Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the human

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby Guide » Fri Aug 10, 2018 3:32 am

““you can have your own opinions, not your own facts”. This phrase is confused, and therefore it confuses discussion. If one is unable to say what a fact is, and how it differs from an opinion, one is bound to have trouble.

Fact is consensus of opinion ”


So says the group.

The group says: I ten people who know they are lying claim the sun is green, it is a fact? Or, do we need more than ten? And can they lie, or must they believe what they are saying?
Guide
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:20 am

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby Serendipper » Sat Aug 11, 2018 2:54 am

Guide wrote:
““you can have your own opinions, not your own facts”. This phrase is confused, and therefore it confuses discussion. If one is unable to say what a fact is, and how it differs from an opinion, one is bound to have trouble.

Fact is consensus of opinion ”


So says the group.

The group says: I ten people who know they are lying claim the sun is green, it is a fact? Or, do we need more than ten? And can they lie, or must they believe what they are saying?

Are you trying to establish fact about fact? Only a joker would lie about his opinion and that's a fact ;)

My opinion about fact is Climate Change is fact because of the consensus of opinion, but wrong.

In law, I'm pretty sure that fact is up to the jury to decide (consensus of opinion). Maybe Carleas can validate that.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1012
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby iambiguous » Sat Aug 11, 2018 8:41 pm

This is typical:

Guide wrote:

The truth about what? In particular, in other words. Or, for some, is it always the truth about that which serious philosophers must mean when "conceptually" they discuss the truth about anything?


The group is not sure it understands this. What does concept first mean? If we seriously ask that, are we not already philosophizing? What does it mean for Plato (the first grand self-conscious philosopher and synthesizer of what had recently come to be called philosophizing) to philosophize? People are using a word, e.g., truth, and one notices it and inquiries into it. This is analogous to walking, and noticing one walks, and then considering the features of walking. One notices various things, and most of all, that something is being generally called walking. It is found here, and then there, and again—a pattern! The concept is the awakening awareness of what is already happening (or, what seems to have already been happening through the lense of the conception of the concept). Yet, the pattern of the pattern is the only perfect pattern. Its coming to be noticed is the mystery of raising the eyes which one has long been used to calling philosophy.


I ask you to embed that which you construe to be the "conceptual" meaning of "truth" into that which unfolds when [existentially] different individuals come to conflicted understandings regarding what the truth is with respect to moral and political conflagrations out in the world that we live in. Instead, you take us straight back up into the scholastic clouds.

Same here:

Again: Demonstrate what? If we discuss animal rights, for example, there are facts that can be demonstrated regarding the actual empirical realtionship between our own species and the species we call chickens or cows or dogs and horses.


Guide wrote: The group means, that demonstration is a thing at all. In other words, presumably, squirrels have no manner of discussing it. Of saying, it is demonstrated, ergo, bow down to reason. It is only possible to quibble about what counts as demonstration because the concept is in some way available and forcible to the human being. Perhaps it is a wrong force, a useless force, a harmful instinct.

This is not obviously a matter of necessity or human freedom. The question of necessity is derivative on what comes forward by way of mythological discussion possibilities, such as the concept of cause.


My point doesn't revolve around what squirrels tell each other. It revolves around what we human beings tell each when we make that crucial distinction between hunters discussing the best way to kill animals and all the rest of us discussing whether the hunting and the killing of animals is a good thing or a bad thing.

And then the extent to which the causual chain is either the same or different when these distinct conversations unfold.

Instead, we get this...

Guide wrote: This being said, the group is perplexed that a man can not push a huge boulder over, through mythologizing it differently. And yet, he might insofar as this becomes the value of all humans, and they solve the problem how to move the boulder. And this re-valuing is demonstrable as a truth actually determinable.


What on earth does this have to do with the points I raise regarding causation in the either/or world and causation in the is/ought world? And the distinction I make between them?”


Guide wrote: Because of the issue in Dostoevsky's Devils. The freedom to interpret (the either / or) comes up against the stone, the man-god is not wholly sublime. Ergo, not wholly superior to the terrible and unpleasant forces which show him how little he is worth.


