Poll: Allah, Yahweh, atheist? Left wing, right wing, no wing?
Left wing
Right wing
No wing
[Show Results]
 
No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-09-2014, 04:25 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(01-09-2014 04:19 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(01-09-2014 03:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  That is an unanswerable question because you have provided no context for or definition of 'principle'.
Principles are basic axioms of natural language, thought, logic and human comprehension itself.
A principle is a consistent expression which makes all other expressions possible, including the very idea of an expression as such. A consistent expression so general and fundamental that it can not be any more generalized through language and of which all other expressions are more specific instances.

There are usually more than one principles, derived from each other, that only relate to another principle. There are several of them (Aristotle, etc) increasing in detail or nuance, until we get to some expressions that are specific enough to be related to something else than only other principles. As a thought exercise it feels very stupid, certainly not an object of daily conversation, but "feels stupid" is not an argument.
fmmh.ycdsb.ca/teachers/fmmh_mcmanaman/pages/first_principles.html

It is possible to make even simpler output than principles, or an output that is complex but not related to principles, but that kind of output is by definition internally inconsistent or chaotic. The very idea of consistency is one of the principles.

My answer, then, is no.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2014, 04:41 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(01-09-2014 04:25 PM)Chas Wrote:  My answer, then, is no.
For the sake of clarity, my question was, "Do you claim that there are no principles?"
Then your position must necessarily be, that principles do exist. Very well. That is when all the fun starts. Principles are impossible to deny, not through language with the use of logic.

Therefore, if we can show that some language statement contradicts the first principles, that statement can never be true. If it can't be true, then it can never be anything else, such as good, moral or humanly obligatory.
One thing principles can't do is to give logical, objective justification for positive obligations, such as make me a sandwich or pay me taxes or you're a bad person. But they can shoot down their most popular justifications as subjective, invalid arguments or fallacies. That is unfortunately why this use of principles has been taboo in academic philosophy for many centuries. This is about where the fun ends again. Culture is full of positive obligations and false arguments from morality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2014, 04:54 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(01-09-2014 04:41 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(01-09-2014 04:25 PM)Chas Wrote:  My answer, then, is no.
For the sake of clarity, my question was, "Do you claim that there are no principles?"
Then your position must necessarily be, that principles do exist. Very well. That is when all the fun starts. Principles are impossible to deny, not through language with the use of logic.

Therefore, if we can show that some language statement contradicts the first principles, that statement can never be true. If it can't be true, then it can never be anything else, such as good, moral or humanly obligatory.
One thing principles can't do is to give logical, objective justification for positive obligations, such as make me a sandwich or pay me taxes or you're a bad person. But they can shoot down their most popular justifications as subjective, invalid arguments or fallacies. That is unfortunately why this use of principles has been taboo in academic philosophy for many centuries. This is about where the fun ends again. Culture is full of positive obligations and false arguments from morality.

So, when I say 'no', it means 'yes'? Consider You are seriously fucked in the head, Lumi.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
01-09-2014, 05:07 PM (This post was last modified: 01-09-2014 05:13 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(01-09-2014 04:54 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-09-2014 04:41 PM)Luminon Wrote:  For the sake of clarity, my question was, "Do you claim that there are no principles?"
Then your position must necessarily be, that principles do exist. Very well. That is when all the fun starts. Principles are impossible to deny, not through language with the use of logic.

Therefore, if we can show that some language statement contradicts the first principles, that statement can never be true. If it can't be true, then it can never be anything else, such as good, moral or humanly obligatory.
One thing principles can't do is to give logical, objective justification for positive obligations, such as make me a sandwich or pay me taxes or you're a bad person. But they can shoot down their most popular justifications as subjective, invalid arguments or fallacies. That is unfortunately why this use of principles has been taboo in academic philosophy for many centuries. This is about where the fun ends again. Culture is full of positive obligations and false arguments from morality.

So, when I say 'no', it means 'yes'? Consider You are seriously fucked in the head, Lumi.
Answering no to a negative proposal is positive.
Holy shit, another person who can't perform basic logical operations Weeping Your feeling of insultedness is nothing to my feeling of hopelessness. All you had to do was answer with full sentence Sad Teachers always told us kids, answer with full sentences. But you? No

(01-09-2014 03:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-09-2014 03:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Correct! That is a question. You're slowly getting a hang of this!
Let's try you identifying another couple of words.
"Do you claim that there are no principles?"

That is an unanswerable question because you have provided no context for or definition of 'principle'.

(01-09-2014 04:25 PM)Chas Wrote:  My answer, then, is no.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2014, 05:09 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(01-09-2014 05:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(01-09-2014 04:54 PM)Chas Wrote:  So, when I say 'no', it means 'yes'? Consider You are seriously fucked in the head, Lumi.
Answering no to a negative proposal is positive.
Holy shit, another person who can't perform basic logical operations Weeping

(01-09-2014 04:25 PM)Chas Wrote:  My answer, then, is no.

My answer was no to your definition. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
01-09-2014, 05:17 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(01-09-2014 04:19 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I am qualified to say that reality exists, ...

That is not an argument.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
01-09-2014, 05:19 PM (This post was last modified: 01-09-2014 05:35 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(01-09-2014 05:17 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(01-09-2014 04:19 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I am qualified to say that reality exists, ...

That is not an argument.
Correct! That is not an argument, that is a statement. For the layman audience, an argument would contain some "because" or "therefore". Such as "statement because statement".

In case you meant it as I thought you meant it... You're using the reality of your existence to deny my statement that reality exists, therefore your statement is self-detonating. You're trying to walk away from your legs.
And THAT just was an argument.

(01-09-2014 05:09 PM)Chas Wrote:  My answer was no to your definition. Drinking Beverage
Congratulations! You've got yourself another opinion.
If you wanted to have something else, let's say an argument, you'd need something else than monosyllabic answers, grunts and gestures. Oog sez no!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2014, 05:50 PM (This post was last modified: 01-09-2014 06:00 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(01-09-2014 05:19 PM)Luminon Wrote:  You're using the reality of your existence to deny my statement that reality exists, ...

I do not stipulate to the reality of my own existence. You apparently do. ... You are no more a serious metaphysicist than my farts. Drinking Beverage

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
01-09-2014, 06:24 PM
Re: RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(01-09-2014 04:41 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(01-09-2014 04:25 PM)Chas Wrote:  My answer, then, is no.
For the sake of clarity, my question was, "Do you claim that there are no principles?"
Then your position must necessarily be, that principles do exist. Very well. That is when all the fun starts. Principles are impossible to deny, not through language with the use of logic.

Therefore, if we can show that some language statement contradicts the first principles, that statement can never be true. If it can't be true, then it can never be anything else, such as good, moral or humanly obligatory.
One thing principles can't do is to give logical, objective justification for positive obligations, such as make me a sandwich or pay me taxes or you're a bad person. But they can shoot down their most popular justifications as subjective, invalid arguments or fallacies. That is unfortunately why this use of principles has been taboo in academic philosophy for many centuries. This is about where the fun ends again. Culture is full of positive obligations and false arguments from morality.

Wow wow wow... Lumi just stop for your sake.

Chas has clarified a different reason for saying no... But even if his answer no was to the question: do you claim there's no principals? In no logical way does that mean
The position must necessarily be that principals do exist... Then I'm amazed you have the gull to say to someone else they don't understand logic when you can't help yourself from introducing more of you never ending assumptions into a logical pathway.

You seriously can't be this idiotic can you? This most be some English communication error.. It has to be right?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
02-09-2014, 02:14 AM (This post was last modified: 02-09-2014 02:35 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(01-09-2014 05:50 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(01-09-2014 05:19 PM)Luminon Wrote:  You're using the reality of your existence to deny my statement that reality exists, ...

I do not stipulate to the reality of my own existence. You apparently do. ... You are no more a serious metaphysicist than my farts. Drinking Beverage
Actually, you do. By your own actions, posts and replies. If you imply that actions do not imply existence of anything, then you're being obtuse and a liar. Natural philosophers gave up this kind of dumb denial 400 years ago.

(01-09-2014 06:24 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Wow wow wow... Lumi just stop for your sake.

Chas has clarified a different reason for saying no... But even if his answer no was to the question: do you claim there's no principals? In no logical way does that mean
The position must necessarily be that principals do exist... Then I'm amazed you have the gull to say to someone else they don't understand logic when you can't help yourself from introducing more of you never ending assumptions into a logical pathway.

You seriously can't be this idiotic can you? This most be some English communication error.. It has to be right?
The idea of anyone claiming certainty even about the simplest things is somehow very unnerving to people. Scientists have no such problems when using scientific method and mathematicians are even more certain about their method. But I need to go back to the first principles in order to apply them to daily life, speech and action. (to judge the consistency of moral rules)
In principle, either things do exist, or they don't, these are the only two objectively thinkable positions. If you make any exception from that, you have to prove it with scientific evidence (some weird quantum particle? Doubtful.) and then it would not apply universally anyway.
Have you ever heard of the principle of the excluded middle?
http://fmmh.ycdsb.ca/teachers/fmmh_mcman...iples.html
The Principle of the Excluded Middle: A thing either is or it is not, there is no in between. What could possibly exist between being and non-being? If it exists, then it is. If it does not exist, then it is not.

It is sometimes suggested that "becoming" is that which is between is and is not. But a little reflection will show that this is not really true. "Becoming" refers to change, that is, some existing thing that is changing. As the word 'becoming' indicates, to change is to "come to be" in some way. If something is changing, then it "is". It must first "be" in order to change in some way, that is, in order to come to be in some way, either more fully or less fully, or just in some other way. So, becoming is clearly on the side of "being".

The logical formulation of the Principle of the Exluded Middle would run: “It is either true or not true, there is no in between”.

Notice how some people subtly deny the principle of the excluded middle when it comes to ethics. Some make the claims that morality is not "black and white", or "right and wrong". The claim is that there are "gray areas" that are neither right nor wrong. In other words, with regard to certain moral issues, there is no definitive true and false, good and evil, or right and wrong.

But this is impossible to maintain consistently. The truth of the matter is that there is always a definitive right or wrong, but at times determining which is which is rather difficult. That is what "gray area" means. It does not mean that true and false somehow disappear in the realm of human behaviour. A trained moralist should be able to help a person determine just what the right course of action really is. For example, consider the precept: "One ought to keep one’s promises." This precept is rooted in the requirement to be fair. But should I keep my promise to visit you in the hospital this weekend if I have come down with a serious cold or throat infection? This is a rather gray area. But it does not mean that it is a matter of indifference what decision I make. On the contrary, there is a wrong decision. It is true that I ought to keep my promises, but it is also true that I ought not to do anything to you that I wouldn’t want done to me, and if I was in the hospital, I wouldn’t want anyone to risk giving me an infection. So it is true that I ought not to keep my promise that weekend.

And so the truth is there, but we have to reason to it, which at times can be like swimming through very murky waters.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: