phyllo: You have to know everything about everything since the Big Bang in order to have any answers in philosophy.
K: this entire thread is a vast series of unproven assumptions for example,
our answers are not dependent upon the universe… the universe does not
offer us any answers per se… and quite often we answer the question
metaphysically, outside of the physical…which is independent of the universe…
P: Humans are insignificant specks compared to the vastness of the universe. Therefore humans can’t have any answers.
K: size has nothing to do with the “answers”… it doesn’t matter how vast the universe or how
we are insignificant specks… the "answers are not related to our size relationship to the
universe…
P: If your argument was that good then it would be all over the news. Since there is no news coverage, your argument isn’t any better than any other.
This philosophical problem has been discussed for thousands of years without reaching an answer. Therefore your answer can’t be right.
If you haven’t convinced me with your demonstrations, then you haven’t demonstrated your argument.
K: another series of assumptions… new coverage of any event means nothing…
when Nietzsche declared “god to be dead” it received no news coverage at all…
does that mean his argument is “no better then any other?” don’t mistake new coverage
for something having meaning or not having meaning…the same goes for a length of time
an argument has been around…it may have been already been solved… you just didn’t hear
about it…
P: Every philosophical problem has to have one optimal or one rational answer.
Everybody is obligated to accept the one answer.
K: simple not true…and how would you “know” the one optimal or rational answer?
there is nothing that suggest that we are “obligated” to accept one or more answers…
P; If there is no one answer, then all proposed answers are equally valid. Everyone is right.
[/quote]
K; another series of assumptions… maybe hold too less assumptions…
And human beings might not be insignificant specks in the vastness of all there is? Let alone any particular one of us? That’s a ludicrous thing to suggest?
But my point is to note the distinction between answers that can clearly be shown to encompass something as close as we now seem able to get to the objective truth and answers that seem rooted more in the points I raise in my signature threads regarding “I” in the is/ought world. And “I” groping to intertwine educated guesses and wild-ass guesses in regard to those ever fascinating [but still unresolved] Really Big Questions like solipsism, determinism, deism, QM, nothing instead of something etc.
Or doesn’t the vastness of all there is factor in there either?
Okay, let’s create a new thread in the philosophy forum. Choose a subject to discuss. And, as the exchange unfolds, we can compare and contrast our own conflicting understandings of chit chat and philosophy.
Philosophy offers logic and in that solutions, you offer opinions, namely your own as sufficient. I prefer to “chit chat” with those who recognize the value or lack there of, in those exchanges. Your exchanges lack both, philosophy and genuine “chit chat.” So, hard pass on your specious offer, but do polemically enjoy pestering the rest of ILP.
Of course I only bring this up in regard to really controversial subjects. Discussions relating to conflicting goods or to the really big questions. Clearly, if someone – a philosopher, a scientist – were able to establish definitively that capitalism was essentially more rational than socialism or that socialism was essentially more rational than capitalism, or that moral nihilism was in fact the most rational manner in which to understand human ethics, is there anyone here who would argue that it would not be Big News and discussed around the globe.
And my point isn’t that one theoretical construct is or is not better than any other, but that these theories have to be made applicable to actual flesh and blood human interactions; and then tested against each other “out in the world” in order to determine which “for all practical purposes” is the more reasonable and virtuous to embody.
You couldn’t be more naive. The world of influential people has no idea that you or this board even exists - and upon discovering it certainly wouldn’t search it out for possible good ideas - get some perspective mate. This is like a hand full of flees on a dog’s back arguing over global economic theories of the late 19th century.
Okay, so what are you doing here? Much less here to proclaim your ridiculous Coalition of Truth.
Right, and is there anyone here who doesn’t recognize that?
A handful of flees?
On the other hand, the fleas here are here for a reason. No one [to the best of my knowledge] forces them to be here. So, for whatever personal reason, being here is worthwhile.
Now, do you have something substantive to contribute to yet another thread in which I am the topic? Back up Phyllo if you can. Note [once again] your own objectivist accusations against me.
Or, sure, join your Coalition of Truth partner above in chit-chat mode.
I’m certainly not here to impress the world - expecting it to take note or change - regardless of any brilliant ideas I might run across.
You could be the President of the US and form peace in the Middle East - and still not get recognized for it.
“We” collectively - are here for our own entertainment and to let the observers know where we stand. These boards serve no other purpose. They don’t even spread propaganda effectively.