Note to others:

You tell me: How are his points here connected to mine? How respectfully should I take his points as sophisticated arguments?


Seriously, are his points here actually worth pursuing? Or should I perhaps just cross him off the list as but one more "serious philosopher" -- pedant? -- hopelessly out of sync with the manner in which I probe such things as morality and causality in human interactions.

Or, sure, is the thread just a "scam"? An exercise in irony? A way to expose just how shallow the "technical" arguments of the serious philosophers can be out in "the real world"?
Last edited by iambiguous on Mon Aug 13, 2018 2:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26068
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby Serendipper » Sun Aug 12, 2018 5:21 am

iambiguous wrote:Seriously, are his points here actually worth pursuing?

Pursue them if it's fun to pursue them. "Worth" implies some goal you're working towards and I couldn't ascertain "worth" before knowing what your goal is.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1012
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby Guide » Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:49 pm

Guide wrote:
““you can have your own opinions, not your own facts”. This phrase is confused, and therefore it confuses discussion. If one is unable to say what a fact is, and how it differs from an opinion, one is bound to have trouble.

Fact is consensus of opinion ”


So says the group.

The group says: I ten people who know they are lying claim the sun is green, it is a fact? Or, do we need more than ten? And can they lie, or must they believe what they are saying?

Are you trying to establish fact about fact?


We don’t know what a fact is, so all we can do is investigate. Such a presupposition, directive of the seeking, would exclude the possiblity of genuine investigation. One could say, we seek the truth about the fact, though, there too, we make a difficulty. Since we don’t know what truth is. Ergo, we enter the hermeneutic circle with as much openness as possible only guided by the subject matter of the fact itself.

Only a joker would lie about his opinion and that's a fact


So if someone is a “joker” then we can dismiss his claim about facts? In other words, the modern objection and universal cheep escape clause: “ad hominem” must be wholly set aside. How do we, however, know when we have a “joker” on our hands?


My opinion about fact is Climate Change is fact because of the consensus of opinion, but wrong.


Here there is a distinction to be made between expert opinion of scientists, and Scientific facts. The latter relies on the accuracy of quantifiable demonstration. Which, in the case of a one-time future event, can only be given ,at best, probabilistically. Strictly speaking, no scientific fact can be given here concerning future happening.


In law, I'm pretty sure that fact is up to the jury to decide (consensus of opinion). Maybe Carleas can validate that.


Fact is opposed to law there. I.e., interpretation or construal of the law. Accessory after the fact means: after the act. Act means a voluntary, ergo, a culpable deed.

What is fact? One thing or many?
Last edited by Guide on Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:10 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Guide
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:20 am

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby Guide » Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:07 pm

Guide wrote:

The truth about what? In particular, in other words. Or, for some, is it always the truth about that which serious philosophers must mean when "conceptually" they discuss the truth about anything?


The group is not sure it understands this. What does concept first mean? If we seriously ask that, are we not already philosophizing? What does it mean for Plato (the first grand self-conscious philosopher and synthesizer of what had recently come to be called philosophizing) to philosophize? People are using a word, e.g., truth, and one notices it and inquiries into it. This is analogous to walking, and noticing one walks, and then considering the features of walking. One notices various things, and most of all, that something is being generally called walking. It is found here, and then there, and again—a pattern! The concept is the awakening awareness of what is already happening (or, what seems to have already been happening through the lense of the conception of the concept). Yet, the pattern of the pattern is the only perfect pattern. Its coming to be noticed is the mystery of raising the eyes which one has long been used to calling philosophy.


I ask you to embed that which you construe to be the "conceptual" meaning of "truth" into that which unfolds when [existentially] different individuals come to conflicted understandings regarding what the truth is with respect to moral and political conflagrations out in the world that we live in. Instead, you take us straight back up into the scholastic clouds.


The group considers this answer unworthy. The group finds the group answering in empty rhetoric, unworthy of answer. This does not impress the group as an account of what was said, or what is happening in any serious sense.

If the group does not know that words mean something, it is at too low a level to discourse. The group is not paid to swaddle babies, or struggle without being paid with elements of the group who prefer idiocy to intelligence.

The group considers the depreciatory use of the word scholastic as a form of thoughtlessness. It indicates something wholly unknown is being discussed by the group, on the basis of a freighted reception of dumb stupidity derived from authority, and therefore something peculiarly unassailable and unavailable to intelligence and group discussion.


---
“My point doesn't revolve around what squirrels tell each other. It revolves around what we human beings tell each when we make that crucial distinction between hunters discussing the best way to kill animals and all the rest of us discussing whether the hunting and the killing of animals is a good thing or a bad thing.”


Can the group state the distinction being raised here? The group does not find this obvious. Squirrels make noises, humans make noises. The noise seems to do something. How does one show the difference?
Last edited by Guide on Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Guide
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:20 am

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby iambiguous » Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:09 pm

Serendipper wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Seriously, are his points here actually worth pursuing?

Pursue them if it's fun to pursue them. "Worth" implies some goal you're working towards and I couldn't ascertain "worth" before knowing what your goal is.


My goal [these days] is ever and always the same:

When someone notes things like...

Because of the issue in Dostoevsky's Devils. The freedom to interpret (the either / or) comes up against the stone, the man-god is not wholly sublime. Ergo, not wholly superior to the terrible and unpleasant forces which show him how little he is worth.

...all I am basically interested in is the extent to which this point reflects some measure of human autonomy. And, if it does, what are the existential implications germane to that which is of most interest to me: how ought one to live in a world bursting at the seams with conflicting goods?

Now, if "human freedom" here is essentially a self-delusion rooted in a mind rooted in a brain rooted in laws immutably applicable to all matter, then nothing that any of us post here was ever going to be anything other than that which it could only ever have been: what in fact it is. Period.

Then we go from there to whatever brought into existence the existence of existence itself.

But [admittedly] part of my psychology [rooted in dasein] has predisposed [driven] me to pursue polemics. And part of this is "fun" in the sense that deconstructing objectivists is "entertainment" for me.

Some of these folks have spent literally years constructing these complex and convoluted "intellectual contraptions". Things like "value ontology". Then they bump into me and I start in on tinkering with them. Maybe even take them apart.

And we all know the manner in which some of them react to that.

Then to me.

Why do I do this?

Well, there's this:

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

And [no doubt] there's the part revolving around the fact that I no longer have access myself to the "psychology of objectivism". I am no longer able to sustain the sort of "comfort and consolation" embedded in that frame of mind convinced it is in touch with the "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do".

So -- consciously? subconsciously? unconsciously? -- I have come to truly envy those who still do. And there's a part of me that goes after this.

But that's just the sort of speculation built into "I" here as an existential contraption. I can never really know for certain what makes "me" tick here. There are far too many pieces [going all the way back to my birth] hopelessly entangled in far too many contexts that are surely beyond either my complete understanding or my control.

What I do however is to suggest that this sort of thing -- the fractured and fragmented "I" -- is applicable to all of us. Some are just more aware of it than others.

Unless of course I'm wrong. But how [using the tools of philosophy] would I or others go about establishing that?

………………………………………..

On the other hand, some of the stuff that folks like Guide write here borders on gibberish to me. It's so fucking unintelligible at times I'm thinking that maybe he/she really is just putting me on. Just yanking my chain.

So, sure, the joke may well be on me.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26068
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby Serendipper » Wed Aug 15, 2018 5:27 am

iambiguous wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Seriously, are his points here actually worth pursuing?

Pursue them if it's fun to pursue them. "Worth" implies some goal you're working towards and I couldn't ascertain "worth" before knowing what your goal is.


My goal [these days] is ever and always the same:

When someone notes things like...

Because of the issue in Dostoevsky's Devils. The freedom to interpret (the either / or) comes up against the stone, the man-god is not wholly sublime. Ergo, not wholly superior to the terrible and unpleasant forces which show him how little he is worth.

