The study of philosophy can never yield concrete answers

Author: TheRealNihilist

Posts

Total: 120
#91
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@simplybeourselves
I gave a tautology and you responded with "nope". I will simply correct you and tell you that you must not know what a tautology is if you think that the statement "a rock is a rock" is not a tautology then you're simply wrong.
I most certainly responded with more than a "nope".

The claim, "a rock is a rock" is meaningless circular logic.

The claim, "a rock exists even if humans never observe it directly or indirectly" is simply an unsupported claim (not a tautology) that begs for your preferred definition of "exists" to be made explicit (among other things).

For example,

#92
simplybeourselves
simplybeourselves's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 129
0
2
6
simplybeourselves's avatar
simplybeourselves
0
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
It's still a tautology. It's vacuous, certainly, as it's uninformative. It's not strictly circular unless you include question-begging but it's not question-begging when it's not an argument. The point is that "X, whatever it may be, is still X." Whatever the nature of a rock is it still has whatever nature it has. A thing is what it is.

That is all vacuously and trivially true but it's still true. If ANYTHING is true then a tautology is. Without tautologies deductive arguments wouldn't even work. So I suggest that you look into what a tautology is not in just the colloquial sense of redundancy but also in the logical sense of something that is necessarily true by definition. Ultimately tautologies are just ways of stating the law of identity which can't possibly be wrong because it's wrongness would be wrongness which would be an example of the law identity itself thereby making it not wrong and it instead be wrong for you to say that it is wrong (wrong as in untrue).

It just is the case that a thing is whatever it is whether it is observable or not. It may not be the case that there is anything unobservable but it's an argument from ignorance to say that just because we don't know of such a thing that there necessarily isn't such a thing. I do think that consciousness  experience is absolutely fundamentally, as it happens, but so is logic and it's just a logical mistake to say that a rock is not a rock whether you think otherwise or not.

Anyway, I'm off shopping now before I get sucked more into these forums!

Topic's author
#93
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@zedvictor4
I thought it was a joke.


Topic's author
#94
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@3RU7AL
Universality: the quality of involving or being shared by all people or things in the world or in a particular group.

The problem I find with this is that something can be true without everyone agreeing with it but this is as close it can get.

Do you believe "universality" is only what "all humans" find "undeniable"? 
Sure but even an agreement wouldn't really be enough given we all could be perceiving things different to what they actually are. Kinda difficult to explain but here is my example:

Imagine if you knew everyone was able to see but after everyone became blind they had no recollection of when they had sight. Under the definition this would be as close to universality ever but you know we had sight.


#95
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@simplybeourselves
I don't agree that a thing has to be detectable empirically by us for it to exist.
I agree.

An extant "thing" must be (EITHER) detectable empirically (OR) logically necessary (and probably both).

Otherwise you throw the door wide open to unsupportable (unfalsifiable) claims (appeals to ignorance) asserting the "existence" of ghosts, goblins, banshees, and lochnessbigfootaliens.

It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
#96
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Sure but even an agreement wouldn't really be enough given we all could be perceiving things different to what they actually are. Kinda difficult to explain but here is my example:
I see, so, do you think it would be fair to say you believe in "objective truth"?

Do you believe that "objective truth" is "truly true" independent of any form of human verification?

And if you do believe in "objective truth", can you please give me an example of something you believe qualifies as an "objective truth"?
#97
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@simplybeourselves
Whatever the nature of a rock is it still has whatever nature it has. A thing is what it is.
This is the very definition of "naive realism".

GOD = GOD, THEREFORE GOD EXISTS.

Do you consider this statement impervious to examination?

Or do you consider this statement blatant question-begging?
#98
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
@simplybeourselves
Three primary catagories of existence aka Cosmic Trinity

1} metaphysical1  --aka spiritual-1---  mind/intellect/concepts are not space, they are concepts of space, non-occupied or occupied,

-----conceptual line-of-demarcation-------------------------------------------------------------------

2}  macro-infnite, non-occupied space, that embraces the following,

3} finite, occupied space Universe aka God or Uni-V-erse.

None have ever offered any rational,  logical common sense ideas that add to, or invalidate my above givens.

I doubt any ever, tho a rare few have made attempts, and those were feeble at best.

The above is philosophy based on experiential based knowledge.  Without experience there can exist no knowledge.

