Love sucks???????
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-02-2017, 08:23 PM
RE: Love sucks???????
(19-02-2017 07:50 AM)mordant Wrote:  
(19-02-2017 05:39 AM)SYZ Wrote:  What a sanctimonious, self-satisfied, patronising opinion!
Self-ratifying, too.

It's not even a question of knowledge, it's a question of application vs mental masturbation. Knowledge is useless if not applied. Waiting around to act until you can be 100% certain you're correct, when 100% certainty isn't even obtainable, is a fool's errand.

One of the best ways to vet the utility of an idea is to see if it actually works.

Not that I blame a 17 year old for such notions. Back then, I had my own list of pet illusions that I insisted that life conform itself to; now over 40 years on, I have found life uncooperative on ALL of them. I wish I had paid way more attention way sooner to how reality actually plays out in the world rather than how it plays out in between my ears. Or in between other people's ears for that matter.

Oh good god "mental masturbation" is a term used by those those who have no philosophical understanding. Everyone starts within their own mind. They start with introspection. To claim you can just bypass it and move straight to the external is simply absurd. This is the exact mistake the presuppositional apologists make.

"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
19-02-2017, 10:59 PM
RE: Love sucks???????
(19-02-2017 08:05 PM)Naielis Wrote:  The conversation is over.

I shall not be silenced.

Quote:You lost...

Believe that if you wish, Naielis. What it comes down to is that if I had to choose between your philosophical studies and the life that I'm currently living, I would cheerfully throw philosophy under the bus without a moment's hesitation.

Quote:...and now you're lashing out.

Perhaps if you hadn't been so presumptuous as to declare me "ignorant" I would have confined myself to addressed your points; however, you made it personal by attacking me, and I am giving you a taste of your own medicine.

Quote:But all you've done so far is throw ad hominems and emotional drivel about your priorities in life. What a moronic approach to the acquisition of knowledge.

I acquire knowledge on a need-to-know basis and have a pretty good stockpile at present. I've never actually needed to apply the philosophy that I studied in college some 40 years ago, although bits and pieces of the various courses undoubtedly inform the way I see the world.

It would be amusing to see what you know about subjects other than philosophy, and suspect that I would clearly have the upper hand in that regard.

As for "emotional drivel" -- I'd much rather have that than your dry, sterile, hyper-analytical way of viewing the world.

I'm sorry, but your beliefs are much too silly to take seriously. Got anything else we can discuss?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2017, 11:43 PM
RE: Love sucks???????
Mordant,

I'm going to answer you in parts because I don't have enough time to sit down and answer all of what you have written. I'll deal with the first part of your reply to me here and then reply to the other two parts as time allows.

You had written: "Well I believe you can't be certain of anything in the sense that you would be able to demonstrate 100% objectively and beyond the slightest doubt that it is so."

I replied: Not if existence exists, and it does. If you'd like to argue that it doesn't I'm willing to listen but watch the stolen concepts if you do.

You then wrote: "Existence "is", but that doesn't mean everyone has the same perceptions / understandings of it as it registers in their field of awareness."

I'm wondering why you felt the need to put is in quotes. Are you unsure if existence exists? My point was that we can know some things for certain and the fact that existence exists is one such. That's not the only thing we can know for certain. Just by grasping that existence exists, we also grasp that we exist possessing consciousness. And we grasp that to exist is to be something and that a thing is itself and not something other than itself. In other words A is A. These three concepts, existence, identity, and consciousness are axiomatic. And that's not all. These three axioms entail a fourth: That the things which exist, exist independent of the means by which we are aware of them. There is a subject of consciousness and the objects it is aware of. The subject and its objects are distinct from each other and the objects of consciousness are what they are independent of the subject's awareness. This is known as the primacy of existence principle and it and the axioms are implicit in all knowledge. This is Objectivism's starting point, the axioms and the primacy of existence. So we are not out there searching for certainty, we begin with these incontestable certainties. They form the basis of all future knowledge.

You continued: "The problem isn't existence, it is the very sloppy operation of the human mind, the incomplete coverage of the five senses, and the need to decide what to pay attention to and when. The uncertainty comes from imperfect minds and limited perceptual equipment. Beyond all that, we can't properly understand a particular matter until we have a conceptual framework around it. And even then, there's no certainty that it's the correct or best possible framework."

