Right, so I should know what the intentions were. There was no intention on my part to deliberately block anyone’s access to the original definition of the term “atheist” or any other term. I was simply stating what I understood, and still understand, the definition of “atheist” to be. Confusions over and obfuscations of the meanings of words, which isn’t always intentional or conscious, are a natural consequence of human nature. Words change, language evolves, and you have pointed out exactly why. Nobody knows the original definition of “God” because that term goes back several millennia (having to be translated into older languages, of course), back to times before they had dictionaries or even had the concept of word definitions. Somebody may have written down what it meant at the time, maybe not. If they did, that original writing may now be lost, or it may not. But nobody’s trying to “block” anyone’s access to it.
Yes, there is confusion over many of the terms we bounce around in philosophical discussions. But that’s all it is–confusion. Everyone has their understanding of what certain terms mean, and there are large enough factions supporting one definition as there are for another that the multitude of definitions remains to this day. But again, no one is “blocking” anyone’s access to the original definition (if there is one).
I don’t even know if Schopenhauer or Nietzsche had a formal definition of “psyche,” (I’m not about to read all of their works just to find out), and if you’re claiming they did, you must have a source. If you have a source, obviously it’s not being blocked.
Even if this is being done deliberately, it doesn’t mean any original definitions are being blocked. Anyone can go to this website and get a definition. If you’re saying this site is wrong, concocted by the “science priests”, then you must somehow know what the original definition is, which again says it’s not being blocked.
And no, I don’t accept that science = philosophy.
I don’t doubt this for a second. Like I said, I agree that the motive is there to try to hide information in the law. But can a lawyer take the legal definition of “discriminatory” and post it on the internet somewhere without getting sued or breaking the law? Apparently, someone did: legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona … rimination
Oh, you’re ruling out “intentional” blocking. So what would “blocking” involve then? Can one be “blocked” by his own laziness to search for information, for example? And how does this reflect on your initial statement:
I’m assuming “public information” is information that isn’t “blocked”. So what would count as “public information” in your view?
You raised the word “blocked”, but the truth is that if no one ever mentioned a definition, yet talked about it in any profound way, the definition was hidden already, in the person’s mind (as with almost all of the “Enlightenment Era” philosophers).
Beyond that, the words are used void of precise definition to the point that it takes a tremendous effort to dig up the actual definition, assuming it had ever been documented.
When anything is covered by a mountain of deception, buried, it is no longer in view, easily found by inexperienced people. You, for example, cannot find out hardly anything of value concerning how the USA governance is actually working. Is it because you are lazy? Or is it because there is SO VERY MUCH deception and distraction going on, that you can’t know where to start, much less can you find a compass with which to guide yourself through the maze of misleading inferences?
People are led to believe that the words are fairly simple and straight to the point. Yet they are not. They are obfuscated into connotations that mislead, at times, even by accident. Did the Hebrews ever believe that God was some anthropomorphic being? Did anyone try to deceive people into believing that God was such a being. Or did that just happen by ignorance and presumption, later taken advantage of? You could never figure out which. It is a matter of intended definition from the start. But it isn’t necessarily an issue of intentional deception. The deception takes place anyway. The mountain of obfuscation grows high anyway. Do the masses understand, have they been told by their authorities, that such grandly complex deception is common and underfoot? No, they haven’t been.
Yes, you’ve echoed my sentiments exactly. This is why I’ve thrown more than one temper tantrum in the Reforming Democracy thread after getting fed up with how much the information pool is contaminated.
From this perspective, James, I wholeheartedly agree. I’m very skeptical of conspiracy theories that put a single individual or small group of individuals at the head of some grand secret operation, but I do believe in several individuals and groups of individuals conspiring to pull of many little operations here and there. The cumulative effect, however, is something that none of them ever predict or even know is going on.
Yes, this is what happens when people feel strongly, wish to argue, wish to look intelligent, but don't feel like bothering to actually learn anything about the subject they're arguing on. They play word games that don't require any specialized knowledge in the actual field at hand.
There is nothing wrong in feeling strongly about any thing and arguing hard for it. That should be welcomed rather.
The problem is that some people start cheating using language, instead of arguing. They try to fool people. My objection is to that only, nothing else.
This is precisely what Mucter is trying to do. And, as soon as he realized that I have been caught his trick and now using the same against him, he stopped replying my posts, though I will keep pinching him in the back as soon as he continues.
Right, because they don’t have any actual facts, but they still want to ‘win’. The language-based arguments you have a problem with follow simplistic patterns that, once memorized, can be applied to any subject the arguer wants to feel superior in.
Well, there’s a difference between manipulative word games and analytic philosophy. I think Mutcer does a little both, but it’s not entirely his fault, he’s following an atheistic tradition of it.
Maybe. But, if his so fond of analytical philosophy, or even philosophy, he should not have stopped answering me when I used his tactics against him. That tells his actual intention.
