The Instigator
SeekingWisdom
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Kaneo
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Philosophy is Important

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/28/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 886 times Debate No: 53561
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

SeekingWisdom

Pro

Philosophy is still relevant. Science, as important and awesome as it is, does not, and cannot, address normative issues. There is no way to get to what we 'ought' to do, with science. What is right and what is wrong, in the area of human values, cannot be addressed by science. This is the domain of Philosophy.

Science matters. The rules and findings of science reinforce philosophy. Science affirms Aristotelian philosophy - that the natural world is knowable and that man has the ability to understand and know it. Philosophy matters! Sadly, most modern 'philosophy' is a mess. Descarte started the disaster by separating reason from the senses; Spinoza & Liebniz rejected that the senses contribute to knowledge; Locke & Hume denied reason and believed all knowledge was due to the senses; Kant, who attempted a synthesis of both, ended up believing that existence cannot be known in itself. Nietzsche's "will to power" as the ruling principle of all life, and his idea that life on earth has an absolute value is only one absurd 'conclusion" that stems from the forgoing philosophies. They all took philosophy on a roller coaster ride that set philosophy back centuries. Aristotelianism is the only philosophy to withstand the ages.

Aristotle, considered by many to the greatest mind the world has ever known, should be our starting point. He didn't get everything right but he put us on the right path.

Many of the errors in Philosophy are the result of "an attitude of antagonism toward or even contempt for the past - for the achievements of those who have come before." Contemporary philosophers are, for the most part, vastly ignorant of the great works of philosophical tradition prior to the 17th century." Going back to the "distinctions, insights, and formulations explicitly achieved in the tradition of Aristotle and Aquinas" [and others who have followed in this tradition], and identifying and correcting those errors has finally given us an objective philosophy based in reality that offers real world" value. A summary of this objective philosophy follows:

Truth and Practical Truth:

Truth is a correspondence with reality
Truth is Absolute- their are no degrees of Truth
Truth is Universal- true for all if true for one
Truth is Global- their are no cultural boundaries
Truth is Timeless- true now if ever true and true forever

Therefore, Truth is the standard of reference for Knowledge

Knowledge includes the following degrees:
- Self evident truths
- Evident truths
- Strong opinions
- Weak opinions

Philosophy tells us that since man alone uses reason to make judgments, Man's life is the standard of value." It tells us that we are all equally human (with different attributes, of course) and we therefore all have the same basic needs.

Judgements are about right & wrong, good & evil. What is needed is a "Practical Truth" that is also Universal, Absolute, Global & Timeless, or as close to them as possible.

Practical Truth is a correspondence with man's life
Practical Truth is Universal
Practical Truth is Absolute
Practical Truth is Global
Practical Truth is Timeless
Practical Truth is Unique?

Therefore, Practical Truth is the standard of reference for Values relevant to man.

The highest good is perfect being [of the individual]
Non-being is absolute evil

Values
A good life is a conformity with natural needs
Natural needs include:
- Basic needs- food, shelter, clothing, health, education, a "good" society, opportunity to be the best person possible, knowledge, purpose.

Wants (desires) on the other hand, are perfectly acceptable and healthy, as long as they can be fulfilled without interfering with basic needs (yours or anyone else's).

"Liberty, Equality & Justice are determined by standards based on [the above] practical truths and require a good society." Democracy is no accident - it was created for the "General Welfare."" Therefore, Government has the right, and an obligation, to serve the common good to insure that natural NEEDS (not 'wants') of the people"are met." This includes creating laws that regulate behavior to insure it is consistent with these goals.

Philosophy therefore, also tells us that the individual, and the societies that individuals create, are the Value that should be capitalisms guiding principle." Meeting the basic needs of individuals and the society is the minimum requirement." Denying any of these basic needs to any citizen should be unacceptable."

To summarize, philosophy is important because it is our only rational guide to what we ought to do, both on a personal level and on a societal level.

Sources: works by Mortimer J. Adler, especially "Little Errors in the Beginning" and "Six Great Ideas" (mostly derived from Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas and what is now classified as Philosophical (or Classical) Realism. (see also: What is Philosophical Realism? | The Moral Liberal)
Kaneo

Con

I am glad to join this debate!

Am I correct that Pro thinks that modern philosophy is not included under philosophy but rather some sort of morosophy or pseudosophy that is unimportant? Or a better question for Pro, is modern 'philosophy' subjective philosophy as opposed to objective?

It also appears that philosophy (or 'objective' philosophy) is a systems of knowledge that according to Pro consist of Truth, Practical Truth, and Knowledge. He gave a list of all the characteristics, which I will go over later.

I will first address Pro's concluding statement "Philosophy is important because it is our only rational guide to what we ought to do, both on a personal level and on a societal level."

To counter this, I would like to introduce what I call misosophy, which I think is just as good if not better than Pro's philosophy.

At it's root, Misosophy means "Hatred of Wisdom".

Similar to philosophy, misosophy studies questions to fundamental problems, it does this by applying rational argument and critical thought. The difference is how misosophy goes about doing this.
Misosophy is rigorous, stringent, and criticises wisdom instead of being passionate of it. The misosopher, instead of touting wisdom as truth and being apologetic towards it, attacks it on all fronts, including their own wisdom and misosophies. A misosopher purges the weakness of wisdom, irregardless of how much they agree with it, instead of ignoring it. A misosopher is to wisdom as a skeptic is to explanation.

Given that misosophy can just as easily be used as a system of knowledge that can rationally guide us, it is not the case philosophy is the only guide there is.

In their opening statement, Pro gave a summary of "objective philosophy". So far, Pro has not defined a single one of their terms and has given little to no detail for anything in their list of characteristic. So I will be seeking to clear some things up

Pro: "Truth is a correspondence with reality"

Define "Truth", how is it in correspondence with reality?

Pro: "Truth is Absolute- their are no degrees of Truth" "Truth is Universal- true for all if true for one" Truth is Global- their are no cultural boundaries" "Truth is Timeless- true now if ever true and true forever"

This is common wisdom in philosophy. But what is an absolute? And what is an absolute truth? Is that not a contradictio in terminis?

New World Encyclopedia:

"The term Absolute denotes unconditioned and/or independence in the strongest sense."

Freedictionary:

"AbsolutePhilosophy

a. Something regarded as the ultimate basis of all thought and being. Used with the.
b. Something regarded as independent of and unrelated to anything else."

Oxford dictionary:

"Philosophy A value or principle that is regarded as universally valid or that may be viewed without relation to other things"

Very romantic, but sounds like a bunch of nonsensical goobleygook to me.
Pro can correct if they mean something totally different than these standard philosophical definitions.

So if we are talking about "Absolute truth" it would mean that the truth is independent, unrelated to anything else, and has no degrees. If truth is to be absolute, then it is not conditioned on any time, place, person, thing, or concept. It must be always correct, everywhere, all the time, under any condition. For an absolute truth to be validated it must be inevitably true irregardless of a dependency, restriction, qualification or relation anybody could possibly conceive, because if anyone can conceive of any circumstance in which an absolute truth is not true, it is not absolute. But this doesn't tell us anything about just what the hell an absolute truth is.
Nothing!
Absolute “That which has no relation", doesn't mean anything. Any word that is without a reference to something else is goobleygook. It's like if I said, Fendia queti melia, which roughly translates to "nothing but something".
The term provides no meaning whatsoever. It's like if you were to ask me what color my bike is and I answered, "The color is not green". Then what is it? If absolute is not related to anything else, independent of anything, not conditioned on anything, what the hell are we talking about? The very fact absolute is a concept is self contradictory because it must first be relative to something else, but it is supposedly "Absolute".

And can Pro actually provide at least one "absolute truth"? Because they haven't as of yet.
This is just a rhetorical question. Pro will be unable to provide one single truth that is absolute, since it is unworkable just like square circles. It's absurd for anyone to show that a proposition is valid for all possible circumstances without restrictions on time, place, and person or thing! If pro feels differently, just how does pro suggest such a thing be done?

"Knowledge includes the following degrees:"
Thankfully knowledge isn't "absolute". Can you elaborate on self-evident and evident truths and "weak" and "strong" opinions?

Pro: "philosophy tells us that since man alone uses reason to make judgments, Man's life is the standard of value." It tells us that we are all equally human (with different attributes, of course) and we therefore all have the same basic needs."
First off, who is philosophy? This is sounding more and more like religious dogma.

Pro: "Practical Truth is a correspondence with man's life"

Then-
"Practical Truth is Universal

Practical Truth is Absolute
Practical Truth is Global
Practical Truth is Timeless"

What? If it is a correspondence with a man's life, how is it timeless, universal, absolute, or global? If it is absolute it cannot have any relation to a man's life. If it is timeless and universal, it cannot also have similarity with a man's life.

"Therefore, Practical Truth is the standard of reference for Values relevant to man."

Non-sequitur.

"The highest good is perfect being [of the individual]"
What does that even mean? Nonsense.
Non-being is absolute evil"
What the hell is a "non-being"? What is absolute evil?


That's all I can cover.
Debate Round No. 1
SeekingWisdom

Pro

To the first question: Of course I consider modern philosophy to be philosophy! As stated in my second paragraph, I simply consider it to be in error. Great error at that - until the 20th century when at least some philosophers revisited Aristotle and Aquinas in the context of science and common-sense. This philosophy (classical realism) is an attempt to correct the errors made, as I stated.

To the second question: yes, I consider most modern philosophy to be subjective. Again, as stated earlier, philosophy has been burdened by the conflict of those who have denied that the senses, or reason, or both, are useful to understand the world around us. Man cannot get to objective truth and knowledge without acknowledging that both are required. Without both the senses and man"s unique ability to reason, subjective information, decisions and actions are the outcome.

Con asks if this is "a system of knowledge." Philosophy is defined as "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge [epistemology], reality, and existence [metaphysics]." My argument is based upon the application of this definition. If the result is an objective system of knowledge, then one of the fundamental goals of philosophy has been realized.

The argument presented is the objective conclusion of many great Aristotelian thinkers over the centuries, but notably, excluding philosophical thinkers of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, in particular. Not until the 20th century, with the in-depth analysis of Mortimer J. Adler in particular, has Aristotelian philosophy reached a clear synthesis.

I find it fascinating that Con chooses to argue this using a pseudo 'philosophy' based on misosophy, defined as "a hatred of wisdom or knowledge." While I applaud the idea of being skeptical about all things, including knowledge and wisdom, I reject Con's claim that "misosophy can just as easily be used as a system of knowledge that can rationally guide us." The very definition of misosophy is a contradiction to this claim.

But, moving on to the challenge that I have not defined the core principles:

Truth is a correspondence with reality
Truth is Absolute- their are no degrees of Truth
Truth is Universal- true for all if true for one
Truth is Global- their are no cultural boundaries
Truth is Timeless- true now if ever true and true forever

Each of these is axiomatic. It is impossible to consider their opposite. If reality isn't true, it isn't real; if truth is real, it has to be so absolutely, for all people, in all countries, and forever true.

Con's response to "This is common wisdom in philosophy," seems imply, that these self-evident claims are mere opinions. And how can Con, indeed anyone, conclude that "truth" and "absolute," could be contradictory? Truth is absolute. There are no degrees of truth. There ARE degrees of knowledge, which my post makes clear. But there are no degrees of Truth. Romantic? Goobleygook? Hardly!

Let's be clear. There are very few absolute truths. "A whole is the sum of its parts; reality exists; nothing can both exist and not exist at the same time, for example (it is impossible to think of the opposite of what they assert). Evident truths on the other hand require reason and argument to defend. Most scientific conclusions fit this definition. I think that Con has confused absolute with evident truths.

But, at Con's request, let me elaborate on self-evident and evident truths and "weak" and "strong" opinions: The scientific method is the perfect example:

The scientific method is based on fundamental assumptions derived from Philosophy: there are laws of nature (truths) that can be understood my man. Reality is observed, hypothesis formed (opinions about an outcome), experiments and data collected, analysis performed, data interpreted and conclusions drawn (knowledge in the weak sense). Ultimately, results are published and re-tested by other scientists (peer review). Finally, if the hypothesis can be proven, we have knowledge in the strong sense of the term.

For anyone who questions this line of argument, let me suggest that the next time you get on an airplane, think about the science - the physics of aerodynamics, just to choose one specific field. If you cannot accept that truth exists, I recommend that you get off of that plane before it takes off. Or, when you get into your car, think about the physics that gives us the knowledge to be confident that the small surface area of your disc brakes are enough to stop your 2-ton car before you crash into the car in from of you.

On to Practical Truths: Con seems to be arguing that Practical Truth isn't possible because man (an individual man, appears to the the assumption), isn't timeless and universal. Philosophy"s concern here is not with man the individual but rather, with the concept of man as a representative of all mankind. So, my argument that we (mankind) need a Practical Truth based upon the same line of reasoning, or "as close to them as possible" to those developed for Truth about the world of reality, is a sound argument and a reasonable goal. My use of "as close to them as possible" should be your clue that this does not meet any definition of religious dogma.

When we acknowledge that man alone uses reason to make judgements, it is a logical step to the concept that his judgments should be in his own best interest. To think that man the individual, or man as a member of a society (local or global), should make decisions that are not in man's best interest, is a contradiction. This is your non sequitur.

Finally, since you ask, "The highest good is perfect being [of the individual]" means that man should be the best ['good'] he can be. Of course, we are talking both about the individual man as well as mankind. "Non-being is absolute evil" refers to the idea that it is evil (and a contradiction) for man to make choices that are not in the best interest of man.
Kaneo

Con

"The very definition of misosophy is a contradiction to this claim."

Please explain how the definition contradicts the 'claim'.

"Each of these is axiomatic. It is impossible to consider their opposite. If reality isn't true, it isn't real; if truth is real, it has to be so absolutely, for all people, in all countries, and forever true."
You are simply reasserting your claims as "self evident." Saying it's axiomatic doesn't justify anything or tell anyone what your concept of "Truth" is. 
In misosophy, we do not accept wisdom on faith, wisdom needs a rational explanation.

"Con's response to "This is common wisdom in philosophy," seems imply, that these self-evident claims are mere opinions. "

Mere opinions alright, unjustified at that. Why are they self-evident?

"And how can Con, indeed anyone, conclude that "truth" and "absolute," could be contradictory?"

I justified that it was contradictory by definition last round. You have not provided contention or argument in support of your claim.

"Let's be clear. There are very few absolute truths."

Rare like the unicorns, yes?


"A whole is the sum of its parts; nothing can both exist and not exist at the same time, for example."

Not an absolute truth. You are invoking a condition, dependency, referencing and relating something else.
And these are predefined and justified BY DEFINITION! It has nothing to do with your concept of validation called "truth".

"reality exists;"

That's tautological rhetoric, not an absolute truth.
Existence exist, waters wet, fires firey, poops poopy, a horse is a horse of course of course!

"Evident truths on the other hand require reason and argument to defend."

But "self-evident" truths are sacred and holy and are true just because you say so? What a bunch of baloney!

"Most scientific conclusions fit this definition. I think that Con has confused absolute with evident truths."

Define, "Truth" and then define "Evident truths". Every claim requires reason and argument to defend, what is special about evident truths?
And if you think by me questioning your "absolute" truths, I am mistaking it for the ones that "require reason and argument to defend"
you are mistaken, I think they ALSO require reason and argument to defend. They aren't sacred and holy to me.
You may be able to play this with a philosopher, but I am a misosopher, I do not play these games.

"If you cannot accept that truth exists, I recommend that you get off of that plane before it takes off."

Common sophist trick. Planes being able to fly is not dependent on your concept of truth.

Please define truth so we can evaluate it rationally. We do not evalute TRUTH with TRUTH, that is self-referential and circular. Stop with the mumbo jumbo please?

"On to Practical Truths: Con seems to be arguing that Practical Truth isn't possible because man (an individual man, appears to the the assumption),
isn't timeless and universal."

Nor is the "collective" man.

"Philosophy"s concern here is not with man the individual but rather, with the concept of man as a representative of all mankind."

Concepts are not timeless and absolute.

"So, my argument that we (mankind) need a Practical Truth based upon the same line of reasoning,
or "as close to them as possible" to those developed for Truth about the world of reality,
is a sound argument and a reasonable goal."

But you haven't 1) defined truth in unambiguous terms 2) defined practical truth.

"My use of "as close to them as possible" should be your clue that this does not meet any definition of religious dogma."

If I said alphabet soup is as close to God and his holy mission of gluttony as possible, would it cease to be religious dogma?


"When we acknowledge that man alone uses reason to make judgements"

It is not a fact humans are the only animals capable to use reason to make judgements.

"it is a logical step to the concept that his judgments should be in his own best interest."

You are jumping from an is to an ought. What 'he' does and is doesn't automatically inform what 'he' ought to do.

"To think that man the individual, or man as a member of a society (local or global),
should make decisions that are not in man's best interest, is a contradiction."

No it is not, it's an opinion. A contradiction is a statement that is opposite to one already made.
In the above, there is no conflicting statement given, you use a single statement on it's own and say it is a contradiction.
Thinking man should make decisions that are not in man's best interest is not an internally contradicting opinion.

And what if man's best interest is to make cute pandas extinct?

"This is your non sequitur."

Don't give it to me! You keep it.

"Finally, since you ask, "The highest good is perfect being [of the individual]" means that man should 
be the best ['good'] he can be. Of course, we are talking both about the individual man as well as mankind."


According to what standard?? What is the best good?

"Non-being is absolute evil" refers to the idea that it is evil (and a contradiction) for man to make choices
that are not in the best interest of man."

I seriously want to know. Did you honestly expect people to just automatically think all of this nonsense from the incredibly vague wax poetry you wrote? Nothing you are explaining was clear in the first place.
And to make it worst your arguments don’t provide any explanation or clarification.

To recap.

We are still waiting for you to:

Define your concept of validation "Truth" in unambiguous terms.

Define your concept of "Practical truth" afterwards.

Rationally justify your "axioms" claiims.




Debate Round No. 2
SeekingWisdom

Pro

"I first thought my opponent was simply playing devil"s advocate, which I welcomed." However, we seem to have entered a dark, cynical and skeptical world that denies knowledge." To be fair, Con made it clear from the beginning that her belief system is one that hates wisdom and knowledge, yet she believes her system to be as good, or better, than a rational philosophy based on both sensory input and reason." Better that one that is the culmination of some of the greatest minds the world has ever known, starting with Aristotle: minds like Aquinas, al-Farabi, Ibn Gabirol, Avicenna, Maimonides, Averroes, Eckhart and Ockham (yes of "Ockhams Razor" fame)." Not only do I believe I am in good company compared to my opponent, this rational philosophy has served the world extremely well for centuries. On the other had, a deep Internet search across multiple search engines for "misosophy" reveals about 15 results." Two-thirds of which are simple definitions." The remaining few are blogs from two individual proponents. Hence my characterization of pseudo-philosophy.

My opponent might just as well deny the whole of knowledge and all it has allowed man to create." In fact, Con has made my case for me." She doesn't seem to understand there are three ways to discover knowledge: 1) by analyzing the language used; 2) by using experience and reason; and 3) (which she rejects, absolutely (while denying absolutes)) - that self-evident truths exist. While Con talks about using the first, she ignores basic word qualifiers, as stated below. She denies that experience and reason play any role. Many of the reasons for this last denial are demonstrated below, with my observations as to why this is so:

My opponent has stated:
"
..that my claims of things self evident are mere opinions [Con has no understanding of axioms; offers no rational argument to the contrary]

..truth is contradictory by definition [this is an example of denial of senses or reason (or both) as contributors to knowledge]

..compares absolute truths with unicorns? [denies senses; believes ideas of the mind are real objects (our ideas are the means by which we understand objects. They are not the object.)]

..denies examples of absolutes yet states they are "justified by definition" [skeptics must use reason to argue that reason doesn't exist]

.."reality exists" is mere rhetoric [Con is confused about the limited role of language to understand reality (experience & reason, and axioms, also play an important role)]

..my use of the word "close" [as "opposed to 'exact,'] to qualify my position [to distinguish from dogma] is rejected by my opponent. [this seems to suggest that Con doesn't really believe what she seems to think is her strength - analyzing arguments based on their grammatical structure.

..self evident truths are not so [just because I say so - except it isn't me, it is Aristotle and his proteges]

..absolute truths also require reason and argument to defend [evident truths do; absolute truths (axioms) do not'

..example of science, and therefore reality in airplanes is sophistry [denies senses and reason and reality in general]

..man isn't timeless and universal [not a claim I made; the claim is for truth; for man, it is stated as an approximate goal]

..denies claim that man alone uses reason to make judgments [but offers no examples to the contrary]

..denies the claim that mans judgments should be in his own best interest... it is only opinion [& uses the absurd suggestion of man causing 'cute pandas" to be extinct could somehow be in mans best interest]

..believes that mans actions cannot be contradictory [only grammatical statements can be]

..asks by "what standard" is the best 'good' (in response to my statement - "The highest good is perfect being." "[Con seems not to see that the 'standard' for the highest good is clearly stated, in that brief sentence, as "perfect being" (man being the best he can be)].

My philosophy is based on the work of Aristotle and Aquinas and their many prot"g"s" and is analyzed by them through the lens of common experience and reason, over centuries. Anyone who is serious about philosophy should understand some of the basic concepts presented " like "axiomatic," "man" as a universal concept. But Con never claimed to be interested in philosophy so it seems safe to conclude she also has no interest in understanding these terms. In fact, she takes great delight in rejecting knowledge and the idea that man has the capacity to understand.

I conclude with a Summary of Reality
[from Little Errors in the Beginning, Mortimer J. Adler?]

We live in a world of physical reality, a world of perceptual, objective, reality, a world in which our ideas, our thoughts, are the means by which we know reality (that are not ideas). Ideas are not that which (the object) we know, or even representations of real existence (ideas do not resemble the object). Ideas must have an object.

We also live in a public world where we have common experiences of real, existing, objects of perception, as well as objects that are imaginary or remembered, etc. The latter are not objects of existence.

And we live in a private, subjective world in which we alone are aware of our feelings, emotions, bodily sensations and experiences. (they are apprehended directly and do not serve as a means of apprehension of anything else), a world where ideas have existence in the mind but they are the means of apprehending objects, they are not the object themselves.

Although subjective differences in perceptions do occur, they are usually easily accounted for and in spite of the differences, the object perceived remains the same. A cognitive idea (percepts, memories, images and concepts cannot, at the same time, be both that which we directly apprehend and that by which we apprehend something else.
------
Philosophy is Important. This debate exemplifies just how important!
Kaneo

Con

"My opponent might just as well deny the whole of knowledge [...]."

What an irrational plea. I am asking you to justify your claims with reason and define your concepts. You refuse to define any of the terms you use.

"She doesn't seem to understand there are three ways to discover knowledge: [...] 3) (which she rejects, absolutely (while denying absolutes)) - that self-evident truths exist."

Haven't rejected anything absolutely, don't strawman. There is no absolute, it's a nonsense term. You haven't justified any of your so-called "Self-evident truths".

"My opponent has stated:"

Here comes the strawman!

"..that my claims of things self evident are mere opinions [Con has no understanding of axioms; offers no rational argument to the contrary]"

You have not justified any of your "truths" as self-evident. They are just opinions. Whether something is an axiom or not is subjective. Some people think the earth is flat and leprechauns as an axiom. I'm not going to just accept your claims cause you call them axioms.

"..truth is contradictory by definition [this is an example of denial of senses or reason (or both) as contributors to knowledge]"

Absolute truth is contradictory by definition. You never even defined what you meant by truth for me to even evaluate it.
You avoided it the entire debate.

"..compares absolute truths with unicorns? [denies senses; believes ideas of the mind are real objects (our ideas are the means by which we understand objects. They are not the object.)]"

Ideas of the mind are not objects, they are concepts. [Absolute] Truth is just a [nonsense] concept, it is not an object.

".denies examples of absolutes yet states they are "justified by definition" [skeptics must use reason to argue that reason doesn't exist]"

The so called examples you gave had everything to with definitions, and nothing to do with your concept of verification truth. A whole is by definition, and by definition alone, the sum of it's parts. They weren't absolute either, a whole is dependent on it's parts, this is not absolute, it is relative.

".."reality exists" is mere rhetoric [Con is confused about the limited role of language to understand reality (experience & reason, and axioms, also play an important role)]"

Reality is a synonym for existence. You are saying existence exist. It's tautological rhetoric, you aren't saying anything or adding any information. It's like saying waters watery or hair is hairy. It has nothing do with any supposed " limited role of language" and everything to do with you, the person who wrote it.


"..my use of the word "close" [as "opposed to 'exact,'] to qualify my position [to distinguish from dogma] is rejected by my opponent. [this seems to suggest that Con doesn't really believe what she seems to think is her strength - analyzing arguments based on their grammatical structure."

Saying it's close as opposed to exact doesn't make it less dogmatic. Have I told you about lord Burke47 and how you need to be AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE to his divinity?
You are still preaching this stuff as incontrovertibly "truth" and that it is needed, that's dogma..

"..self evident truths are not so [just because I say so - except it isn't me, it is Aristotle and his proteges]"

Maybe they are so, you never justified them, you just claimed them as "true because they are true!". And don't care if your priest tell you it's true either.

"..absolute truths also require reason and argument to defend [evident truths do; absolute truths (axioms) do not'"

Yes they do.

"..example of science, and therefore reality in airplanes is sophistry [denies senses and reason and reality in general]"

No, your argument was sophistry. Planes being able to fly has nothing to do with your concept of validation, truth. (which you never defined or justified)

"..man isn't timeless and universal [not a claim I made; the claim is for truth; for man, it is stated as an approximate goal]"

I never said you did. You said, "Practical Truth is a correspondence with man's life". Man and his life isn't even close to timeless, universal, or absolute, so man is not in correspondence with practical truth.

"..denies claim that man alone uses reason to make judgments [but offers no examples to the contrary]"

Dolphins, great apes, mice, birds, dogs. I don't have to offer counter examples, nearly every animal with higher functioning brains exhibit rational behavior. They may be wild and more instinctive, but they aren't pure emotion. People use to think wild humans (or "savages" as they called them) couldn't reason.

"..denies the claim that mans judgments should be in his own best interest... it is only opinion [& uses the absurd suggestion of man causing 'cute pandas" to be extinct could somehow be in mans best interest]"

It is only an opinion, one that the endangered cute pandas and human panda advocates do not hold. It is mans best interest to continue destroying their habitats and polluting the environments so man can have a higher quality of life, more jobs, more infrastructure and energy. It's not like extinct cute pandas would change anything for man.

"..believes that mans actions cannot be contradictory [only grammatical statements can be]"

Never said that.

"Con seems not to see that the 'standard' for the highest good is clearly stated, in that brief sentence, as "perfect being" (man being the best he can be)"

This. Exactly what I'm talking about, ambiguous and unclear, you provide no information. WTF is a perfect being? More things that require explaining.

"In fact, she takes great delight in rejecting knowledge and the idea that man has the capacity to understand."
Nope. The only one taking delight in rejecting that idea is the one who never defines any of their terms in an 
understandable way and keeps everything vague.

Pro never defined their concept of verification "truth"
Pro never defined "Practical truth"
Pro never r
ationally justifies their "axioms".

This debate just shows what a wreck philosophy (or pro's version of it) is.


Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Kaneo 3 years ago
Kaneo
What if I agree philosophy is important but disagree with a lot of the things you say in the first round? (that is to say I disagree with your philosophy.)
No votes have been placed for this debate.