Destroy My Belief System, Please!

There are there for everyone to see. YOU don't SEE them, that's all.

You have a bad temper and no patience whatsoever. I have tried to understand your mumbo jumbo with far more openness that you deserve, and far more than you will ever display... If you don't even have the courage to articulate and defend your position, why should anyone else bother about them?

Either you know many things about reality, or you don't. Which one is it?

Here are your precious precious quotes:

Quote:

I do not know much, if anything, about the ultimate REALITY

http://able2know.org/topic/232727-28#post-5655729

Quote:

With the qualifier, I do know many things.

http://able2know.org/topic/232727-32#post-5657218

I've actually won a series of arguments against you. You're blissfully unaware of it. Ignorance is bliss, they say.

It's like not being able to see a glaring contradiction... A very convenient blindness. But everybody else on this board sees the contradiction. So you lost already.

The reason you don't know it, is that you clinch to an illusion. Which is that your mysterious "qualifier" will save your ass. But of course you have courageously run away from telling me WHAT THIS MYSTERIOUS QUALIFIER IS... And I strongly suspect that it's because you wet your pants at the idea that I WILL tear it down as soon as you find the resolve to pull it out of your arse.

Of course, I can try to guess what it is... is this what you want me to do?

Should I go out of my way to guess what YOUR argument is?

The ultimate reality may be composed of waves, particles, or whatever,

Olivier5 wrote:

You have a bad temper and no patience whatsoever. I have tried to understand your mumbo jumbo with far more openness that you deserve, and far more than you will ever display... If you don't even have the courage to articulate and defend your position, why should anyone else bother about them?

Either you know many things about reality, or you don't. Which one is it?

Here are your precious precious quotes:

Quote:

I do not know much, if anything, about the ultimate REALITY

http://able2know.org/topic/232727-28#post-5655729

Quote:

With the qualifier, I do know many things.

http://able2know.org/topic/232727-32#post-5657218

Actually, Frank's position makes sense. He knows that whatever exists has identity, that is, it is what it is, but he doesn't know what that is exactly. He knows the form and not the content, so to speak. No contradiction there.

The ultimate reality may be composed of waves, particles, or whatever, but that's what physics, and other sciences, tackle. Philosophy will only tell you so much about the world; the other arts and sciences will help you out with the rest.

So, Frank can know many things about the world around him, while not knowing ultimately the true nature of existence. This is how most people operate. And, honestly, it's fine.

Imo, Frank is right on this one. As for the rest of his philosophy, I'm not so sure.

Quote:

The ultimate reality may be composed of waves, particles, or whatever,

On the other hand the term "ultimate reality" may be a baseless conjecture about hypothetical limits to sub-analysis, or anthropomorphic wish fulfillment for the security of a "closure cocoon", a quality often ascribed to a "deity".

(As previously discussed the expression "Ding-an-Sich" is thought by many philosophers to be vacuous).

Philosophers disagree with each other often.

Frank's belief system is predicated on the assumption that the nebulous term "whatever", makes "sense".

Okay here's an alternative.

At least Doris was better looking than you and probably a better singer !

Quote:

The ultimate reality may be composed of waves, particles, or whatever,

On the other hand the term "ultimate reality" may be a baseless conjecture about hypothetical limits to sub-analysis, or anthropomorphic wish fulfillment for the security of a "closure cocoon", a quality often ascribed to a "deity".
(As previously discussed the expression "Ding-an-Sich" is thought by many philosophers to be vacuous).

Frank's belief system is predicated on the assumption that the nebulous term "whatever", makes "sense".

So, Frank can know many things about the world around him, while not knowing ultimately the true nature of existence. This is how most people operate. And, honestly, it's fine. 

Quote:

So, Frank can know many things about the world around him, while not knowing ultimately the true nature of existence. This is how most people operate. And, honestly, it's fine. 

It's fine if that's what he says. But is it? I tried to nudge him this way, but he said that "ultimate" is redundant in the phrase "ultimate reality", and thus he knows very little if anything about REALITY...

He is NOT saying that in some topics he knows a lot, and in others he knows little... That would be ok (if banal).

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:

So, Frank can know many things about the world around him, while not knowing ultimately the true nature of existence. This is how most people operate. And, honestly, it's fine. 

It's fine if that's what he says. But is it? I tried to nudge him this way, but he said that "ultimate" is redundant in the phrase "ultimate reality", and thus he knows very little if anything about REALITY...

He is NOT saying that in some topics he knows a lot, and in others he knows little... That would be ok (if banal).

If that's the case, then his position is... well.. crippling.

Contradictory - there's no better word for a guy who says that he BOTH knows a lot and very little.

I am ready to admit that some posters cannot express themselves very clearly when dealing with metaphysics or epistemology, so I am giving him that space to rephrase and reflect on his (often poorly described) ideas, but he has not been willing to do so. E.g. I suggested that his "ultimate reality" could be the world of noumena described by Kant as inaccessible. He said no to that, dropping the word "ultimate" as useless, and I suspect that's because he didn't have a clue how to define it...

Now, perhaps because he knows he can't express himself very well, he is asking me to guess what his argument is... Figure that!

His "qualifier" is probably his "philosopher's bench" aka his "everyday life" proviso, that one cannot know anything in philosophy, but can know a lot in "every day life". Of course, philosophy is part of everyday life but that's beyond Frank. Frank approaches philosophy as I treat sudokus, as a frivolous pastime, not as something relevant to his life.

You ought really to stop saying that I am saying that I "know a lot" and "very little."

Ding an Sich wrote:

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:

So, Frank can know many things about the world around him, while not knowing ultimately the true nature of existence. This is how most people operate. And, honestly, it's fine. 

It's fine if that's what he says. But is it? I tried to nudge him this way, but he said that "ultimate" is redundant in the phrase "ultimate reality", and thus he knows very little if anything about REALITY...

He is NOT saying that in some topics he knows a lot, and in others he knows little... That would be ok (if banal).

If that's the case, then his position is... well.. crippling.

It is not the case at all, Ding...and I suspect Olivier knows that. Olivier is playing a game (not particularly well) in order to avoid having to explain his scorn for my "I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence."

In any case, the comments made earlier by JL...and extended by me...explain why the two statements he offered as contradictory...are not contradictory.

Not at all!

Since he paid so little attention earlier, he may have to do some work to catch up.

I am completely consistent in my remarks on this issue. It appears Olivier is not interested in that facet of the discussion...because he is (laughingly) trying to set up a position which he will eventually describe as having completely destroyed my argument...and then declare himself a winner of some kind. That is what he does.

If Olivier had a case at all...he would make it. He would point out what is contradictory about the comments...rather than just present them and then assert that they are contradictory on their face.

Hey...whatever floats your boat!