The problem is that he is not fond of any kind of philosophy. He has an ideology and using philosophy to demean his opposition.
To me, that is the misuse of philosophy. Ideally, one should settle for any ideology/conclusion using philosophy, not using philosophy to promote what is in his mind before philosophizing.
Though, Mucter is not the only culprit of that, a good majority of intellectuals follow that practice. Some do it unknowingly but some knowingly. Those who do this unknowingly, can be spared but not people like Mucter, who not only does this knowingly, but that is his one and only purpose of engaging with philosophy.
What Mutcer does in his threads has nothing to do with philosophy, nothing to do with logic, nothing to do with science, nothing to do with reality, nothing to do with … (put in whatever you want) … So it has not even anything to do with atheism, although he is always talking about it. If ILP had not merely “ad hominem” rules but also and beyond them logical rules, then it would not be possible for him to misuse ILP (remember that ILP means “I Love Philosophy”), and there are many ILP members who misuse ILP in a similar way.
Tweaking the definitions:
An example of a definition is the word “theism”. In order to be a theist one has to be capable of (A) believing, (Aa) believing in a god or more gods (this makes you a believer in god or gods), and (B) processing this in an intellectual / professional way (this makes you a theist). If you are a theist, then you can become an antitheist, and an atheist, if you fulfill some further preconditions. This was - b.t.w. - what I meant when I said Mutcer was “implicitly saying that the effect is before the cause”. The theological cause is always the belief, and the succession of this theological development is always: => (1) belief => (2) godbelief => (3) theological knowledge, for eaxmple as => (3a) theism => (3b) antitheism => (3c) syntheism (synthesis of theism and antitheism) or (3d) atheism.
So it is not possible for one to be a godbeleiver, if this one is not capable of believing. And it is also not possible for one to have theological knowledge, if this one is not capable of a god(s)belief. Furthermore it is not possible for one to be a theist, if this one is not capable of the required theological knowledge. In addition it is also not possible for one to be an anthitheist, if this one has not been a theist before. And it is also not possible for one to be an atheist, if this one has not been an antitheist and a theist before. If you want to deny “something”, you have to know this “something”. If you want to form a synthesis out of theism and antitheism, you have to know what “theism” and “antitheism” mean and be capable of forming a synthesis out of theism and antitheism. But if you want to be released from theism, antitheism, and syntheism, know what they mean, and are sure you can ignore them, then (and only then) you can honestly call yourself an “atheist”. So in reality there are merely few or even no atheists.
He is putting his means to the best use ( of course, according to him).
Yes, it certainly st. But, that is where the actual challenge lies. Look at him. Does it not boring to him? Yet, he is doing it for years. That tells about his commitment and patience. and, if one wants to counter him, the same level of commitment and patience is required from the opposite end too.
Yes, that is true but no one goes to the extent of Mucter, except GIM. Both are perfect mach intent wise.
Besides that, Mucter has one more rare quality, which is his coolness or kind of artificially owned sophistication in his pseudo philosophy. That saves him from many harms. There are many others who share his intent and ideology but no one is able to hide their true intentions behind very carefully drafted posts, which give the false impression of intellectuality, at least at the prime facie. All others are not able to hold it for long and get exposed. But, in the case of Mucter, it needs extra effort of expose him, which is in the process now.
And, he also knows what is going on. That is only reason why he answers everyone but stopped replying me.
Yes, he fulfills the both definition of trolling, old and new. He tries to tap innocents in his net by offering them some sort of pseudo philosophical bait, like fishermen use to do to catch fishes.
He certainly proselytizes too. But, i do not see it much wrong in it, if the intent of the doer is right and he is honest in presenting it. Everyone has right to make others to believe or even follow him. Every philosophical discussion, no matter how intellectually honest it may be, will always bear some hint of proselytizing. Convincing opponents or others through philosophical arguments is also a form of proselytizing, though a mild or indirect one.
We typically use the term specifically for religious proselytizing, not philosophical nor even political debating. He is attempting to sell his religion (endlessly for years and years now) even when he knows that his arguments are not rational.
According to my experience with so-called “atheists” there are merely a few or even no atheists, because this so-called “atheists” turn out to be antitheists: they are against theism, against god, against Christianity, against religion insofar as it is Christian, against …, against …, against … The Ancient Greek word for “against” is “anti”. So this so-called “atheists” are antitheists.
Another phenomenon is that this so-called “atheists” create their own god or gods, a false god or false gods. This so-called “atheists” are syntheists insofar as they have overcome their antitheism as the opponent of theism and come to a synthesis of theism and antitheism, namely syntheism (later: the new theism). But they have not come to atheism. I do not know any atheist.
God is perhaps an atheist. That would at least mean that the so-called “atheists” are merely godwannabes.
