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
16-08-2014, 10:29 AM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2014 10:33 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(16-08-2014 10:21 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I have much more respect for Peter Molyneux, even if he gets ahead of himself and over hypes the outcomes he can create. His mind and motivation are admirable, you just know it'll never be achieved because he doesn't self analyze and question his ability.
What if I told you Molyneux spent 3 years doing therapy 3 hours a week and 15 hours exercises like journaling and so on? Seems an awful lot of questioning and self-analysis to me. And married a psychotherapist, who probably didn't just let him slide for 10 years of marriage.
But you judge a man without knowing anything about him, not even the name (Stefan, not Peter), what am I supposed to think about that?

Btw, Peter Molyneux is the game developer who made Black & White 1 + 2. It was quite an innovation in game AI back around 2005.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 10:33 AM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2014 10:41 AM by ClydeLee.)
Re: RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(16-08-2014 10:29 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 10:21 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I have much more respect for Peter Molyneux, even if he gets ahead of himself and over hypes the outcomes he can create. His mind and motivation are admirable, you just know it'll never be achieved because he doesn't self analyze and question his ability.
What if I told you Molyneux spent 3 years doing therapy 3 hours a week and 15 hours exercises like journaling and so on? Seems an awful lot of questioning and self-analysis to me.
But you judge a man without knowing anything about him, not even the name (Stefan, not Peter), what am I supposed to think about that?

Btw, Peter Molyneux is the game developer who made Black & White 1 + 2. It was quite an innovation in game AI back around 2005.

I know, I'm talking specifically about Peter Molyneux there.

I thought that would be obvious to an intellectual observer.

I don't see how you fail to see the concept. You understand family is a concept... Say family exists.. But say ths state doesn't exist... The state IS a concept as well. I thought a man of your style would appreciate the sophists more than Ari. But I guess I should take your opinion of good as black and white as you present.

"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
16-08-2014, 10:51 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(16-08-2014 10:33 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I know, I'm talking specifically about Peter Molyneux there.

I thought that would be obvious to an intellectual observer.

I don't see how you fail to see the concept. You understand family is a concept... Say family exists.. But say ths state doesn't exist... The state IS a concept as well. I thought a man of your style would appreciate the sophists more than Ari. But I guess I should take your opinion of good as black and white as you present.
Ah, I see what you mean now. The state does not exist as a moral entity. Nothing about the state makes it inherently moral. Family is not inherently moral either. Just pushing out a baby does not make a saint out of a woman, nor a competent parent worthy of obedience. And elections don't make anyone a paragon of virtue.
It could be said that the state is an extension, a reflection of abusive family, because it uses force and claims inherent morality.
Yes, you might be correct that family does not exist either - only the relationships in family are (or should be) much stronger than in the state.

This is where weaseling comes in. If we obey the state because the state is good, then why the police has guns? If it's because people are bad, then the government has people in it too, how comes government is not bad, apparently? How can bad people elect good people into the government to make them good through applying a force? Blink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 10:58 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(16-08-2014 10:51 AM)Luminon Wrote:  This is where weaseling comes in. If we obey the state because the state is good, then why the police has guns? If it's because people are bad, then the government has people in it too, how comes government is not bad, apparently? How can bad people elect good people into the government to make them good through applying a force? Blink

The universe is, in fact, not composed entirely of tragically simplistic false dichotomies.

But don't expect ol' Lumi - or Molyneux himself, who doesn't know how negation works - to understand this any time soon. It ruins the one-dimensional "reasoning" of the True Believer.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
16-08-2014, 11:06 AM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2014 11:16 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(16-08-2014 10:58 AM)cjlr Wrote:  The universe is, in fact, not composed entirely of tragically simplistic false dichotomies.

But don't expect ol' Lumi - or Molyneux himself, who doesn't know how negation works - to understand this any time soon. It ruins the one-dimensional "reasoning" of the True Believer.
This isn't the universe, this is logic. Logic and truth is Boolean. From that we derive the rational method and mathematics and then we justify empirical knowledge. The truth knows no middles, it's not a continuum. In fact, there is a law of the excluded middle.
But you never say what supposedly middle truths are there. Looks like you don't know the difference between rational and empirical method.

http://fmmh.ycdsb.ca/teachers/fmmh_mcman...iples.html
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 11:36 AM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2014 11:42 AM by cjlr.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(16-08-2014 11:06 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 10:58 AM)cjlr Wrote:  The universe is, in fact, not composed entirely of tragically simplistic false dichotomies.

But don't expect ol' Lumi - or Molyneux himself, who doesn't know how negation works - to understand this any time soon. It ruins the one-dimensional "reasoning" of the True Believer.
This isn't the universe, this is logic.

And that's a non sequitur.

Logic is a human construct, and humans live in the universe.

Or had you not noticed?

(16-08-2014 11:06 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Logic and truth is Boolean. The truth knows no middles, it's not a continuum. In fact, there is a law of the excluded middle.
But you never say what supposedly middle truths are there. Looks like you don't know the difference between rational and empirical method.

Reality is quantised, but it sure as hell isn't boolean.
(momentum is not yes or no, champ)

You understand neither rationality nor empiricism.

As best I can tell, you operate on a purely inductive mode. You assert your premises from feels, and never examine or test them.

There's a word for that: presuppositionalist.

(16-08-2014 11:06 AM)Luminon Wrote:  http://fmmh.ycdsb.ca/teachers/fmmh_mcman...iples.html

Your feels are not privileged. Reality does not obey the intuitions of a self-important gaggle of east African savannah apes. You quoting someone else who just repeats you assertions is not substantiation. Thanks for playing.

The principle of identity is tautological and irrelevant. For those things which are strictly defined, it is trivially true. For those things which do not meet pre-existing definitions, it collapses to meaninglessness - "A is A". Such a statement leads nowhere. No meaningful inferences follow. None.

Non-contradiction is no better. It's a restatement of identity. The whole affair is pointlessly circular. "A is A, therefore A is not not-A". What's the point?

The excluded middle only applies to what which is defined as such; defining "being" as a state which can either be or not be, it trivially follows that nothing can be anything but one or the other... This is again meaninglessly tautological.

As it happens, your source attempts to claim that there is no such thing as a morally neutral act. It asserts as much, for no reason, apparently based solely on the one-dimensional reductivism of the author's intuitions.

And going further - do you expect me to take bald-faced assertions of Aristotelean causality seriously? Anyone who understands modern mathematics and physics will see through such facile naive intuition.

I implore you to read a book. Real philosophy moved on decades ago. Any real system - concerned with empiricism, and not pure reason alone - carries its own constraints. And no possible logical system can be both complete and consistent.

If you wish to remain straightjacketed to superficial and simplistic paradigms, I suppose that's your prerogative. When you want to leave the kiddie pool of presuppositional circlejerk behind, there are centuries of philosophy for you to catch up on.

Read a book.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
16-08-2014, 11:49 AM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2014 11:53 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(16-08-2014 11:36 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Reality is quantised, but it sure as hell isn't boolean.
(momentum is not yes or no, champ)

You understand neither rationality nor empiricism.

As best I can tell, you operate on a purely inductive mode. You assert your premises from feels, and never examine or test them.

There's a word for that: presuppositionalist.

(16-08-2014 11:06 AM)Luminon Wrote:  http://fmmh.ycdsb.ca/teachers/fmmh_mcman...iples.html

Your feels are not privileged. Reality does not obey the intuitions of a self-important gaggle of east African savannah apes. You quoting someone else who just repeats you assertions is not substantiation. Thanks for playing.

The principle of identity is tautological and irrelevant. For those things which are strictly defined, it is trivially true. For those things which do not meet pre-existing definitions, it collapses to meaninglessness - "A is A". Such a statement leads nowhere. No meaningful inferences follow. None.

Non-contradiction is no better. It's a restatement of identity. The whole affair is pointlessly circular. "A is A, therefore A is not not-A". What's the point?

The excluded middle only applies to what which is defined as such; defining "being" as a state which can either be or not be, it trivially follows that nothing can be anything but one or the other... This is again meaninglessly tautological.

As it happens, your source attempts to claim that there is no such thing as a morally neutral act. It asserts as much, for no reason, apparently based solely on the one-dimensional reductivism of the author's intuitions.

And going further - do you expect me to take bald-faced assertions of Aristotelean causality seriously? Anyone who understands modern mathematics and physics will see through such facile naive intuition.

I implore you to read a book. Real philosophy moved on decades ago. Any real system - concerned with empiricism, and not pure reason alone - carries its own constraints. And no possible logical system can be both complete and consistent.

If you wish to remain straightjacketed to superficial and simplistic paradigms, I suppose that's your prerogative. When you want to leave the kiddie pool of presuppositional circlejerk behind, there are centuries of philosophy for you to catch up on.

Read a book.
Again, you misunderstood the topic. The topic is not about theories built through rational method on top of basic logic, that have nothing to do with social world. Neither do these theories disprove the validity of basic logic.
The topic is about the basic logic of truth and falsehood, that is applicable verbally in philosophy, language and social world.

We can make and test valid propositions about the world trough language and basic logic. In fact we have to, otherwise bad things happen. This is a toddler-level philosophy that is sorely missing from the world. If you say don't hit, then hitting the child to make a point is illogical. If you say mafia is bad, then having a tax-funded mafia to enforce the law that mafia is bad, is illogical.
Without that basic logic of human relations, you will be just a New Guinea cannibal with knowledge of physics.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 12:05 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(16-08-2014 11:49 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Again, you misunderstood the topic. The topic is not about theories built through rational method on top of basic logic, that have nothing to do with social world. Neither do these theories disprove the validity of basic logic.
The topic is about the basic logic of truth and falsehood, that is applicable verbally in philosophy, language and social world.

"The topic is about the basic logic of truth and falsehood", eh?

Funny. The topics I helpfully pointed to you were about no less than defining, exploring, and testing the very concepts of "logic", "truth", and "falsehood" themselves. Which would seem rather germane, by most lights.

But not to you, of course. You have feels. You have intuition. There need be no justification nor substantiation in the world of the True Believer! Definitions are only for those with insufficient ideological purity! Our True Believing Intellectual Supermen do not need to justify themselves, for their Objective and Self-Evident Greatness is manifest!

I don't see how you could possibly fail to understand any more thoroughly.

If you have a single thing to justify yourself beyond "MUH FEELS CUZ I M SMRT" please share it with the rest of the class. We've all been waiting for a very long time.

(16-08-2014 11:49 AM)Luminon Wrote:  We can make and test valid propositions about the world trough language and basic logic. In fact we have to, otherwise bad things happen.

"Not-A is bad, therefore A".

You know that appeal to consequences is fallacious, right?

(16-08-2014 11:49 AM)Luminon Wrote:  This is a toddler-level philosophy that is sorely missing from the world. If you say don't hit, then hitting the child to make a point is illogical. If you say mafia is bad, then having a tax-funded mafia to enforce the law that mafia is bad, is illogical.

That's some exemplary equivocation and false dilemma building right there.

What we don't need to do - indeed, what we should not do, if we wish to have any depth and rigour - is collapse all possible reasoning down into hopelessly facile binary reductivism.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
16-08-2014, 12:29 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(16-08-2014 12:05 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 11:49 AM)Luminon Wrote:  We can make and test valid propositions about the world trough language and basic logic. In fact we have to, otherwise bad things happen.

"Not-A is bad, therefore A".

You know that appeal to consequences is fallacious, right?
No consequences there. If a proposition A is illogical, it can never be good, I can rule it out pretty fast.

It's that simple, it doesn't even need any feelings or intuition you keep accusing me of. The moral philosophy is a discipline of ruling out illogical, inconsistent things, which also happens to be the best method of ruling out evil things.

(16-08-2014 12:05 PM)cjlr Wrote:  That's some exemplary equivocation and false dilemma building right there.

What we don't need to do - indeed, what we should not do, if we wish to have any depth and rigour - is collapse all possible reasoning down into hopelessly facile binary reductivism.
If a proposition fails at binary logic, then it can't succeed at no further tests, it gets ruled out pretty fast. It's that simple. I'm all for science and other more complex analysis, but all that comes later, if the proposition holds up to basic logic. All I ask is try basic logic first and save yourself lots of time and lives.

If some people say A is bad (their words, not mine) but say that we need to use A to decrease the occurence of A, then they are full of shit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 12:38 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(16-08-2014 12:29 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 12:05 PM)cjlr Wrote:  "Not-A is bad, therefore A".

You know that appeal to consequences is fallacious, right?
No consequences there. If a proposition A is illogical, it can never be good, I can rule it out pretty fast.

... that's a total non sequitur.

So much for "logic".

(16-08-2014 12:29 PM)Luminon Wrote:  It's that simple, it doesn't even need any feelings or intuition you keep accusing me of. The moral philosophy is a discipline of ruling out illogical, inconsistent things, which also happens to be the best method of ruling out evil things.

That's the apotheosis of obliviousness.

To form a judgement you must have standards by which to judge.

The standards you use are feels-based presupposition.

You can't just say "but logic lol" when there are many different flavours of logical systems, and you are obviously using only a very simple one. You must justify your choice of axioms.

And you can't. Because they're presuppositional.

(16-08-2014 12:29 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 12:05 PM)cjlr Wrote:  That's some exemplary equivocation and false dilemma building right there.

What we don't need to do - indeed, what we should not do, if we wish to have any depth and rigour - is collapse all possible reasoning down into hopelessly facile binary reductivism.
If a proposition fails at binary logic, then it can't succeed at no further tests, it gets ruled out pretty fast.

The universe does not obey binary logic.

Whether or not you think something follows your binary standards is irrelevant for anyone besides you.

(16-08-2014 12:29 PM)Luminon Wrote:  It's that simple. I'm all for science and other more complex analysis, but all that comes later, if the proposition holds up to basic logic. All I ask is try basic logic first and save yourself lots of time and lives.

Except for the part where you don't understand basic logic.

You can bleat to high heaven about your "self-evident first principles", but they're absolutely meaningless absent the elaboration you are incapable of providing.

(16-08-2014 12:29 PM)Luminon Wrote:  If some people say A is bad (their words, not mine) but say that we need to use A to decrease the occurence of A, then they are full of shit.

And the point of a vague, irrelevant, trite, simplistic straw man hypothetical is what, precisely?
(since that's all that is...)

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: