Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Those damn dirty Sophists!!

The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 10:32:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Part 1
Big Edit. 1.2

YYW: The real question is what is the final claim of atheistic morality?

The Fool: Is that really the REAL question? Come on now. lol Does it even follow that they are atheistic, For you are assuming a Christian God as the only type of God.

YYW: This (whatever it may be) is the case because Locke, Kant, Rousseau, Hobbes, Plato, Socrates, etc. said so? Nietzsche has interesting views on the subject, which I tend to agree with.

The Fool: The question obviously to mean, with what justification do you assert such claims? Most philosophers would say with reason. IT has nothing to do with people saying so but rather them demonstrating or attempting to demonstrate it through Coherent logical reasoning.

YYW: Arthur Leff, both seriously and sarcastically, posed the "the grand says who?" test to all non-religous morality.

The Fool: The problem is why is he presuming that it is based on saying for saying is word the justification is in the organization of the world aka the Form(as in formula). Obviously his theology as appose to philosophy is only to convince the already converted, for now one else would intuitively accept that it depend on somebody saying so.

YYW: I've said it before and I'll say it again. This article: "Unspeakable Ethics Unnatural Law" is sufficient to reduce teleology, natural law and every other moral system to its knees absent of God.

The Fool: How cares about what you say. But what do you defend with reason? So give the argument, not the reference, and then you can be justified to be in the philosophy section or else go to science or religion. Where you simply refer to an ancient test or physical fact? There is no thinking required there. Everything is based on what somebody else said. And you like you that. <(XD)

YYW: The point is that morality cannot exist without god, because otherwise all other morality reduces to "Kant said we have categorical imperatives to..." or "John Rawls says...." or "etc."

The Fool: The point or in more professional terms the conclusion doesn't follow from that statement. Especially to a lover of wisdom.

YYW: The point is that systems of morality can "exist" but they cannot be objective. And I base this of absolutely nothing.

The Fool: Good. Now what is the argument? Aka Set of premised where you logically deduct a conclusion. For I may simply point out that what is objective is simply a reference to that in which its existence not dependence on opinion. And so I would argue that subjective and objectivity are a false dichotomy, since the existence of an opinion or thought are not dependent on "having" an opinion and thus it follows by necessity that subjectivity is simply a category within objectivity. That is subjectivity must be objectively true to exist. How would you argue or rather philosophize out of that argument without faith principles. Aka referring to what someone else argued.

YYW: They are opinions, perspectives, etc. They are not absolute, nor can they be absolute.

The Fool: what is the difference, for how could you distinguish one without the other. In other words what is the factor of demarcation in between what opinion is and what is not knowledge. For the necessity or to recognize even the idea of either it is required that there is a difference to recognized in the first place or else how could such demarcation in language come about. I am but a fool. Pls tell me how you are denoting the difference.

YYW: Things to think about....

The Fool: it's called mind Garbage. Mushmind! You are confusing Theology with philosophy. Only on is of reason. The other simply uses the word ‘reason', without any particular criteria.

The Fool say you are a Sophist. not a philosopher.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 10:39:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Will there be a part 2 or shall I commence ripping you apart?

Btw... ur grammr skllz stil b awsom!
Tsar of DDO
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 10:57:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Oops: The real update.

YYW: The real question is what is the final claim of atheistic morality?

The Fool: Is that really the REAL question? Come on now. lol Does it even follow that they are atheistic, For you are assuming a Christian God as the only type of God.

YYW: Answer the question, rather than dismissing it.
The Fool: The question was clearly the answer in that there are no REAL questions between the two. That is your demarcation is a falsification. Something of bad taste, a rococo taste in fact.

YYW: The bastard in me is tempted to reduce all non-religous morality to a master-slave dichotomy. The master follows his instincts. The slave flagellates himself, but at least he is interesting. In the end, the last man emerges, who is interested in comfort and security. And thus spake zarathustra... lol.
The Fool: Analogies are only useful if the logic from corresponds to another.

YYW: And bringing my faith into the argument is a bit amusing. By saying "he is a Christian".

The Fool: VS Does it even follow that they are atheistic, For you are assuming a Christian God as the only type of God. A strawman is the mark of a sophist.

YYW: then trying to -poorly- undermine what you think an assumption in the argument behind the question you refuse to answer you're demonstrating a few things:

(1) you either didn't understand the question and are incapable of answering it or (2) you're just a bombastic fool on a hill. Neither of those two options are mutually exclusive, btw.

The Fool: Well I would say definitely both. The call me Mister bombastic. But if it needed to be says I would when forced to say that perhaps that is a false dichotomy. The mark of the Sophist.

YYW: This (whatever it may be) is the case because Locke, Kant, Rousseau, Hobbes, Plato, Socrates, etc. said so? Nietzsche has interesting views on the subject, which I tend to agree with.

