Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
@fauxlaw
I don't mind using your PREFERRED definitions but you will have to ACTUALLY present them or I will be necessarily unable to use your PREFERRED definitions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Oh come in Tarik, don't you remember? You said morals had to be objective and the Google definition of objective is not dependent upon a mind for existence and since you cannot call anything mindless moral or immoral it became clear that by the definition you prefer objective morality is actually impossible.
Like a rock cannot be moral or immoral you have to have an acting agent (mind) for that.
As I recall you quickly changed the subject and we never did revisit that. Did you come up with a different definition of objective?
If not then goals cannot be objective either as you need a mind to have goals.
So really unless fauxlaw has another definition to present it seems like we have an inconsistentcy to resolve.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Google is free dude, your such a joke.
This reminds me of our discussion about how objective morality cannot exist as defined by Google and you immediately wanted to drop the idea that Google was the definitive source of understanding words. Remember that? Good times.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
He has rejected my understanding of objective as described by Google. If that definition is unacceptable he should provide heis preferred definition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Please provide your preferred definition of objective for consideration.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
What’s wrong with my cognitive skills?
Exactly. You lack the basic skills necessary to recognize the problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
yet you want to attack my comprehension skills
This is ot an attack tarik it is an offer. An offer to help you improve your cognitive skills.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
It is up to YOU to prove you can. I cannot prove it for you. The positive must be demonstrated and the mere fact that you keep having misunderstings like this is not a good sign.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You don’t have to believe it, but you also don’t have to believe that I can’t.
See this is a prime example of what I mean.
You have this backwards for logically valid argumentation.
I no more need to assume you can evaluate arguments than that you can fly without an airplane or astraly project. The default is skepticism and then you begin to believe things as they are demonstrated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Yes so in order for me to believe that you are able to make the necessary distinctions at this point I would have to see evidence that you can. Until then I just won't be able to believe it based on the available evidence.
If you can evaluate argument sufficient to have these discussions your behavior thus far indistinguishable from someone who cannot.
Please understand that this is not meant in the spirit of an ad hominem attack. I'm genuinely interested in communication and I think it is a shame that you are unable or unwilling to understand me when I try to communicate with you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You have this backwards. You need to have evidence BEFORE you believe something you don't believe EVERYTHING you cannot disprove. Otherwise in order to be consistent you would be forced to believe multiple mutually exclusive and or logically contradictory propositions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
It is true that IF the subjective goal is to minimize suffering THEN we can make (some) objective statements about how to accomplish this goal.
That being said we as humans are not responsible for all suffering and so cannot eliminate all suffering. This is no problem for any naturalistic philosophy (even one that is naturalistic out of purely pragmatism) since an unguided system leading to suffering is not a logical contradiction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Ok well until you prove to me you can evaluate an argument to determine if it is valid and then separately evaluate the soundness of an argument there will be no profit in our discussions. That doesn't mean I will never respond to you. I just will do so with the understanding that you are not able to join the discussion effectively.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
That's all well and good but I don't think we agree on the definition of objective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
A wish may be subjective, but a true goal, one that is going to be accomplished by the will and the means of the individual making it becomes very objective.
Objective specifically means independent of human minds and opinions. A humans true goal is dependent on their mind and so definitionally subjective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Tarik it is ok to not know something you don't have to be embarrassed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
One must be coerced into accepting hazardous, tedious, unfulfilling and or dangerous work especially if it does not pay enough to allow you to rise out of poverty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Because i do know how to evaluate an arguments structure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
It doesn't matter if I show them to you when you can't recognize them.
I see no profit in such an activity. The learning must come first.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
If you are willing to learn how valid arguments are structured you can go back through our correspondence and see for yourself where you either presented an invalid argument or incorrectly evaluated valid arguments as invalid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
The correct choice is to jump from the fence and get moving. The direction we choose to move is the indication of making another incorrect or correct choice; or, let the stream carry us wherever it will take us, or swim agains the current to achieve our desired destination.
So correct in this context is subjective. It pertains to a goal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
in order to be sidetracked by opposition.
Yes sorry I do tend to wander.
As all are given free agency, wherein we are all agents unto ourselves, to impede another's agency to think and act for themselves, or for the useful benefit of others, is evil, and none of it has a necessary purpose.
You mean like if one's agency is impeded by extreme poverty or if one were coerced into "working for a living"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Yes but what invalid and/or unsound argument have I made or logical fallacy have I committed that makes you bring all this philosophy 101 stuff up?
It's just that you don't actually seem to know the difference at all. I've offered before and the offer still stands to explain what makes an argument valid and how you can evaluate them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Because this is the philosophy section of a debate webserver. Knowing what valid and sound mean specifically as they apply to evaluating the logic of an argument will always be important in every discussion here. In order to avoid logical fallacies the structure of an argument is every bit as important as the provable truth of the conclusion. You must be able to evaluate the two seperate issues in order to fully evaluate the logic of any argument. This is very philosophy 101 stuff.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I mean in the way you would learn to if you took a course in philosophy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
That is not much help when trying to evaluate the DIFFERENCE between a SOUND and a VALID argument as I am using the term.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You can still know if the structure and provable truth value of an argument is valid/sound through a dictionary.
No. You cannot. Again the dictionary ONLY describes popular usage. Nowhere in any dictionary I have ever seen is a guide to examining philosophical arguments for validity and soundness presented. That takes more than just understanding the most agreed upon definition (if that can even be determined).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
I’m saying absent, not opposite.You aren’t replying to fauxlaw, you’re replying to me.
You will have to forgive me I thought that was in the way commentary on that issue. I would be most greatfull if you would clarify your point and how it relates to the larger conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
What about validly/soundly?
Those words in the context I have been using them do not apply to single words or their definitions but only to the structure (validity) and provable truth value (soundness) of an argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Opposites are an abstraction. They are only useful if you make an assumed opinion about something. The opposite of something isn't necessarily just its absence. Like the opposite of a rock isn't no a rock.
Tall is the opposite of short in as much as we as humans are using the words that way. It is subjective. But we don't say that the opposite of tall isno measurable height whatever.
Saying this or that is an opposite is a comparison and comparisons are generally subjective. You could call death the opposite of death and because it is subjective you wouldn't be wrong but that doesn't mean it is objectively true either and it certainly doesn't mean having an opposite is a prerequisite for existence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Well unless you can prove that the terms at hand evolved to what your saying it has, the definition in the dictionary still stands.
We can adapt the language to our use. The dictionary cannot stop us. All it takes is you to say you understand what I MEAN when I use any given term. It doesn't even matter if I am using the word "correctly" whatever that even means only that you understand what I am trying to communicate to you.
You have the ability to have the conversation if you want to. The only thing standing in your way is you.
You thinking you can just go against the grain and define words as you wish
Yes
be correct is a preposterous idea.
I told you I don't care about correct only about communication of an idea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
In English one word may have multiple meanings. In every language the meaning of words evolves and changes over time. Some words are forgotten and others invented. No dictionary is the final arbiter of all possible definitions. That is in fact a preposterous idea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I'm not rejecting the dictionary's definitions I'm just using a particular definition which may or may not appear in any given dictionary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
The only solution i know of is supernatural , so it would be rejected by many atheists.
I don't feel like the supernatural, provided it existed, actually would solve the problem. I don't know your personal preferred definition of supernatural but I think when you say you have a solution and the solution is "it's magic" you have more pushed the question back a step rather than answering it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
No but if your of the belief that EVERYBODY should be in AGREEMENT in regards to this stars popularity then it’s hypocritical to say that when in the next breath you DISAGREE with them. You see it’s not the DISAGREEMENT that’s the hypocrisy it’s the fact that you preached AGREEMENT and went against just that.
No one is asking you to agree to a favorite sports star only that you don't dismiss other people's choice and stop the conversation until they agree with you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Be it as it may your still rejecting a popular group of peoples common usage of a term which is slightly hypocritical considering in the next breath you preach agreement.
I'm not even so much rejecting the dictionary as not being limited by it. IN THE CORRECT CONTEXT the definitions contained therein are perfectly serviceable it is just insufficient to our discussions if as you claim my definitions are not represented.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
If medicine "opposes" death does that make medicine the opposite of death? Johnson and Johnson should use that as their new tag line.
Seriously though opposite is a thing we as humans made up and it is a subjective oppinion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
life and death do; life and death of any organism
I disagree. Death is not the opposite of life it is a part of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Incorrect. Terms are in the dictionary BECAUSE they are commonly used and popular they are not popular and accepted BECAUSE they are in the dictionary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
"opposites" only "exist" in abstraction.There is no "opposite" of a dog.There is no "opposite" of a tree.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I don't know... a dead tree has a lot more in common with a live tree than say with a rock. Why isn't a rock the opposite of a tree? Or 9h hey! How about a duckbilled platypus? Those are really different to trees!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
lack of common sense believers is a bit { a lot } like attempting to have rational, conversation with a drunk,
Are you accusing me of poking the bear?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
The dictionary is more a set of loose guidelines than a rulebook. Language is adaptive and evolving.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I did not say we were not the author of the suffering of others. That notwithstanding however there is a lot of suffering which isnot the result of any human action. Natural disasters, disease, famine and parasites specifically evolved to attack human eyes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
That in no way implies that suffering is an entirely good thing
Ok then is there some solution to the problem of (not good) suffering?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
This is actually not a bad take, well said zed.
Is it? I thought you didn't believe in arbitrary or subjective definitions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
That is exactly why agreeing on terms is so important.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I see little profit in that based on past experience. If you were willing to accept my definitions I might consider it.
Created: