:01 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  I see. You deny that the primacy of existence is axiomatic. Tell me, is your denial true because you want it to be true?

No. I have no "wants" in this discussion. I don't care one way or another whether or not my denial is "true". Axioms are funny things, though. We like to think that they are self-evident, but that's not always the case. What they really are is a set of things that we agree to agree on so that we can have a discussion. I'm a mathematician at heart, and I know from experience that you can build a perfectly consistent (but entirely different) system just by starting with slightly different axioms. Witness Euclidean vs. non-Euclidean geometry. One was "self-evident" for 2000 years, but now it seems that the other one fits reality better.

The people over at Feser's blog have their axioms, too. And in their system, God must exist. You can go over there and fight it out with them if you like. I deny that either of you has the degree of certainty that you think you have. I make no definite claims in these matters. I'm happy to say "I don't know". I think your claim is considerably more likely to be true than theirs. But I don't claim to know that.

This does not answer the question. Why the evasion? Could it be that a no answer to this question will prove the very thing you deny? Now you say that you don't care if your denial is true. Well it isn't true and your refusal to answer directly yes or no means you know it.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2016, 01:32 PM
RE: For TheBorg,
(02-09-2016 12:39 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(02-09-2016 12:07 PM)Aliza Wrote:  I don't even know what metaphysics means. I have to keep Googling it to remind myself.

met·a·phys·ics
ˌmedəˈfiziks/
noun
the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.

abstract theory or talk with no basis in reality.

"his concept of society as an organic entity is, for market liberals, simply metaphysics"


This whole conversation is just so far over my head. I don't understand the point true scotsman is trying to make and I don't understand if I'm even being understood.

I like the second definition: "abstract theory or talk with no basis in reality". But I'm not certain of that either.

Laugh out load

I see. So the axiom of existence which formally recognizes that ther is a reality, has no basis in reality?!

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: