-
[QUOTE=PlasticJanus;828300491]I already dealt with this objection. You can get absolute metaphysical truths by corresponding propositions to facts about our metaphysical framework in the same way that you can get typical truths by corresponding propositions to typical facts. No source of ultimate truth required.[/QUOTE]ok then, how would you determine the validity of human reason?
-
[QUOTE=magog704;828301391]that's right. what you're describing is platonism. it's kind of archaic in the world of philosophy.
so there is no Truth, capital T.
"there are no facts, only interpretations" -Nietzsche[/QUOTE]well, according to that logic, what you wrote is untrue, so dont be upset if i ignore what you just said.
-
[QUOTE=blablablah;828301421]ok then, how would you determine the validity of human reason?[/QUOTE]
I also already addressed this. Human reasoning is not an argument. It doesn't make sense to ask whether or not it is valid.
-
[QUOTE=blablablah;828301791]well, according to that logic, what you wrote is untrue, so dont be upset if i ignore what you just said.[/QUOTE]
i would never be upset that you take issue with the last 150 years of western philosophical inquiry. that's your prerogative.
people say way dumber shiit than you, like the earth is 5000 years old. if i took issue with every ignorant thing i heard i wouldnt make it through the day.
-
[QUOTE=blablablah;828301421]ok then, how would you determine the validity of human reason?[/QUOTE]
We can show that it works!
Our reasoning is valid because it is an evolutionary adaptation which served us extremely well which has demonstrated its usefulness and reliability time after time after time. If our reasoning were deleterious we wouldve been weeded out of existence. It's that simple.
Furthermore you are asking a loaded question by having us justify human reasoning without using human reasoning. For an explanation to be reasonable, it must necessarily be constructed in accordance to rationality!
Its like asking "why is the law legal?" You're using tautologies
-
[QUOTE=PlasticJanus;828302001]I also already addressed this. Human reasoning is not an argument. It doesn't make sense to ask whether or not it is valid.[/QUOTE]of course it does. your very act of arguing with me presupposes this concept. whether it is valid or not is of utmost importance. if it is valid, it produces correct reasoning. if it doesnt it, produce incorrect reasoning. how do you determine whether human reasoning is valid or not?
-
[QUOTE=magog704;828302131]i would never be upset that you take issue with the last 150 years of western philosophical inquiry. that's your prerogative.
people say way dumber shiit than you, like the earth is 5000 years old. if i took issue with every ignorant thing i heard i wouldnt make it through the day.[/QUOTE]youre being a clever silly here. why denounce to concept of truth, then expect me to take what you say as being true. doesnt make sense to me.
-
[QUOTE=blablablah;828303581]youre being a clever silly here. why denounce to concept of truth, then expect me to take what you say as being true. doesnt make sense to me.[/QUOTE]
i denounce the concept of Truth, not the concept of truth.
help yourself to some cotdayum aristotle. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle%27s_theory_of_universals[/url]
-
[QUOTE=lucious;828303051]We can show that it works!
Our reasoning is valid because it is an evolutionary adaptation which served us extremely well which has demonstrated its usefulness and reliability time after time after time. If our reasoning were deleterious we wouldve been weeded out of existence. It's that simple.
Furthermore you are asking a loaded question by having us justify human reasoning without using human reasoning. For an explanation to be reasonable, it must necessarily be constructed in accordance to rationality!
Its like asking "why is the law legal?" You're using tautologies[/QUOTE]again, this is circular reasoning. human reason is valid because we determined it is, using human reason. its called a fallacious argument.
i asked you to justify human reason because you cant. its a concept you can only take on faith. what it was meant to do was illustrate your reliance on unprovable metaphysical constructs.
-
[QUOTE=blablablah;828303171]of course it does. your very act of arguing with me presupposes this concept. whether it is valid or not is of utmost importance. if it is valid, it produces correct reasoning. if it doesnt it, produce incorrect reasoning. how do you determine whether human reasoning is valid or not?[/QUOTE]
You're confusing validity for reliability. Arguments have validity; methods have reliability. Human reasoning is a method, not an argument.
Furthermore, whether or not human reasoning is reliable is irrelevant here, because the truth of a proposition is, as you yourself have conceded, entirely external to human reasoning. The reliability of human reasoning becomes a factor only when we try to reason using the absolute truths that correspondence gets us, and this happens after your worries about an ultimate source of truth have been debunked.
-
[QUOTE=magog704;828304121]i denounce the concept of Truth, not the concept of truth.
help yourself to some cotdayum aristotle. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle%27s_theory_of_universals[/url][/QUOTE]so when i am talking to you does the concept of Truth apply to you or not?
-
[QUOTE=blablablah;828304851]so when i am talking to you does the concept of Truth apply to you or not?[/QUOTE]
there is no universal Truth. we can talk about things that are "true" based on justification.
i have this problem all the time. if You haven't picked up a book by a postmodernist, then we literally can't have this conversation, because we don't even compatible lexicons.