The Joker is essential in a monarchy and tasked with reminding the king of his mortality lest he become too full of himself. The king wanted a ring that would restrain him in prosperity and support him in adversity, so the jeweler inscribed "It shall pass". :)

...all I am basically interested in is the extent to which this point reflects some measure of human autonomy. And, if it does, what are the existential implications germane to that which is of most interest to me: how ought one to live in a world bursting at the seams with conflicting goods?

It's fun to discover how one ought to live because invariably it's discovered that one ought to live in a way that is fun, otherwise what is the purpose of living? "Fun" is just a placeholder for the purposeless.

Now, if "human freedom" here is essentially a self-delusion rooted in a mind rooted in a brain rooted in laws immutably applicable to all matter, then nothing that any of us post here was ever going to be anything other than that which it could only ever have been: what in fact it is. Period.

Laws? That's an objective thing, right? Laws require an authority to enforce, but what happens in nature just happens and if it happens regularly, we presuppose they are laws. If the universe is inherently random and we rewind it to the beginning, it would almost certainly unfold in some other way. It's the lack of purpose that gives the universe purpose. If everything had a purpose; a destiny; a determination, then what would the purpose be for having the show? It would be a fatuous waste of energy and much easier to have had nothing.

Then we go from there to whatever brought into existence the existence of existence itself.

But [admittedly] part of my psychology [rooted in dasein] has predisposed [driven] me to pursue polemics. And part of this is "fun" in the sense that deconstructing objectivists is "entertainment" for me.

Some of these folks have spent literally years constructing these complex and convoluted "intellectual contraptions". Things like "value ontology". Then they bump into me and I start in on tinkering with them. Maybe even take them apart.

But is that really fun or vanity? Or is vanity fun? Is playing the game fun or is winning fun because that's part of a larger game?

And we all know the manner in which some of them react to that.

Yes it's never fun to be wrong.

Then to me.

Why do I do this?

Well, there's this:

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

And [no doubt] there's the part revolving around the fact that I no longer have access myself to the "psychology of objectivism". I am no longer able to sustain the sort of "comfort and consolation" embedded in that frame of mind convinced it is in touch with the "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do".

If you truly feel there is no "right thing to do", then what you do cannot be predicated on what is "right". You just do what you do because that is what you do. Self reflection on the matter is taking an engineering view of the universe that everything must have a purpose.

So -- consciously? subconsciously? unconsciously? -- I have come to truly envy those who still do. And there's a part of me that goes after this.

But that's just the sort of speculation built into "I" here as an existential contraption. I can never really know for certain what makes "me" tick here. There are far too many pieces [going all the way back to my birth] hopelessly entangled in far too many contexts that are surely beyond either my complete understanding or my control.

What I do however is to suggest that this sort of thing -- the fractured and fragmented "I" -- is applicable to all of us. Some are just more aware of it than others.

Unless of course I'm wrong. But how [using the tools of philosophy] would I or others go about establishing that?

At least you can articulate the problem!


On the other hand, some of the stuff that folks like Guide write here borders on gibberish to me. It's so fucking unintelligible at times I'm thinking that maybe he/she really is just putting me on. Just yanking my chain.

So, sure, the joke may well be on me.

I don't understand his talking in the 3rd person, but I suppose that is just what Guide does.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1012
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby Serendipper » Wed Aug 15, 2018 6:05 am

Guide wrote:We don’t know what a fact is, so all we can do is investigate.

Fact is whatever you want it to be because fact is the consensus of your opinion. You are the source of authority for all information that you buy.

Such a presupposition, directive of the seeking, would exclude the possiblity of genuine investigation.

What is genuine investigation? What is genuine anything?

One could say, we seek the truth about the fact, though, there too, we make a difficulty. Since we don’t know what truth is. Ergo, we enter the hermeneutic circle with as much openness as possible only guided by the subject matter of the fact itself.

How the heck did you learn a word such as hermeneutic? lol

The truth about the truth is there is no truth and that's a fact! ;)

Only a joker would lie about his opinion and that's a fact


So if someone is a “joker” then we can dismiss his claim about facts?

Is there a way to differentiate whether the joker lies or speaks truth?

In other words, the modern objection and universal cheep escape clause: “ad hominem” must be wholly set aside. How do we, however, know when we have a “joker” on our hands?

This reminds me of those logic problems from school that this man is a lair and this man tells the truth, so what question would you ask to determine which is which? But the joker is neither wholly a liar nor speaker of truth.

My opinion about fact is Climate Change is fact because of the consensus of opinion, but wrong.


Here there is a distinction to be made between expert opinion of scientists, and Scientific facts. The latter relies on the accuracy of quantifiable demonstration. Which, in the case of a one-time future event, can only be given ,at best, probabilistically. Strictly speaking, no scientific fact can be given here concerning future happening.

Repeatable demonstration doesn't guarantee anything. If you flip a coin 1,000,000 times and always get heads, that doesn't mean you won't get tails the next time. The authority ultimately relies upon you... are you going to believe the demonstration or not?

In law, I'm pretty sure that fact is up to the jury to decide (consensus of opinion). Maybe Carleas can validate that.


Fact is opposed to law there. I.e., interpretation or construal of the law. Accessory after the fact means: after the act. Act means a voluntary, ergo, a culpable deed.

No, what I meant was the jury would decide things that are not a matter of law, such as whether certain evidence is fact. If a cop doesn't use his radar to gauge your speed, but paces your car with his car instead, is that valid evidence of a crime? Someone has to decide if the evidence is fact or opinion.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1012
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Wed Aug 15, 2018 1:27 pm

To iambiguous:

Regarding the quote about Dostoyevski. I have an answer for you, by way of some lines from a poem from a movie I really liked. "Do not go silently into the night!"

If these cruel forces exist, and are bigger than you, fight them to the death. Make some noise. Meekness is a self evident dead end.
Nothing for its own sake.
Pedro I Rengel
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby Guide » Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:18 pm

Guide wrote:We don’t know what a fact is, so all we can do is investigate.

Fact is whatever you want it to be because fact is the consensus of your opinion. You are the source of authority for all information that you buy.

The group says give an example so we can see in action what the group wants to say. This is too confused with nothingness or super-vague.

Such a presupposition, directive of the seeking, would exclude the possiblity of genuine investigation.

What is genuine investigation? What is genuine anything?



Investigation guided by the subject matter itself rather than a preconceived aim.

One could say, we seek the truth about the fact, though, there too, we make a difficulty. Since we don’t know what truth is. Ergo, we enter the hermeneutic circle with as much openness as possible only guided by the subject matter of the fact itself.


How the heck did you learn a word such as hermeneutic? lol

The truth about the truth is there is no truth and that's a fact!


The group says this is unworthy of answer, due to being too flippant and lacking in substance.



Only a joker would lie about his opinion and that's a fact
So if someone is a “joker” then we can dismiss his claim about facts?

Is there a way to differentiate whether the joker lies or speaks truth?



The group says, that is a matter one might investigate. In the group's experience, often this is possible. One can do it with respect to one's own views. At first, would the issue be the question of whether the truth is spoken,where truth is said in contradistinction to a interested deception or lie?


In other words, the modern objection and universal cheep escape clause: “ad hominem” must be wholly set aside. How do we, however, know when we have a “joker” on our hands?

This reminds me of those logic problems from school that this man is a lair and this man tells the truth, so what question would you ask to determine which is which? But the joker is neither wholly a liar nor speaker of truth.

My opinion about fact is Climate Change is fact because of the consensus of opinion, but wrong.





Here there is a distinction to be made between expert opinion of scientists, and Scientific facts. The latter relies on the accuracy of quantifiable demonstration. Which, in the case of a one-time future event, can only be given ,at best, probabilistically. Strictly speaking, no scientific fact can be given here concerning future happening.

Repeatable demonstration doesn't guarantee anything. If you flip a coin 1,000,000 times and always get heads, that doesn't mean you won't get tails the next time. The authority ultimately relies upon you... are you going to believe the demonstration or not?



The group says this is true, but decidedly off piste. The issue the group raises is the distinction between reliable repeatability and expert commentary without reliable repeatability. Is the group claiming to reject certain findings on the basis of doubts about the regularity of nature and thereby, of inductive reliance?

In law, I'm pretty sure that fact is up to the jury to decide (consensus of opinion). Maybe Carleas can validate that.


Fact is opposed to law there. I.e., interpretation or construal of the law. Accessory after the fact means: after the act. Act means a voluntary, ergo, a culpable deed.

No, what I meant was the jury would decide things that are not a matter of law, such as whether certain evidence is fact. If a cop doesn't use his radar to gauge your speed, but paces your car with his car instead, is that valid evidence of a crime? Someone has to decide if the evidence is fact or opinion.


Whether the actions alleged truly took place is a question about the opinion (of the jurors) concerning the truthfulness or falsity of the testimony. The deeds themselves are not either fact or opinion. They are true or false.

Since they are one time events they can not be tested, and are never facts in the sense of scientific facts: of what is reliable and repeatable concerning what happens when given conditions or circumstances are present.

The older and the recent scientific meaning of fact (action), and fact (demonstrable reliability) are blurred in our time.
Guide
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:20 am

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:37 pm

Guide wrote:Fact is whatever you want it to be because fact is the consensus of your opinion.

Sadly there is no consensus on THIS opinion. Some believe this, some do not.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 786
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby Guide » Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:13 pm

Fact is whatever you want it to be because fact is the consensus of your opinion.

Sadly there is no consensus on THIS opinion. Some believe this, some do not.


This is a wrong attribution. That was a citation of another group member. Already somewhat discussed above. Stemming from the first page of this thread.
Guide
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:20 am

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby Serendipper » Fri Aug 17, 2018 6:52 am

Guide wrote:
What is genuine investigation? What is genuine anything?

Investigation guided by the subject matter itself rather than a preconceived aim.


Well, what is the subject matter itself? That's subject-ive, no? So what is genuine?

The truth about the truth is there is no truth and that's a fact!


The group says this is unworthy of answer, due to being too flippant and lacking in substance.


I am unworthy :bow-blue: Authority? Who are you to say there is no substance? ;)

This is serious business here! No flippancy lest ye be making thine appointment with the gallows on the morrow! :royalty-king:

There is no truth because there is no abstract existence for it to exist. Truth is a concept that exists as a property of another concept. Truth is something conveyed and discerned (subject / object).

It is raining.

I look outside and indeed it is raining, so the statement is true.

It is raining.

I look outside and it is not raining, so the statement carries no truth.

The statement is the same in both cases but only carries truth relative to discernment. It's like the emission and reception of a photon being the same event and likewise the emission of truth and reception of truth is the same event. There is no abstract truth just like there is no abstract photon.

Is there a way to differentiate whether the joker lies or speaks truth?


One can do it with respect to one's own views.


Truth with respect to one's own views is not necessarily truth.

Repeatable demonstration doesn't guarantee anything. If you flip a coin 1,000,000 times and always get heads, that doesn't mean you won't get tails the next time. The authority ultimately relies upon you... are you going to believe the demonstration or not?


The group says this is true, but decidedly off piste. The issue the group raises is the distinction between reliable repeatability and expert commentary without reliable repeatability.


There is no objective distinction. Repeatability carries no more weight than expert commentary. In science, no matter how well substantiated your theory is, it will always be a theory. You could measure the speed of light 1000 times and all you can say is "I measured light 1000 times and got c each time." You can't say the speed of light is always and forever c. So it doesn't matter if you repeat the experiment a million times or rely on expert commentary because no objective claim can ever be made.

Is the group claiming to reject certain findings on the basis of doubts about the regularity of nature and thereby, of inductive reliance?

The only regularity is change. If you assert regularity as objective and eternal, then it's abstract and not relational and therefore not included in our universe. But if regularity is a part of this universe, then it's relational and codependent and therefore in constant state of flux or change (a regularity is itself part of a larger regularity and therefore becomes irregular).

No, what I meant was the jury would decide things that are not a matter of law, such as whether certain evidence is fact. If a cop doesn't use his radar to gauge your speed, but paces your car with his car instead, is that valid evidence of a crime? Someone has to decide if the evidence is fact or opinion.


Whether the actions alleged truly took place is a question about the opinion (of the jurors) concerning the truthfulness or falsity of the testimony. The deeds themselves are not either fact or opinion. They are true or false.

Since they are one time events they can not be tested, and are never facts in the sense of scientific facts: of what is reliable and repeatable concerning what happens when given conditions or circumstances are present.

The older and the recent scientific meaning of fact (action), and fact (demonstrable reliability) are blurred in our time.


You're still assuming that repeatability lends credibility for the substantiation of scientific fact as superior to a consensus of opinion. Repeatability is still your opinion that repeatability will continue to be repeatable and a cacophony of fuddy-duddies in accord that such regularity exists is no different from a jury or any other consensus of opinion on any other matter; fact is merely consensus of opinion.

I think it's a terrible mistake and profound malpractice to ardently regard scientific fact as truth or law which could only rely upon authority to enforce because it reduces science to religion minus the god. The first law of science is: there are no laws! There are only observed regularities that may stop being regular at any moment and we have no reason to believe otherwise.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1012
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Fri Aug 17, 2018 7:01 am

Guide wrote:
Fact is whatever you want it to be because fact is the consensus of your opinion.

Sadly there is no consensus on THIS opinion. Some believe this, some do not.


This is a wrong attribution. That was a citation of another group member. Already somewhat discussed above. Stemming from the first page of this thread.

The group learns, the group is clearly not concerned about attributions, but with questioning.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 786
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby iambiguous » Sat Aug 18, 2018 7:48 pm

Guide wrote:

The truth about what? In particular, in other words. Or, for some, is it always the truth about that which serious philosophers must mean when "conceptually" they discuss the truth about anything?


The group is not sure it understands this. What does concept first mean? If we seriously ask that, are we not already philosophizing? What does it mean for Plato (the first grand self-conscious philosopher and synthesizer of what had recently come to be called philosophizing) to philosophize? People are using a word, e.g., truth, and one notices it and inquiries into it. This is analogous to walking, and noticing one walks, and then considering the features of walking. One notices various things, and most of all, that something is being generally called walking. It is found here, and then there, and again—a pattern! The concept is the awakening awareness of what is already happening (or, what seems to have already been happening through the lense of the conception of the concept). Yet, the pattern of the pattern is the only perfect pattern. Its coming to be noticed is the mystery of raising the eyes which one has long been used to calling philosophy.


Note to others:

Back again to this: Is "the group" here just a device used to expose those that I too am exposing in my own rendition of Will Durant's "epistemologists"?

What do you think? Should we take him literally? Seriously? Are you convinced that he really does believe what he thinks he means about "the group" here?

Or, sure, is this all just another excursion into pedantry? And is that meant to be ironic as well?

Otherwise...

It's just more scholastic gibberish in my view. Sure, go to the dictionary and look up the definition [the meaning] of "concept". Read philosophers down through the ages in order to assess what "the great minds" have concluded [logically, epistemologically] about human "concepts".

But sooner or later these technical skills are going to be assigned the task of assessing the extent to which "Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the human" as an abstract argument is in sync with human autonomy out in a world where concepts like "freedom" and "justice" precipitate ferocious moral and political conflagrations.

To speak of "freedom" and "justice" as concepts revolves around this:

"A concept is a mental abstraction which allows generalization and the extension of knowledge from some known objects to others unknown. It integrates two or more particulars into a common mental unit."

But take this abstraction out into the world and we'll find some who assume they are choosing autonomously to allow women the right [the freedom] to abort their unborn babies while others assume they are choosing autonomously to allow all unborn babies the right [the freedom] to live.

What then does "freedom" and "justice" mean here from the perspective of the "serious philosopher"? And how "for all practical purposes" are actual flesh and blood human beings to make the most of these concepts when their values do come into conflict?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26068
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sat Aug 18, 2018 8:12 pm

The group found the group's intervention tl and dr. It noticed an unpleasant pedantry in the first lines. So maybe it was just that.
Nothing for its own sake.
Pedro I Rengel
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby iambiguous » Sat Aug 18, 2018 8:45 pm

Serendipper wrote:
...all I am basically interested in is the extent to which this point reflects some measure of human autonomy. And, if it does, what are the existential implications germane to that which is of most interest to me: how ought one to live in a world bursting at the seams with conflicting goods?

It's fun to discover how one ought to live because invariably it's discovered that one ought to live in a way that is fun, otherwise what is the purpose of living? "Fun" is just a placeholder for the purposeless.


Of course "fun" here [in an essentially meaningless No God world] is no less an existential contraption. What is construed to be "fun" for one particular "I", may well be anything but "fun" for another.

So we are still faced with estsablishing rules of behavior in any particular human community such that these rules become the existential embodiment of one or another complex combination of 1] right makes might 2] might makes right and 3] moderation, negotiation and compromise.

Which, from my frame of mind, are embedded historically and culturally in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

But then this part:

Now, if "human freedom" here is essentially a self-delusion rooted in a mind rooted in a brain rooted in laws immutably applicable to all matter, then nothing that any of us post here was ever going to be anything other than that which it could only ever have been: what in fact it is. Period.


Serendipper wrote:Laws? That's an objective thing, right? Laws require an authority to enforce, but what happens in nature just happens and if it happens regularly, we presuppose they are laws. If the universe is inherently random and we rewind it to the beginning, it would almost certainly unfold in some other way. It's the lack of purpose that gives the universe purpose. If everything had a purpose; a destiny; a determination, then what would the purpose be for having the show? It would be a fatuous waste of energy and much easier to have had nothing.


Yes, this is one way in which to think about it. But there are hundreds and hundreds of other ways in turn. And, to the best of my knowledge, none of us are able to demonstrate that 1] their own assessment reflects an optimal understanding of the "human condition" or that 2] their assessment here and now is in fact the embodiment of an autonomous freedom to choose this assessment over any other.

Then we go from there to whatever brought into existence the existence of existence itself.

But [admittedly] part of my psychology [rooted in dasein] has predisposed [driven] me to pursue polemics. And part of this is "fun" in the sense that deconstructing objectivists is "entertainment" for me.

Some of these folks have spent literally years constructing these complex and convoluted "intellectual contraptions". Things like "value ontology". Then they bump into me and I start in on tinkering with them. Maybe even take them apart.

Serendipper wrote:But is that really fun or vanity? Or is vanity fun? Is playing the game fun or is winning fun because that's part of a larger game?


How on earth could I possibly discern with any degree of precision where one stops and the other begins? If I construe "I" here as a propoundly problematinc existential contraption, there seems to be no way in which I can get around this. No way in which to acquire an objective understanding of my own motivations and intentions. That would seem to be all scrambled up in the enormously complex interplay of all the variables from all the experiences I have ever had/known going back to my birth.

Even if someone were hired to videotape my entire life from then to now there would still be any number of factors that would be missed.

Serendipper wrote:If you truly feel there is no "right thing to do", then what you do cannot be predicated on what is "right". You just do what you do because that is what you do. Self reflection on the matter is taking an engineering view of the universe that everything must have a purpose.


And yet, over and again, I note that even this assumption is no less an existential contraption. There may well be the right thing to do. There may well be a God. There may well be a deontological philosophical assessment out there that I have just not come across yet. There may well be a way to determine if this exchange itself is only ever as it could have been.

Instead, I take a particular subjective/subjunctive leap [from day to day] on a particular trajectory, presuming some measure of autonomy, and I live my life stumbling about amidst so much that I either do not know or cannot know.

And then the part about oblivion.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26068
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Serendipper