Experience precedes thought ergo knowledge.
#99
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ebuc
Without experience there can exist no knowledge.

Experience precedes thought ergo knowledge.
Well stated.
Topic's author
#100
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@3RU7AL
I see, so, do you think it would be fair to say you believe in "objective truth"?
No.
Do you believe that "objective truth" is "truly true" independent of any form of human verification?
Yes but for humans to find that to be the case they would have to verify it.
And if you do believe in "objective truth", can you please give me an example of something you believe qualifies as an "objective truth"?
My first answer kinda screws that up. 


#101
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Do you believe that "objective truth" is "truly true" independent of any form of human verification?
Yes but for humans to find that to be the case they would have to verify it.
So, in PURELY PRACTICAL TERMS, all "truth" must be 100% verifiable by empirical evidence and or logical necessity.

This renders "objective truth" a meaningless abstraction.
Topic's author
#102
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@3RU7AL
So, in PURELY PRACTICAL TERMS, all "truth" must be 100% verifiable by empirical evidence and or logical necessity.

This renders "objective truth" a meaningless abstraction.

Yeah I find truth and fact similar. I guess distinction could be a fact is too much heat will burn you and you will die. A truth can be the applied version which is don't be near volcanoes and follow the right safety precautions in order to avoid volcanic death. 


#103
simplybeourselves
simplybeourselves's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 129
0
2
6
simplybeourselves's avatar
simplybeourselves
0
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't agree at all that something must be logically necessary or empirically detectable for it to exist.

You're once again conflating truth and knowledge. Or in this case, more specifically, you're conflating existence and knowledge. You're saying "If X isn't knowable then X doesn't exist" and that's a view that's silly with no basis. There's no reason to suppose that all existence be knowable or that all truth must be knowable.
#104
simplybeourselves
simplybeourselves's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 129
0
2
6
simplybeourselves's avatar
simplybeourselves
0
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
No, to say that a thing is what it is is not the very definition of naive realism.

I didn't say anything analogous with GOD = GOD therefore God exists. And that isn't naive realism either. That's just an invalid inference.  

I didn't make any argument at all. I just tried to get you to acknowledge that tautologies are necessarily true. But you don't seem to understand what a tautology is (just like you don't seem to understand what naive realism is either. Nor do you seem to understand the difference between knowability and truth or knowability and existence).


#105
simplybeourselves
simplybeourselves's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 129
0
2
6
simplybeourselves's avatar
simplybeourselves
0
2
6
-->
@ebuc
What you consider to be philosophical givens don't appear to be clear to me. What's more you say that the metaphysical is also known as the spiritual. Well, not in philosophy it isn't. Metaphysics is much broader than spirituality in philosophy. 

What's more,  you seem to be conflating God and the universe. Does this mean you are merely labelling the universe as God or do you think that the universe has a mind of some sort?  Also, if God is the universe then God cannot have created the universe. 

Experience does precede thought but I would say that thought is just another sort of experience. So it's still the case that empirical knowledge is possible. Although I think that empirical knowledge is a necessary but not sufficient condition for knowledge. Just as I also think that logical argumentation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for knowledge. I think only when you can both explain something logically *and* have a mental experience of it can you have knowledge. Both parts are necessary but it's only when you have both of them together that you get knowledge.
#106
simplybeourselves
simplybeourselves's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 129
0
2
6
simplybeourselves's avatar
simplybeourselves
0
2
6
Yes, experience is a necessary condition for knowledge. But it isn't a sufficient condition. Yes, logic is a necessary condition for knowledge. But it isn't a sufficient condition. Only when you have both sound logic regarding  X *and* actual experiential awareness of X  do you have knowledge of X.
#107
simplybeourselves
simplybeourselves's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 129
0
2
6
simplybeourselves's avatar
simplybeourselves
0
2
6
If you don't believe in objective truth then you don't believe in truth at all, as far as I'm concerned. "objective truth" is just a tautology as far as I'm concerned. Truth is necessarily objective and absolute. Truth is that which is actually the case, regardless of opinion, knowledge, or belief, and you can't get more objective than that. That's 100% objective, which is why I'd say it's absolute.
#108
simplybeourselves
simplybeourselves's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 129
0
2
6
simplybeourselves's avatar
simplybeourselves
0
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
The concept isn't meaningless at all. Just because not all truths are knowable doesn't mean that the very concept of there being both knowable and unknowable truths is meaningless. Are unknowable truths impractical? Sure. But to say that something is impractical is not to say that it is conceptually meaningless. What's more, we rarely actually know which truths are knowable and which aren't .... so it's rarely even impractical.
#109
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@simplybeourselves
SB..."What you consider to be philosophical givens don't appear to be clear to me. What's more you say that the metaphysical is also known as the spiritual. Well, not in philosophy it isn't. Metaphysics is much broader than spirituality in philosophy."....

I stated spirit-1,  not "spiritual". In past in this forum and many others Ive laid out clearly what my four primary kinds of spirit are.  3 are occupied space and 1 is not.

.."You are merely labelling the universe as God or do you think that the universe has a mind of some sort?  Also, if God is the universe then God cannot have created the universe."..

All words are  mental constructions dude.  No where did I say Universe has a mind. PLease try an read what is stated, instead of what you project. Universe/God is eternally existent.  Where you get some notion that Universe/God { occupied space } was created is pure non-sense. Philosophy is about finding truth and in the regards I laid out, your no wheres near truth.

...."Experience does precede thought but I would say that thought is just another sort of experience."...

Thoughts ergo concepts, ergo mind ergo intellect ergo knowledge has no weight, no charge, no color, no size, energyless, no spin, ergo not tainted with any properties that we associate with occupied space particles wheter fermions on bosons.

..."So it's still the case that empirical knowledge is possible. Although I think that empirical knowledge is a necessary but not sufficient condition for knowledge. Just as I also think that logical argumentation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for knowledge. I think only when you can both explain something logically *and* have a mental experience of it can you have knowledge. Both parts are necessary but it's only when you have both of them together that you get knowledge."...

I stated nothing about "empirical" this or that.   Read what I wrote and not what mis-interprete and incorrectly project, only then will you begin to arrive at some of the truths Ive presented.

Spririt-1 mind/intellect/concepts do not occupy space, we access this non-occupied space via nervous system.

----------------------------conceptual line-of-demarcation------------------------------------------------------

Spirit-2 is fermions and bosons aka energy aka realty aka Observed Time that has an associated sine-wave pattern /\/\/\/\/\

Spirit-3 { metaphysical -3 } is Gravity (  )

Spirit-4 { metaphysicai-4 } is Dark Energy )(

All else ---except macro-infinite non-occupied space---   falls into one or more of these above listed catagories and spirit-2, 3 and 4 are in the same catagory called Universe/God/Uni-V-erse

You need to learn what a contents of a book is and then read the Cosmic Trinity as it were the contents of a book entitled "U"niverse / "G"od.

First comes title of book

then contents

then subcatagories. etc.  This is real simple if you can keep your mind focused and not go off too many tangents.  Address specifics of what is presented, --in your mind,--- and then the rational, logical common sense is more likely to fall into place for you.

If you have too many precondition concepts filling your mind, then you will not really address the specifics as presented.
#110
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@simplybeourselves
No, to say that a thing is what it is is not the very definition of naive realism.
The idea (faith) that "things exist independently of evidence" is the very definition of "naive realism".

I didn't say anything analogous with GOD = GOD therefore God exists. And that isn't naive realism either. That's just an invalid inference.  
You asserted, "ROCK = ROCK, THEREFORE ROCK EXISTS".

And furthermore you strongly implied that, "(ANY SPECIFIC WORD) = (ANY SPECIFIC WORD), THEREFORE (ANY SPECIFIC WORD) EXISTS" is a necessarily valid claim (tautology).

I didn't make any argument at all. I just tried to get you to acknowledge that tautologies are necessarily true.
And I agree with you that tautological statements are necessarily "true", I simply disagree with you that circular logic qualifies as "tautological".

Case in point, GOD = GOD, THEREFORE GOD EXISTS.

All terms contained within the statement (claim) must have EXPLICIT definitions.

But you don't seem to understand what a tautology is (just like you don't seem to understand what naive realism is either.
By all means, please make your preferred definitions EXPLICIT.

Nor do you seem to understand the difference between knowability and truth or knowability and existence).
(IFF) a claim is unverifiable (unfalsifiable) (THEN) it cannot be considered to be "true".

(IFF) a phenomenon (or object) is unverifiable (unfalsifiable) (THEN) it cannot be considered to be "real".
#111
simplybeourselves
simplybeourselves's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 129
0
2
6
simplybeourselves's avatar
simplybeourselves
0
2
6
-->
@ebuc
Whether you say that the metaphysical is also known as spiritual *or* you say that it's also known as spirit ... it's irrelevant because neither are what metaphysics is about in the philosophical sense. Metaphysics is far broader than that.

You say "All words are  mental constructions dude.  No where did I say Universe has a mind. PLease try an read what is stated, instead of what you project."

And I recommend that you take your own advice. My above point about metaphysics still stands so the point went over your head. And nor did I say that words weren't mental constructions or that you said the universe has a mind. I ASKED if you thought it had a mind or not or if you were just labelling the Universe as God  in spite of it not having a mind. I ASKED. So, again, I direct your advice back at you and I suggest that you read what is stated instead of what you project.

"Thoughts ergo concepts, ergo mind ergo intellect ergo knowledge has no weight, no charge, no color, no size, energyless, no spin, ergo not tainted with any properties that we associate with occupied space particles wheter fermions on bosons."

I don't see how this is relevant to my point that thought is a type of experience. I also don't agree that experience or thought are energyless. As far as I'm concerned, EVERYTHING is energy of some thought, INCLUDING experience and thought.

"I stated nothing about "empirical" this or that.   Read what I wrote and not what mis-interprete and incorrectly project, only then will you begin to arrive at some of the truths Ive presented."


Nor did I state that you stated it. So, once again, I strongly suggest that you take your own advice and read what I'm actually saying.  

It's simply irrelevant that you never used the word "empriical" because empiricism is relevant to the topic. I never said that you thought that empiricism or rationalism was what knowledge was all about. I was giving my view to you and staying on topic. Once again, try taking your own advice and reading what I'm actually saying instead of projecting. I really suggest you take your own advice. I am reading your words clearly. I never said that you said the things that you are claiming that I said you said. 


"mind/intellect/concepts do not occupy space, we access this non-occupied space via nervous system."

I think this is a silly view because we live in a universe that is spacial and temporal, a universe consisting of SPACEtime, and our mind/intellect/concepts are part of that universe. So of course they occupy a space.  Everything within spacetime occupies a time and space.

"
All else ---except macro-infinite non-occupied space---   falls into one or more of these above listed catagories and spirit-2, 3 and 4 are in the same catagory called Universe/God/Uni-V-erse"

If you are not merely labelling the universe as God and labelling the mind as "spirit" then please do explain what you think the difference between God and the Universe is and what the difference between Mind and Spirit is.

"If you have too many precondition concepts filling your mind, then you will not really address the specifics as presented."

Again, I suggest that you take your own advice.

Finally, listing specific metaphysical categories, one of them being what you call spirit,  is not the same thing as saying that metaphysics itself, as a subject, is spirit.



#112
simplybeourselves
simplybeourselves's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 129
0
2
6
simplybeourselves's avatar
simplybeourselves
0
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
That still isn't the definition of naive realism and it's also not what I actually said. Saying that X is X whether we have evidence for it or not is not the same thing as claiming that things exist beyond our knowledge. I did the former, I didn't do the latter. You're the one who is being faith-minded because you're claiming that nothing exists beyond our knowledge even when you can't possibly have knowledge of that.

"You asserted, "ROCK = ROCK, THEREFORE ROCK EXISTS"."

No, I didn't.  

I gave a tautology. I didn't give a circular argument.

It gets harder for me to bother responding when I'm being misrepresented over and over.
#113
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@3RU7AL
@simplybeourselves
It gets harder for me to bother responding when I'm being misrepresented over and over.
That's what you begin to realise when you debate. Most people are only here to prove you wrong, not to learn nor to teach. Users like myself get a healthy outlet for that by our 'debating for sport' activities in the Debates section, we then healthily come to the forums ready to agree/disagree with users and still discuss. Sure, we do disgaree more often than agree because other users are wound up tight to debate with us but you will find that the users who debate a lot in the Debates section are consistently more capable of not actively 'fighting' when in the Forums section. 'Consistently' doesn't mean always.

I actually noticed that when users stop competing in the Debates section yet remain on the site, you can actually see the hostility and urge to debate culminate within them from their Forum posts.
#114
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RationalMadman
I actually noticed that when users stop competing in the Debates section yet remain on the site, you can actually see the hostility and urge to debate culminate within them from their Forum posts.
Thanks for the dime-store-psychoanalysis (ad hominem).
#115
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@3RU7AL
Thanks for the bankrupt lack of any analysis.
#116
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@simplybeourselves
You asserted, "ROCK = ROCK, THEREFORE ROCK EXISTS".
No, I didn't.  
Ok, do you think it would be fair to say you asserted,

ROCK = ROCK, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT HUMANS CAN DETECT IT?

Which is essentially exactly the same thing?

I'm only paraphrasing your claims in order to give you a chance to clarify your intention.
#117
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RationalMadman
Any reference to motives is an ad hominem attack.

Any general reference to motives is an indirect ad hominem attack.
#118
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@simplybeourselves
...."Whether you say that the metaphysical is also known as spiritual *or* you say that it's also known as spirit ... it's irrelevant because neither are what metaphysics is about in the philosophical sense. Metaphysics is far broader than that."...

Your clueless to what I stated because of your ego.

I stated metaphysical-1 and spirit-1.  Your so cluelesss that you can even grasp that words can have variant definitions. When you can get out of ego rut, and addresss what I stated, and not what misinteprete and falsely project, please share.


.."And I recommend that you take your own advice. My above point about metaphysics still stands so the point went over your head. And nor did I say that words weren't mental constructions or that you said the universe has a mind. I ASKED if you thought it had a mind or not or if you were just labelling the Universe as God  in spite of it not having a mind. I ASKED. So, again, I direct your advice back at you and I suggest that you read what is stated instead of what you project."...

What a bunch of useless dribble.  When you drop your ego and address my specifics as stated, with mature adult, rational, logical common sense that adds to or invlaidates please share. You have done none of that because your clueless to anything Ive stated.


.."I don't see how this is relevant to my point that thought is a type of experience. I also don't agree that experience or thought are energyless. As far as I'm concerned, EVERYTHING is energy of some thought, INCLUDING experience and thought."...

I never said "eperience" energyless.  Your still clueless and falsely projecting things I did not state. Please share when you want to have a mature adult, rational, logical common sense comment that adds to or invalidates anything Ive presented. You do not, because your ego keeps you cluelss.

#1 metaphysical-1 { spirit-1 }"mind/intellect/concepts do not occupy space, we access this non-occupied space via nervous system."

..."I think this is a silly view because we live in a universe that is spacial and temporal, a universe consisting of SPACEtime, and our mind/intellect/concepts are part of that universe. So of course they occupy a space.  Everything within spacetime occupies a time and space."...

Anything Ive stated appears "silly" to you, because your ego keeps you clueless to anything Ive stated.  , I'm thinking of blue triangle and you have no idea how much it weights because it is concept and read again what I stated--- #1 above--- untill you can get your ego driven "silly" out of your mind, and let some truth enter.

..."If you are not merely labelling the universe as God and labelling the mind as "spirit" then please do explain what you think the difference between God and the Universe is and what the difference between Mind and Spirit is."...

Again, because your ego blocks out reality and truth, Mind/intellect/concepts = spirit-1, metaphysical-1, and not what you keep repeating.  Utter non-sense.

You really are cluelesss because of you ego. Ive repeated made clear Universe/God are just to words that are synonyms ergo have the same meaning. Get real dude. 

."""Finally, listing specific metaphysical categories, one of them being what you call spirit,  is not the same thing as saying that metaphysics itself, as a subject, is spirit.""""

Flase again. Your ego loves to spit out false projections like their going out of style.

I have four primary numericallu catagorizations of spirit i.e. spirit-1, 2 a3 and 4.  Drop the ego and let reality and truth enter your mind.

I can see that will never happen because your not interested in truth, as most religious fundamentalist are not.  There basically brain dead when it comes to truth, maturity, rationalit, logic and commnon sense. Sad :--( but true many humans are clueless by choice, and proud of it.
#119
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@simplybeourselves
Because a rock is still a rock regardless of if humans are around to observe it. 
#120
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@simplybeourselves
Because a god is still a god regardless of if humans are around to observe it.