-
[QUOTE=PlasticJanus;828304591]You're confusing validity for reliability. Arguments have validity; methods have reliability. Human reasoning is a method, not an argument.
Furthermore, whether or not human reasoning is reliable is irrelevant here, because the truth of a proposition is, as you yourself have conceded, entirely external to human reasoning. The reliability of human reasoning becomes a factor only when we try to reason using the absolute truths that correspondence gets us, and this happens after your worries about an ultimate source of truth have been debunked.[/QUOTE]could you give me an example of an absolute truth derived from correspondence?
-
[QUOTE=magog704;828305311]there is no universal Truth. we can talk about things that are "true" based on justification.
i have this problem all the time. if You haven't picked up a book by a postmodernist, then we literally can't have this conversation, because we don't even compatible lexicons.[/QUOTE]that seems reasonable to me
-
[youtube]CzynRPP9XkY[/youtube]
[img]http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1300172552l/31947.jpg[/img]
[url]http://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html[/url]
-
Ive heard this argument before OP. Basically, it means that the only reason to trust our reasoning is it came from the divine, otherwise theres no reason to think we know anything at all since we're just advanced apes basically.
Bottom line is this, there is no empirical reason to believe in god, such that if the idea was never suggested to you its highly unlikely you would grow to believe it on your own or even consider it. anythings possible though
-
OP,, negs on RC for stupid thread
and re negs on RC for making a thread w no avi (auto neg)
srs and srs
-
[QUOTE=jayohthatman;828306551]Ive heard this argument before OP. Basically, it means that the only reason to trust our reasoning is it came from the divine, otherwise theres no reason to think we know anything at all since we're just advanced apes basically.
Bottom line is this, there is no empirical reason to believe in god, such that if the idea was never suggested to you its highly unlikely you would grow to believe it on your own or even consider it. anythings possible though[/QUOTE]empiricism does not interest me
-
[QUOTE=blablablah;828306791]empiricism does not interest me[/QUOTE]
me either.
“I do not believe in God and I am not an atheist.”
-
[QUOTE=blablablah;828306031]could you give me an example of an absolute truth derived from correspondence?[/QUOTE]
I could, but let's not kid ourselves by pretending it would advance the argument. It doesn't matter which truth I suggest, you will simply raise one of two objections: either that it is not absolute because my knowledge of it is subjective or that I can't reason that it's absolute because I've yet to establish the reliability of human reason.
Neither of those two objections changes the fact that, as per correspondence, truths can exist in the absence of an ultimate source of truth.
-
[QUOTE=jayohthatman;828306551]Ive heard this argument before OP. Basically, it means that the only reason to trust our reasoning is it came from the divine, otherwise theres no reason to think we know anything at all since we're just advanced apes basically.
Bottom line is this, there is no empirical reason to believe in god, such that if the idea was never suggested to you its highly unlikely you would grow to believe it on your own or even consider it. anythings possible though[/QUOTE]
Yeah its a last ditch attempt to try and squeeze God in somewhere. Given a fair argument, its hard to win, so lets remove a pair of goalposts.
Its essentially a repackaging of Platingas argument against naturalism which falls into PRATT(previously refuted a thousand times)
-
[QUOTE=PlasticJanus;828307621]I could, but let's not kid ourselves by pretending it would advance the argument. It doesn't matter which truth I suggest, you will simply raise one of two objections: either that it is not absolute because my knowledge of it is subjective or that I can't reason that it's absolute because I've yet to establish the reliability of human reason.
Neither of those two objections changes the fact that, as per correspondence, truths can exist in the absence of an ultimate source of truth.[/QUOTE]false and false.
i dont know if we will either benefit from continuing this argument, although if you wish to continue, i will tomorrow
-
-
[QUOTE=blablablah;828307981]false and false.
i dont know if we will either benefit from continuing this argument, although if you wish to continue, i will tomorrow[/QUOTE]
I don't know what you're referencing when you say "false and false." Because I essentially made two claims: that I could suggest an absolute truth according to correspondence and that the two aforementioned objections do not change that. Both claims are true.
-
And not a single reply to my post on the impact of subjectivity was posted that day...
-
OP this you?
[url]http://m4monologue.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/another-attempt/[/url]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/u1Lax.png[/IMG]
-
gtfo OP. not reading tht ****.
-
-
OP I don't think you comprehend that your arguments/questions have been answered by many posters in this thread.
You are continuing to talk in circles forcing other people to repeat what they have said to you on the first page...
I think you should re-read the whole thread, take a step back and analyze deeply what other people have posted.
-
believe if you wish but it has no reason to be in everyday life, as not everyone agrees and it is personal opinion. why feel the need to prove your existence?