That's why we need an objective method to guide our thinking. That method is logic. Objectivism defines logic as the art or skill of non-contradictory identification. It is the method of reason which is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material brought in by the senses. Logic is the axiom of identity applied to the task of identifying what we perceive. Objectivity is the adherence to the primacy of existence without exception. If we have made an error or been sloppy then we will discover it when we go through the process of integration. This is the process of incorporating new knowledge with that already achieved without contradiction. It's difficult, yes, and it requires uncompromising honesty, but it is possible.

You wrote: "An example that comes to mind is the concept of "childhood". Some hundreds of years ago there was no modern concept of childhood that currently frames such assumptions as that children have innocence, that it should be protected, that children need to develop into adults in a relatively carefree environment free from having to earn a living, that there is something morally wrong with child labor, and a host of other things. Presumably our concept of childhood as a developmental state is better than what came before, but it may well be regarded as barbaric or otherwise wrong, 500 years from now."

Of course our knowledge increases over time but this does not mean that we can not achieve certainty. Human knowledge is always finite and therefore it is always contextual and so also is certainty. But if one examines all the relavent facts in a given context and one validates his conclusions with logic, then one can be certain of his conclusions within that context. The problem arises when one evades relevant facts in drawing conclusions in order to arrive at the conclusion one wants. creation "science" is a prime example of this.

If one does not evade then one will find that one's conclusions will not be overturned by future knowledge. That's because reality is a consistent whole. The law of identity tells us this. Reality is not made up of contradictions but facts which are absolutes which obtain independent of consciousness and can not contradict themselves or the whole of reality. If this were not the case, we couldn't have knowledge. That's why I answered your claim that we can't know anything for certain the way I did. Not if existence exists and it does.

You wrote: "It is the conceit of every generation that its learning and science represents the pinnacle of human development; it's always wrong. That alone should tell us that absolute certitude is unobtanium."

Really? Got an argument for this? How do you know that every generation thinks this? I certainly don't think this. But you simply assert it as if it were unquestionable.

I'm not sure what you mean by "absolute certainty". knowledge and therefore certainty will always be contextual.

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
20-02-2017, 08:25 AM
RE: Love sucks???????
(19-02-2017 10:59 PM)Astreja Wrote:  I shall not be silenced.

I never had any intention of silencing you.

Quote:Believe that if you wish, Naielis. What it comes down to is that if I had to choose between your philosophical studies and the life that I'm currently living, I would cheerfully throw philosophy under the bus without a moment's hesitation.

If you don't show up to debate, you lose.

Quote:Perhaps if you hadn't been so presumptuous as to declare me "ignorant" I would have confined myself to addressed your points; however, you made it personal by attacking me, and I am giving you a taste of your own medicine.

When did I declare you ignorant? I believe I stated you chose ignorance over knowledge after countless attempts to get you to engage on actual substance.

Quote:I acquire knowledge on a need-to-know basis and have a pretty good stockpile at present. I've never actually needed to apply the philosophy that I studied in college some 40 years ago, although bits and pieces of the various courses undoubtedly inform the way I see the world.

You don't acquire knowledge at all. Your system doesn't allow for knowledge to be assertained.

Quote:It would be amusing to see what you know about subjects other than philosophy, and suspect that I would clearly have the upper hand in that regard.

As for "emotional drivel" -- I'd much rather have that than your dry, sterile, hyper-analytical way of viewing the world.

Well I know quite a bit about science, philosophy, math, history, and technology. But I'm amused by your shameless use of ad hominem. Keep them coming. They really fill the void left by your lack of substantive points. And are you giving me emotional drivel about why you prefer emotional drivel? Astonishing...

"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
20-02-2017, 08:56 AM
RE: Love sucks???????
(16-02-2017 12:24 AM)666wannabe Wrote:  It is based, most often, on the acknowledgment that other people's right to happiness and freedom from suffering are equal to our own.

No it isn't, my happiness, my families happiness is of far greater importance than yours, even if it comes at other peoples expense. Just like the meat that I enjoy eating, comes at the expense at other living animals, and there happiness. In fact my dog's happiness, is more important to me than yours.

Quote:My primary objection to religious morality--other than it usually being based on the rantings of a madman--is that it promotes tribalism rather than universalism--an us versus them mentality that, inevitably leads to hatred and distrust for those who are not in the "in" group.

If that's the case than religious morality is the only one faithful to our biological condition, that we're programmed towards tribalism and it's promotion, just like other animals. Anyone who sits here telling you that they have a universal moral attitude, likely is a phony. At least the idea of loving your neighbor has limit to your circle of concern, unlike the idea of a universalism, that's suppose to sell us on a concern for a humanity as a whole, which is just bullshit.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-02-2017, 12:44 PM
RE: Love sucks???????
(19-02-2017 10:59 PM)Astreja Wrote:  
(19-02-2017 08:05 PM)Naielis Wrote:  The conversation is over.

I shall not be silenced.

Quote:You lost...

Believe that if you wish, Naielis. What it comes down to is that if I had to choose between your philosophical studies and the life that I'm currently living, I would cheerfully throw philosophy under the bus without a moment's hesitation.

Quote:...and now you're lashing out.

Perhaps if you hadn't been so presumptuous as to declare me "ignorant" I would have confined myself to addressed your points; however, you made it personal by attacking me, and I am giving you a taste of your own medicine.

Quote:But all you've done so far is throw ad hominems and emotional drivel about your priorities in life. What a moronic approach to the acquisition of knowledge.

I acquire knowledge on a need-to-know basis and have a pretty good stockpile at present. I've never actually needed to apply the philosophy that I studied in college some 40 years ago, although bits and pieces of the various courses undoubtedly inform the way I see the world.

It would be amusing to see what you know about subjects other than philosophy, and suspect that I would clearly have the upper hand in that regard.

As for "emotional drivel" -- I'd much rather have that than your dry, sterile, hyper-analytical way of viewing the world.

Also, if you haven't any interest in philosophy, you might find it more prudent to leave the philosophy section of this forum immediately.

"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
20-02-2017, 01:49 PM
RE: Love sucks???????
I am actually somewhat interested in philosophy -- but more in its application vis-à-vis quality of life. We seem to be coming at the OP from opposite directions, you from the theoretical and me from the practical. I've found that experiencing life is just more fulfilling than analyzing it. Perhaps you see it the other way around. That's okay, but it's not okay to impose that on us.

I'm sorry, but your beliefs are much too silly to take seriously. Got anything else we can discuss?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Astreja's post
20-02-2017, 06:01 PM
RE: Love sucks???????
(20-02-2017 01:49 PM)Astreja Wrote:  I am actually somewhat interested in philosophy -- but more in its application vis-à-vis quality of life. We seem to be coming at the OP from opposite directions, you from the theoretical and me from the practical. I've found that experiencing life is just more fulfilling than analyzing it. Perhaps you see it the other way around. That's okay, but it's not okay to impose that on us.

I might be imposing, but I do so because I see the large majority of the scientific community willing to just dismiss anything other than strict materialism and scientism. Many aren't willing to even consider that science is merely a tool. The scientific method can and should be justified. There's no need to just assume science from the outset. In fact, things become far clearer when you understand the role science takes in the acquisition of knowledge. But you are right. I was never into application. I find theory and abstraction much more informative.

"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
20-02-2017, 06:32 PM
RE: Love sucks???????
(20-02-2017 06:01 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I might be imposing, but I do so because I see the large majority of the scientific community willing to just dismiss anything other than strict materialism and scientism. Many aren't willing to even consider that science is merely a tool. The scientific method can and should be justified. There's no need to just assume science from the outset. In fact, things become far clearer when you understand the role science takes in the acquisition of knowledge. But you are right. I was never into application. I find theory and abstraction much more informative.

Okay, this is more like a conversation. I can work with this.

Science is a tool, yes, but it isn't the only tool available to us. Rather than trying to collect all possible methods under the umbrella of "science," why not use the scientific method and other methods independently?

For instance, when dealing with material phenomena I think it's reasonable to start out with analysis at that level: Weigh, measure, observe, test.

Meanwhile, philosophy can conduct a parallel analysis to eke out other information about the phenomenon.

"All-things-to-all-people" systems may be comprehensive and possibly more accurate. They also tend to be unwieldy, just because of their scope. Sometimes a quick partial answer is just what's needed, as opposed to a more thorough analysis that provides a better answer but at the cost of time.

I'm sorry, but your beliefs are much too silly to take seriously. Got anything else we can discuss?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2017, 03:17 AM
RE: Love sucks???????
(20-02-2017 06:01 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I might be imposing, but I do so because I see the large majority of the scientific community willing to just dismiss anything other than strict materialism and scientism.

I can very nearly guarantee that this is a straw man of some variety.

Whether it is of the attitudes of the scientific community or materialism, though, I am not sure.

(20-02-2017 06:01 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Many aren't willing to even consider that science is merely a tool.

Yes, they are.

(20-02-2017 06:01 PM)Naielis Wrote:  The scientific method can and should be justified.

And it has been.

You seem to have a very dim view of most scientists' intelligence.

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: