Philosophy ILP style

iambiguous · September 8, 2021, 12:11am

The only thing more predictable than your paint by number philosophy is your attempt to be…clever? In that respect you’re even less adept than James S. Saint.

And that’s saying something.

Dan1 · September 8, 2021, 5:10am

There’s more to life than entertainment.

phyllo · September 8, 2021, 11:09am

obsrvr524:

iambiguous:

point 3:

phyllo:

“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.”

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.

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.

That’s beside the point.

References to amount of news coverage is a variation of the ad populum fallacy.

iambiguous · September 8, 2021, 3:11pm

Philosophy, ILP style these days?

iambiguous · September 8, 2021, 3:29pm

Point 4:

When have I ever said that any answer from any of us can’t be right? Instead, I speculate that in regard to objective morality or to God or to definitive assessments of the Really Big Questions, it does not appear [to me] that the Right Answer has been found by any of us. Unless, of course, someone here can link us to an answer relating to these things that has been accepted by philosophers and scientist and others as the final answer.

Instead, I make that crucial distinction between what someone believes the objective answer applicable to all of us is and their capacity to demonstrate this empirically, existentially relating to morality, God and the big questions.

iambiguous · September 10, 2021, 5:36pm

Point 5:

Here, of course, I can only ask him to note particular instances of this in our own exchanges. Instead, my argument revolves more around the suggestion that in regard to discussions that pertain to conflicting goods like Communism and abortion, both sides are able to note particular contexts that demonstrate their side of the conflict. Thus there are those able to cite examples of the good that Communism brought to their lives, while others are equally able to cite examples of the bad it brought them. Same with abortion. Allowing it is good for some, bad for others.

Now, where is the definitive demonstration [philosophical or otherwise] that establishes once and for all whether Communism and/or abortion are either inherently/necessarily good or bad?

Dan1 · September 12, 2021, 9:12am

iambiguous:

Point 2

phyllo:

Humans are insignificant specks compared to the vastness of the universe. Therefore humans can’t have any answers.

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?

The more vast reality is, the more chances there are of someone coming into existence and then realizing that reality and understanding it.

Dan1 · September 12, 2021, 9:47am

iambiguous:

Point 5:

phyllo:

If you haven’t convinced me with your demonstrations, then you haven’t demonstrated your argument.

Here, of course, I can only ask him to note particular instances of this in our own exchanges. Instead, my argument revolves more around the suggestion that in regard to discussions that pertain to conflicting goods like Communism and abortion, both sides are able to note particular contexts that demonstrate their side of the conflict. Thus there are those able to cite examples of the good that Communism brought to their lives, while others are equally able to cite examples of the bad it brought them. Same with abortion. Allowing it is good for some, bad for others.

Now, where is the definitive demonstration [philosophical or otherwise] that establishes once and for all whether Communism and/or abortion are either inherently/necessarily good or bad?

Not all truth is binary.

Why do you always use the argument that people disagree about something therefor it is not objective.

Sculptor · September 12, 2021, 1:15pm

If ILP was a fashion show…
youtube.com/watch?v=-U1Q3Mbklkk
If ILP were classical music…
youtube.com/watch?v=6KJGJRd8pGE
If ILP were cuisine…
youtube.com/watch?v=bTCQhMMfse0

phyllo · September 12, 2021, 1:43pm

How many know that they are using fallacies and logic errors?

How many don’t care?

How many are only interested in steamrolling their opponents? “Winning isn’t everything; it’s the only thing.”

WendyDarling · September 12, 2021, 2:04pm

How many fallacies are there?

Logic errors?

Do modern folks know how to be logical?

I’ve been told by science enthusiasts, that common sense observations cannot be applied to logic.

phyllo · September 12, 2021, 2:12pm

I don’t know since I blindly follow the authorities and I lack pragmatism and logic.

Anybody got an answer for Wendy?

WendyDarling · September 12, 2021, 2:14pm

True. You brought it up as if you know so I asked. No doubt there would have been disagreements.

iambiguous · September 12, 2021, 3:28pm

Dan~:

iambiguous:

Point 2

phyllo:

Humans are insignificant specks compared to the vastness of the universe. Therefore humans can’t have any answers.

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?

The more vast reality is, the more chances there are of someone coming into existence and then realizing that reality and understanding it.

Just not yet, right?

iambiguous · September 12, 2021, 3:32pm

Dan~:

iambiguous:

Point 5:

phyllo:

If you haven’t convinced me with your demonstrations, then you haven’t demonstrated your argument.

Here, of course, I can only ask him to note particular instances of this in our own exchanges. Instead, my argument revolves more around the suggestion that in regard to discussions that pertain to conflicting goods like Communism and abortion, both sides are able to note particular contexts that demonstrate their side of the conflict. Thus there are those able to cite examples of the good that Communism brought to their lives, while others are equally able to cite examples of the bad it brought them. Same with abortion. Allowing it is good for some, bad for others.

Now, where is the definitive demonstration [philosophical or otherwise] that establishes once and for all whether Communism and/or abortion are either inherently/necessarily good or bad?

Not all truth is binary.

Why do you always use the argument that people disagree about something therefor it is not objective.

Dan, I suspect you mean well, but there’s just no way I will commit more time to a discussion with you about anything. It’s simply a waste of time for both of us.

iambiguous · September 12, 2021, 3:39pm

Of course that just begs the question: What are you doing here?

Me? Well, over the past few years as ILP has devolved into whatever the hell it is now, I have done my best to keep the discussions at least in the general vicinity of philosophy:

How about you?

iambiguous · September 12, 2021, 3:43pm

Again: Let’s zero in on a particular context revolving around one or another conflicting good, commence a discussion, and, as the fallacies and errors in logic and outrages that I commit unfold, you two can point them out.

Instead we get Philosophy Wendy and Phyllo Style:

But it’s all just for “evil fun”, right Wendy?

Sculptor · September 12, 2021, 3:59pm

'aving a laff mostly!
And occaisonally there are one or two people who know what philosophy is; which is nice, as long as they do not confuse, accusing someone of being one of the 3 Stooges with an actual philosphical argument; or pretending to themselves that saying “note to nature” is a valid response to anything.

iambiguous · September 12, 2021, 4:14pm

Point 6:

First, we’ll need a context of course.

How about someone here noting a philosophical problem that is of particular interest to them.

You, perhaps?

So, in your view, does this problem have an optimal or an only rational resolution? Is it, perhaps, yours?

Okay, let’s hear it.

Me?

Well, I make what I construe to be an important distinction here.

Is it a problem that revolves basically around interactions in the either/or world? A problem where a solution can be either found or not found? And then in fact is or is not found?

Or is it moral conflict? The resolution of which I root in the existential intertwining of identity, value judgments and political economy. Or is it a problem that may well revolve around an either/or resolution, but is so staggeringly vast that [so far] no mere mortal has seemed to arrive at it. For example, why something and not nothing? Why this something and not another something? Is human will free? Is there a definitive answer regarding an understanding of the existence of existence itself?

iambiguous · September 12, 2021, 4:20pm

Note a context then. Preferably one that revolves around one or another conflicting good so as to zoom in on that which is of most interest to me philosophically: how ought one to live?

Or something that interest you instead.

You can note what an “actual philosophical argument” is and I can note [if necessary] what a Stooge is.