42
   

Destroy My Belief System, Please!

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Wed 7 May, 2014 05:33 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

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


There is no contradiction there.

You are simply being stone-headed about insisting there are contradictions...or is a contradiction.

But that sorta is the way you operate, Olivier.

I say I am enjoying this give and take...and want to discuss things.

You tell me you think it is just mumbo jumbo and you don't think it ought to be given the courtesy of any response.

BUT HERE WE ARE...DISCUSSING IT...and have been for weeks without end. Daily...hourly...minute by minute.

Can you figure a way to declare victory with that state of affairs continuing?


Olivier5
 
  1  
Wed 7 May, 2014 06:06 pm
@Frank Apisa,
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.

That is sooo like you, Frank. Always the helpful, transparent, courageous poster... ;-)

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?



Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Thu 8 May, 2014 04:23 am
@Olivier5,
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.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Thu 8 May, 2014 04:40 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

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


You have not won anything. But since it makes your life seem better to you, I do not mind you deluding yourself into thinking you have. Wink


Quote:
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.


One...there is no contradiction...which is the reason you are not pointing it out.

Two...I suspect you do not know what "everyone else" on this board thinks about this.

Three...as I said earlier...declaring victory is a hard habit to break. (But it is amusing to see someone stuck in that rut.)


Quote:
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.


There are few things funnier than someone like you who thinks he is so able...when he is so unable.

Find the qualifier...which I put out there earlier. If not...don't.

Like I said, I am happy to be here...delighted to speak with you...while you claim I am not worth your bother.

BUT HERE WE ARE...doing it.

You have managed to become a loser...even without being in a contest.


That is sooo like you, Frank. Always the helpful, transparent, courageous poster... ;-)


I agree. I am all of those. And even though you are saying what you say in scorn...I accept it.


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


I am not asking you to guess it. I told you I already gave it to you. But you just ignore stuff like that...so I am not going to play your game.

I might suggest though that you simply put your mind to work...and think of a scenario that makes my two statements completely consistent without bothering to look. It is easy enough to do. If you are as smart and able to "destroy" arguments as you suppose you are.
All you have to do is to think of a qualifier that makes "I do not know the true nature much, if anything, about the ultimate REALITY” compatible with “With the qualifier, I do know many things.”

I’ll even give you a hint about it, since despite me being beneath your efforts, you are still here.

I am willing to say that I know I am at my computer keyboard typing right now; I am willing to say that I know the name on my birth certificate is Frank Apisa; I know that I also am willing to say that Earth is a planet circling the star Sol (as you did).

Most of that was part of the qualifier I gave when I first wrote it for you.





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


See above.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Thu 8 May, 2014 05:48 am
@Ding an Sich,
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".
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Thu 8 May, 2014 06:21 am
@Ding an Sich,
Ding an Sich wrote:

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.


Thank you for this, Ding.

0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Thu 8 May, 2014 06:23 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

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".


It may be...which supposes it may not be.


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


Quote:
Philosophers disagree with each other often.


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



Surely a genius like you can come up with a better insult than that. This one is laughable...amateurish, at best.

fresco
 
  2  
Thu 8 May, 2014 06:30 am
@Frank Apisa,
Okay here's an alternative.

At least Doris was better looking than you and probably a better singer !
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Thu 8 May, 2014 06:39 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Okay here's an alternative.

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

I'll buy it, Fresco.

Doris was definitely better looking than I...and most assuredly a better singer.

I've never chanced it, but I suspect that if I tried singing at one of those Karaoke clubs...I might be the first person ever ejected from one.
0 Replies
 
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Thu 8 May, 2014 08:03 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

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".



I agree to some extent. I'm far more content with saying, "As far as we know, the universe operates in such and such a way. I have no evidence to the contrary, so I will stick with it for now."

I also agree that the ding-an-sich is vacuous, but that's because my epistemology has changed since I rejected Kantian thought.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Thu 8 May, 2014 08:38 am
@Ding an Sich,
This is a marvelously balanced and thoughtful post. But I do find some sense in the totally open "whatever." And I sense that everything we say about the cosmos is finally "anthropomorphic" in that it cannot help but consist of (linguistic or mathematical) projections of our own nature onto that with which we have no conscious familiarity. The paradox for me is that this "mystery" is our ultimate nature even if it also requires flavoring by our projections. This is the contribution of mysticism.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Thu 8 May, 2014 08:42 am
@Ding an Sich,
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).

Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Thu 8 May, 2014 08:47 am
@Olivier5,
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.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Thu 8 May, 2014 09:22 am
@Ding an Sich,
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.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Thu 8 May, 2014 09:28 am
@Ding an Sich,
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!
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Thu 8 May, 2014 09:31 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

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.


Terrible try! And no cigar.

Take the two statements you say are contradictory...and explain what you see as contradictory.

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

Although, watching you try these amateur devises is entertaining. I do give you that...you entertain.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Thu 8 May, 2014 09:36 am
@Frank Apisa,
I just love the fact that Olivier claims my comments are not articulate or clear...and are not worth any further attention...

...and then just obsesses over my comments.

My guess is about half of all the comments he has made in the last week or two have been directed to me...or were about me and my comments..

Must be discomforting to have to live with that, Olivier.

But I am enjoying my banter with you...and will be here for as long as you have the obsession. I'm here for ya! Even after your next (snicker!) claim of destruction and victory.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Thu 8 May, 2014 09:39 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
You ought really to stop saying that I am saying that I "know a lot" and "very little."

You did say that, though.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 8 May, 2014 09:42 am
@Olivier5,
How does anyone have a discussion with somebody who writes something that can be proved by cut and paste, then denies he ever said it? Frankie boys merry-go-round is endless, because he doesn't know what he's saying from one post to the next. LOL

Logic 101, anyone?
0 Replies
 
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Thu 8 May, 2014 09:52 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

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!



What's your position then? And no, I am not going to scour A2K looking for it.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 02/02/2023 at 02:57:51