ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 16th November 2018, 07:35 AM   #241
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 77,269
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
It has to be real, otherwise we couldn't talk about.
I can talk about Darth Vader.

Quote:
You don't understand that real and not real are concepts in the brain and not properties of things.
No, that's YOUR claim. That's not what the words mean. You have not demonstrated your claim. You had a thought while taking a dump and you think it means something. It doesn't. Everybody understands what the word "real" means.

Quote:
Real is in your brain.
No.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 07:36 AM   #242
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
So basically we're at "Objective doesn't mean objective if we just totally ignore what words mean."
What words mean is subjective, some words can be about the objective, but not all words are about the objective.
If words themselves were objective, you could read Linear A and B. You can only read of them.

What a word mean, is not the same as if it is true. If that was the case, we couldn't talk about e.g gods.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 07:42 AM   #243
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 77,269
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
What words mean is subjective, some words can be about the objective, but not all words are about the objective.
If words themselves were objective, you could read Linear A and B. You can only read of them.

What a word mean, is not the same as if it is true. If that was the case, we couldn't talk about e.g gods.
God, I hate philosophy. It leads to nonsense like the above.

Meaning is subjective, yes. That doesn't eliminate the objective. Again, a child understands this. Only an adult who tries too hard to "think" comes up with gobbledygook like this.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 07:43 AM   #244
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 15,489
Okay Tommy let's try this.

Without using the word Objective or Subjective explain the difference between something actually exists and something that a person just thinks exists.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 07:44 AM   #245
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 15,489
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
God, I hate philosophy. It leads to nonsense like the above.
Careful you're gonna get the Philosophy Defense Swat Team called in on us.

"OMG HOW CAN YOU HATE PHILOSOPHY DON'T YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS A TYPE OF PHILOSOPHY OMG THE MATRIX WAS SUCH A GOOD MOVIE..."
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 07:46 AM   #246
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,421
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
God, I hate philosophy. It leads to nonsense like the above.
Nonsense like the above isn't philosophy any more than stringing together symbols from the backwaters of Unicode is math. Real philosophy doesn't leave its readers and writers adrift in an endless sea of meaninglessness and gibberish. The above is what happens when 14-year-olds discover abstract thought for the first time.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 07:53 AM   #247
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 15,489
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Nonsense like the above isn't philosophy any more than stringing together symbols from the backwaters of Unicode is math. Real philosophy doesn't leave its readers and writers adrift in an endless sea of meaninglessness and gibberish. The above is what happens when 14-year-olds discover abstract thought for the first time.
Totally sincere here, I don't doubt for a second that you are correct, but it's been a long, long, long time since I heard anything referred to as "philosophy" that wasn't a steaming pile of B.S. on Toast.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 08:03 AM   #248
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 77,269
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Nonsense like the above isn't philosophy any more than stringing together symbols from the backwaters of Unicode is math. Real philosophy doesn't leave its readers and writers adrift in an endless sea of meaninglessness and gibberish.
I don't often disagree with you, but it really does do what you describe, quite often. You can say there's good and bad philosophy, but there are no rules to "thinking", and that's why there's so much bad philosophy.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 09:02 AM   #249
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Okay Tommy let's try this.

Without using the word Objective or Subjective explain the difference between something actually exists and something that a person just thinks exists.
In this case, the words match or don't match what they are about. But that person thinks, matches a process in the brain.

Match is short hand for the correspondence theory of truth. That words correspond with what they are about, not what they mean.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 09:04 AM   #250
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 15,489
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
In this case, the words match or don't match what they are about. But that person thinks, matches a process in the brain.

Match is short hand for the correspondence theory of truth. That words correspond with what they are about, not what they mean.
And I got gibberish.

I want the record to state I tried.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 09:07 AM   #251
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
God, I hate philosophy. It leads to nonsense like the above.

Meaning is subjective, yes. That doesn't eliminate the objective. Again, a child understands this. Only an adult who tries too hard to "think" comes up with gobbledygook like this.
Someone: Reality is objective.
Me: No!

It takes places, can be observed and thus that "no" is real, otherwise you couldn't object against it.
No, that doesn't mean, that reality is subjective.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed

Last edited by Tommy Jeppesen; 16th November 2018 at 09:09 AM.
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 09:07 AM   #252
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,421
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I don't often disagree with you, but it really does do what you describe, quite often. You can say there's good and bad philosophy, but there are no rules to "thinking", and that's why there's so much bad philosophy.
Upon further reflection I'll concede that point. Philosophy can be not so much about finding knowledge as about smelling the roses along the path.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 09:11 AM   #253
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 15,489
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Upon further reflection I'll concede that point. Philosophy can be not so much about finding knowledge as about smelling the roses along the path.
I've actually tried to take a step back and solidify how I feel about "philosophy" and this is a closest I can get to a concrete answer, with the overreaching caveat that this is an esoteric distinction and somewhat semantics and categorization.

For the most part all useful "Philosophy" has been codified into different disciplines; ethics, neuroscience, linguistics, so forth and so on.

I'm stop short of "all" but the overwhelmingly large majority of... thoughts and arguments that can only be called "Philosophy" and nothing else is... absolute nonsense and that narrow sliver that's still there is shrinking rapidly.

Basically we something stops being purely unstructured thought wanking and becomes useful or organized we stop calling it Philosophy.

There's not a lot of pure "Philosophy" left that's anything but meaningless word games.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 16th November 2018 at 09:13 AM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 09:12 AM   #254
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Upon further reflection I'll concede that point. Philosophy can be not so much about finding knowledge as about smelling the roses along the path.
Or be about the limits of knowledge.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 09:14 AM   #255
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,421
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Or be about the limits of knowledge.
You use philosophy to attempt to place limits on what others can know, because what they know disagrees with your beliefs. What you do is not philosophy. It's a puerile caricature of philosophy. It's philosophy with eyeglasses and a silly mustache drawn on it with magic marker.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 09:14 AM   #256
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I can talk about Darth Vader.
...
And then that is real in some sense, otherwise you couldn't do that. If we can debate the non-real, then we are doing something, and not nothing, hence it is real.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 09:17 AM   #257
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 15,489
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
And then that is real in some sense, otherwise you couldn't do that. If we can debate the non-real, then we are doing something, and not nothing, hence it is real.
Tommy we get it. You think calling conceptual things "real in some way" is deep and clever. It's not. It's obtuse and confusing for no point or purpose.

"Imaginary" isn't a special sub-category of "sort of real in some fashion."
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 09:17 AM   #258
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
You use philosophy to attempt to place limits on what others can know, because what they know disagrees with your beliefs. What you do is not philosophy. It's a puerile caricature of philosophy. It's philosophy with eyeglasses and a silly mustache drawn on it with magic marker.
There are limits to knowledge, right? Then you can't rule out that there are more that you are not aware of. Then you check!
And because knowledge is cognitive you have to check your own thinking.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed

Last edited by Tommy Jeppesen; 16th November 2018 at 10:45 AM.
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 09:19 AM   #259
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,421
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
And then that is real in some sense...
To be precise, in the same sense in which it can be said God is real. Or the dragon in a garage.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 09:21 AM   #260
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,421
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
And because knowledge is cognitive you have to check your own thinking.
Yes, but not in the way you insist we do.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 09:29 AM   #261
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
 
Nonpareil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Nethescurial
Posts: 8,096
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
The point is that if a dictionary list a definition, it only tells you how a word is used, not if it is true.
Of course it doesn't. "Whether or not a word is true" is another nonsense phrase.

Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Reality: the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
That leads to a false dichotomy
No, it doesn't.

You don't know what "false dichotomy" means, either.

Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
The problem is where are the idealistic or notional ideas, if they are not in reality?
They are in reality. That doesn't make their subjects real.

As has already been pointed out, the idea of Darth Vader objectively exists. This does not make Darth Vader real.

This is not a complicated concept.

Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Reality is everything, including the non-real
No.
__________________
"The only thing you can do easily is be wrong, and that's hardly worth the effort."
- Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth
Nonpareil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 09:30 AM   #262
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 15,489
"2 + 2 = 4.... but it also equals every number that isn't 4!"

Am I respected Philosopher yet?
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 10:46 AM   #263
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
"2 + 2 = 4.... but it also equals every number that isn't 4!"

Am I respected Philosopher yet?
Well, at least 2+2=11, but not 2+2=5
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 10:49 AM   #264
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
To be precise, in the same sense in which it can be said God is real. Or the dragon in a garage.
Yes, now we are getting somewhere!

There are different cases of real depending of how we explain it.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 10:53 AM   #265
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Yes, but not in the way you insist we do.
How do you explain that?

Remember you can't take your own thinking for granted without checking, if there is another explanation.

So let us take this:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/

Just until the table of contents.
So do you want to analyze it or should I?
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 10:58 AM   #266
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,421
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
"2 + 2 = 4.... but it also equals every number that isn't 4!"
Or, as the old joke goes, "...for certain values of 4." If you delve into the bowels of mathematical theory, you can facetiously justify divorcing the numeral 4 from the abstract concept of fourness, or the concept of a number at all. It's at a level of generality, however, that has almost nothing to do with any contemplated use of 4. So we could just as easily rewrite the title of this thread as, "It may not make sense to talk of what four actually is," and we would be on just as meaningless a level of discussion as we are here with philosophy.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 11:00 AM   #267
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,421
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
How do you explain that?
Using the rest of philosophy, not just your pet subtopic of it.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 11:02 AM   #268
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,421
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Well, at least 2+2=11, but not 2+2=5
Why not? Are you making assumptions regarding what the numeral 5 represents? Are those assumptions the only ones that are valid within mathematics?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 11:05 AM   #269
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,421
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
There are different cases of real depending of how we explain it.
And not all of them have meaning. As was pointed out to you in the other thread, you're simply bandying about and conflating different definitions of words without really investigating or understanding what they mean or why. In your haste to be seen as a great philosopher, you've simply fallen down a rabbit hole and are insisting that everyone join you in admiring your view of the dirt.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 11:11 AM   #270
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
And not all of them have meaning. As was pointed out to you in the other thread, you're simply bandying about and conflating different definitions of words without really investigating or understanding what they mean or why. In your haste to be seen as a great philosopher, you've simply fallen down a rabbit hole and are insisting that everyone join you in admiring your view of the dirt.
Okay, if you test something and you predict X and get non-X, something else, you don't reject non-X, right?
So if you test an aspect of reality and you find out that you can't because it is a limit of understanding, you reject because it is meaningless.

Is that it, if there is a limit to meaning, understanding and all that, you reject the limit, because it is meaningless?
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 11:12 AM   #271
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,421
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Okay, if you test something and you predict X and get non-X, something else, you don't reject non-X, right?
So if you test an aspect of reality and you find out that you can't because it is a limit of understanding, you reject because it is meaningless.

Is that it, if there is a limit to meaning, understanding and all that, you reject the limit, because it is meaningless?
That has nothing to do with my post. Gibberish.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 11:14 AM   #272
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Why not? Are you making assumptions regarding what the numeral 5 represents? Are those assumptions the only ones that are valid within mathematics?
Take that up with JoeMorgue. He seems to understand math better?!! Because you are dangerously close to relativism.

What 2+2=? is, depends on the underlying assumptions, right?
What knowledge is, depend on how you understand it and has nothing to do with assumptions, right?
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 11:34 AM   #273
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,421
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Take that up with JoeMorgue.
No, I'm taking it up with you. Stop avoiding hard questions.

Quote:
Because you are dangerously close to relativism.
I'm not close to it; I'm in the middle of it jumping up and down. And it's not dangerous so long as one puts relativism into its proper perspective -- something you have yet to do.

Quote:
What 2+2=? is, depends on the underlying assumptions, right?
Yes, and you didn't state your underlying assumptions. You assumed everyone was operating under the same shared assumptions because they're the only ones we've given any extrinsic meaning. That is what allows us to prove things, whether algebraically or scientifically. Yes, I certainly can devise an algebra in which 2+2=5. And one certainly can devise a philosophy devoid of anchorage. That doesn't imbue either one with meaning.

Quote:
What knowledge is, depend on how you understand it and has nothing to do with assumptions, right?
Philosophy is all about the assumptions, the axioms. You've fallen under the spell of one set of axioms and can't seem to peek up out of the hole you've fallen into and see how much fun everyone else is having. This is why I suspect you avoid giving an honest answer to the question of which among philosophy, science, and religion you trust to give you reliable answers. You know the answer, but you don't want to have to reconcile it with your sermons here.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2018, 02:09 AM   #274
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
...

Philosophy is all about the assumptions, the axioms. ...
Yes and no. Because you have an assumption about philosophy, namely that philosophy is all about the assumptions, the axioms, it doesn't follow that is correct.

Quote:
"Philosophy (from Greek φιλοσοφία, philosophia, literally "love of wisdom") is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

Quote:
Philosophy, (from Greek, by way of Latin, philosophia, “love of wisdom”) the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy

Quote:
At its simplest, philosophy (from the Greek phílosophía or phílosophía, meaning ‘the love of wisdom’) is the study of knowledge, or "thinking about thinking", although the breadth of what it covers is perhaps best illustrated by a selection of other alternative definitions:
  • the discipline concerned with questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology); and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic) (Wikipedia)
  • investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods (American Heritage Dictionary)
  • the study of the ultimate nature of existence, reality, knowledge and goodness, as discoverable by human reasoning (Penguin English Dictionary)
  • the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics (WordNet)
  • the search for knowledge and truth, especially about the nature of man and his behavior and beliefs (Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary)
  • the rational and critical inquiry into basic principles (Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia)
  • the study of the most general and abstract features of the world and categories with which we think: mind, matter, reason, proof, truth, etc. (Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy)
  • careful thought about the fundamental nature of the world, the grounds for human knowledge, and the evaluation of human conduct (The Philosophy Pages)
https://www.philosophybasics.com/general_whatis.html

So no, philosophy is not just about axioms, philosophy is also how axioms (thinking) and not just, how those relate to the rest of the universe.
And if you can use axioms to solve ethics?

So since philosophy is only axioms, please state the correct(meaning and logic) set of axioms for ethics and show with only logic, that your set is correct and all other are false(logic and meaningless).

Hi JayUtah.
You have just confirmed that you haven't studied philosophy in depth.

So here it is for science: I will claim that science is only observation. That is of course not so, because there is more to the scientific methodology than observation, but observation is a part of it.

Philosophy as a methodology depends on how you approach knowledge and if you use verification(logic and reason as truth) or use falsifiable(skepticism). In epistemology that is foundationalism versus skepticism as the 2 different methodologies, what knowledge is as rationalism versus empiricism and if there are limits to knowledge; Agrippa's trilemma.

Now I don't hold authority(magistrate) over you as human, because I claim philosophy. You don't hold authority(magistrate) over me as human, because you claim science. And a religious person doesn't hold authority(magistrate) over another person as a human, because the religious person claims religion.
But in effect you claim authority(magistrate) over all humans, because you claim you have the correct methodology. You don't have the correct methodology and nor do I.

So the question is this: If nobody holds authority(magistrate) over anybody else, then how do you build a model of a better world?
That is what I am getting at and what you don't get, because you in effect believe that you can do that. That is so, because you think you can judge my thinking as meaningless, but that requires authority(magistrate) and you don't have that.

Yes, reality is natural (a necessary, but not sufficient assumption), but from that doesn't not with deduction follow what a better world is.
And yes, science is necessary, but not sufficient. Philosophy is necessary, but not sufficient. Religion is necessary, but not sufficient. A combination is as close as you can get to necessary AND sufficient.

So you also have to learn that meaningless is a part of that you can't make a complete perfect model, which is necessary AND sufficient. When you check that, you get a meaningless(false) outcome and if you accept that you are a skeptic and accept negative answers as valid.

So I get, what you mean by meaningless, I just treat some meaningless answers different that you.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed

Last edited by Tommy Jeppesen; 17th November 2018 at 02:13 AM.
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2018, 08:52 AM   #275
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,421
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Yes and no. Because you have an assumption about philosophy, namely that philosophy is all about the assumptions, the axioms, it doesn't follow that is correct.
You're assuming what I mean by "all about." The rest of your post is gibberish.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2018, 08:57 AM   #276
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
You're assuming what I mean by "all about." The rest of your post is gibberish.
Okay, I hope you have a long and content/coping/happy life.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2018, 08:59 AM   #277
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,421
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Okay, I hope you have a long and content/coping/happy life.
Are you conceding the debate?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2018, 09:02 AM   #278
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Are you conceding the debate?
No, we are to far from each other and you and I are close to using insults, if it has not already happened, so I walk away.
I don't concede, I stop. That is not the same.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2018, 09:05 AM   #279
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,421
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
No, we are to far from each other and you and I are close to using insults, if it has not already happened, so I walk away.
I don't concede, I stop. That is not the same.
I'm not close to using insults. Don't put words in my mouth. If you are unable to find a dispassionate, cogent response to my posts, then you lose the debate. That's how debate works.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2018, 09:32 AM   #280
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
I'm not close to using insults. Don't put words in my mouth. If you are unable to find a dispassionate, cogent response to my posts, then you lose the debate. That's how debate works.
Okay, here we go.
That reality is..., is not the same as how e.g. gravity and aerodynamics works. That is common to all humans and humans can't fly unaided.

But humans live perfect lives despite claim different things about what reality is... . So we don't need that!
The question is then, if we can in effect live without knowing that, are you and your kind special?
Or are you then different than all other humans, in that where everybody else have failed, you can do that.
Or you are not aware that it is not possible to know what reality actually is.
I am aware and I can show you, but if you believe it is possible to know what reality actually is, the result is meaningless to you.
That is the psychology of this!
If you are unaware of a hidden assumption in your thinking, namely that we must be able to answer, what reality actually is, then any falsification is meaningless to you.

That is the crux of cognitive relativism. There is no single methodology for all of reality.

And don't go better, useful and what not. That is cognitive relativism. What is better and useful to you might not be that to me and in reverse.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:11 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.