The Fool:
The question obviously to mean, with what justification do you assert such claims? Most philosophers would say with reason. IT has nothing to do with people saying so but rather them demonstrating or attempting to demonstrate it through Coherent logical reasoning.

YYW: So is it your assertion that reason is sufficient to transcend subjectivity? If so... then we can have a lovely conversation... a lovely conversation indeed... about the last paragraph of the previous post I made.
The Fool: I would it's the assertion of reason, But claim to be a bear it so guess it would be noble of me to say such things.

YYW: Arthur Leff, both seriously and sarcastically, posed the "the grand says who?" test to all non-religious morality.

Is it clearer now?

The Fool:
With what justification does he asserts that is the matter is dependent on who says anything. Such a presumption would only be accepted intuitively if you were already converted in thinking there must be a "who" makes or declares morality true other than thinking morality or any knowledge to that matter is based on discovery of the understanding. Aka Reason. Of course a theologian would claim such without knowing the means from why it is such but rather the explanation or more professionaly speaking formulation.

YYM
: I'm going to give you the opportunity to clarify that statement before I refute it.
The Fool: you give nothing, you are but a slave of others thoughts. A Damn dirty Theologin aka Sophist.

YYW: I've said it before and I'll say it again. This article: "Unspeakable Ethics Unnatural Law" is sufficient to reduce teleology, natural law and every other moral system to its knees absent of God.

The Fool:
Who cares about what you say. But what do you defend with reason? So give the argument, not the reference, and then you can be justified to be in the philosophy section or else go to science or religion. Where you simply refer to an ancient test or physical fact? There is no thinking required there. Everything is based on what somebody else said. And you like you that. <(XD)

YYW: Let's explore why I don't type things out at great length: this is a forum, not a book. You have the reference, google the damn article and read for yourself.

The Fool: you mean a philosophical debate forum. And in fact it is your responsibility to argue for what you say.
It is not my responsibility to offer intellectual shorthand for you to then turn around and then refute the shadow of the argument that I could fit -even if I did, which I won't- in 8k characters. This is the place for a beginning of a further conversation, not the place for determining what is, beyond reasonable doubt. And yes, everything I say has been influenced by what others have said. Is it your claim that you think for yourself? Lol...

The Fool:
it is my claim that I can defend what I am saying here and now, and although, I learn from others, I don't need to refer to others because I grasp the logical form of the argument. And I can create argument; I am not a regurtiting theologian. Who know the word logic but couldn't' explain to you what it is, nor why should it follow.
YYW:
The point is that morality cannot exist without god, because otherwise all other morality reduces to "Kant said we have categorical imperatives to..." or "John Rawls says...." or "etc."

The Fool: The point or in more professional terms the conclusion doesn't follow from that statement. Especially to a lover of wisdom.

YYW: And I'm sure you have a reason for that assertion. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to offer it, rather than just making clever statements. Clever statements are fine... but, being a lover of wisdom, I like reasons.
The Fool: Well it could be the case that it needed to be clear, but the presumption of the morality resting on a that, is that of a bold assertion was clear enough indeed.

YYW:
The point is that systems of morality can "exist" but they cannot be objective.

The Fool:
Good. Now what is the argument? Aka your set of premises where you logically deduce a conclusion. For I may simply point out that which is objective is simply a reference to that in which its existence not dependence on opinion. And so I would argue that subjective and objectivity are a false dichotomy, since the existence of an opinion or thought are not dependent on "having" an opinion and thus it follows by necessity that subjectivity is simply a category within objectivity. That is subjectivity must be objectively true to exist. How would you argue or rather philosophize out of that argument without faith principles. Aka referring to what someone else argued.

YYW:
Fool, did you read my post? Or are you just incessantly asking questions to make inflate your own sense of yourself by lodging beau geste questions against me?

The Fool: That's right my Free will is simply randomness, oh why do I act like so.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 11:01:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
YYW: I can give you a reading list... but you've already objected to that... so I won't bother.

The Fool: Philosophy is not a faith discipline for if you think something true you should be glad to demonstrate the argument with reason. For it is the mark of a Sophist, who cannot defend himself rationally(in coherence with logic) and so you are justly fitted as a Sophist. YYW The Sophist.

YYW: Explain your assertion that the choice between "objective" and "subjective" is a false dichotomy. Your claim is wanting of reasons, because the explanation you offered is pragmatically nonsensical.

The Fool: Choice has not part in it, no PCP philosopher thinks his philosophy as non-pragmatic for knowledge is a tool to be used, and the understanding of objective and subjective can make the difference between somebody acting moral or not and this effect how our decition which can be for better or for worse. So explain to me this pragmatically none-sense again? I am but a Fool.But I did give the deduction already. Or maybe I have forgotten.

YYW: And I'm not here to argue faith. Faith isn't the point, but rather another discussion.

The Fool: Good I never mentioned faith, but you seem to bring it up a lot. But now that you bring it up, it's really not that complication For faith is a believe, in X. To believe is simply to expect that X is the case. But many of us prefer justification. That is your reasoning which answer why you should expect such things. What more is there to talk about really?

The Fool: The point is that no man can reason his way to what must be taken on faith, because reason is not a capable vehicle to metaphysical truth.

YYW: They are opinions, perspectives, etc. They are not absolute, nor can they be absolute.

The Fool: what is the difference, for how could you distinguish one without the other. In other words what is the factor of demarcation in between what opinion is and what is not knowledge. For the necessity or to recognize even the idea of either it is required that there is a difference to recognized in the first place or else how could such demarcation in language come about. I am but a fool. Pls tell me how you are denoting the difference.

YYW: Knowledge is that which can be empirically observed. What we cannot empirically observe are things like "morality." That's one of the foundations of what I've been saying.

The Fool: and you base this of what, faith , expectation, believe, trust. And so we should include that which we haven't yet observed but rather that which is capable of being so IS KNOWLEDGE. I beg your pardon.

It's a popular positivist notion, but it fails to justify its self. Sense information is not the only knowledge. For you must be able to demarcate what is genuinely sense information as appose to other information, dreams, imagination, and bias formulation such as faith. But of course physical theories depend on math/logic. Pls explain where you see this with your eyes. Math, laying about, hmmmmm, Where in nature are there perfect squares which are not based upon the extrapolation of geometry intuited from our imagination when in fact there are no perfect squares or triangle that exist, in nature alone. Or perhaps that is a priori and perhaps thus too do we learn the rules of them just like magic/faith or are we simply breaking down the rules imbedded in our thought from whence we copy the square itself from!

YYW
: Things to think about....

The Fool: it's called mind Garbage. Mushmind! You are confusing Theology with philosophy. Only on is of reason. The other simply uses the word ‘reason', without any particular criteria.

The Fool says you are a Sophist. not a philosopher.

YYW: And no, I'm not. I'm arguing that philosophy as a method or practice (where reason is the means to philosophize) is not capable of arriving at objective or absolute system of morality. What cannot be absolute or objective is necessarily subjective.


The Fool
: and that would have to be absolute now, wouldn't it. Come tither now. Pls teach me: with what justification do you make this claim.

to be continued
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 11:02:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I always thought the sophists got a bad rap... it's often those who are Sooo sure that are the true abusers of language.

http://www.iep.utm.edu...
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 11:04:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 11:02:47 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I always thought the sophists got a bad rap... it's often those who are Sooo sure that are the true abusers of language.

http://www.iep.utm.edu...

Well wait and see. if that is that case. That issue is bound to come up!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 11:25:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Part 2 edit

YYW: I can give you a reading list... but you've already objected to that... so I won't bother.


The Fool:
Philosophy is not a faith discipline for if you think something true you should be glad to demonstrate the argument with reason. That is the mark of a philosopher. But it is the mark of a Sophist, who cannot defend himself rationally(in coherence with logic) and so you are justly fitted as a Sophist. YYW The Sophist.

YYW:
Explain your assertion that the choice between "objective" and "subjective" is a false dichotomy. Your claim is wanting of reasons, because the explanation you offered is pragmatically nonsensical.

The Fool: Choice has not part in it, no PCP philosopher thinks his philosophy as non-pragmatic for knowledge is a tool to be used, and the understanding of objective and subjective can make the difference between somebody acting moral or not and it also affects our overall decisions which can be for better or for worse. So explain to me this pragmatically none-sense again? I am but a Fool .But I did give the deduction already. Or maybe I have forgotten.

YYW:
And I'm not here to argue faith. Faith isn't the point, but rather another discussion.

The Fool:
Good I never mentioned faith, but you seem to bring it up a lot. But now that you bring it up, it's really not that complicated for faith is a believe, in X. To believe is simply to expect that X is the case. That is a subjective inclination to think something is true. But the philosophy doesn't make the jump without justification. What more is there more about faith that ever needs to be spoken?

YYW:
The point is that no man can reason his way to what must be taken on faith, because reason is not a capable vehicle to metaphysical truth.

The Fool:
Theologians hide in metaphysics, for there has been no progress other than mind body. And that is easy to refute, if there is interaction there they can't be completely difference substances, but there is interaction so they must share a reality. And that's about the enough metaphysics we need. The job of metaphysics should only be the categorization of experience.(And I include that of mental experience.) Not dictation or declaration. I am an epistemological duellist in that mind can't be reduced physical explanations. (And I could defend it, with argumentation) Straight from the Hill!

YYW: They are opinions, perspectives, etc. They are not absolute, nor can they be absolute.

The Fool:
what is the difference, for how could you distinguish one without the other. In other words what is the factor of demarcation in between what is opinion and what is knowledge or what is not knowledge. For the necessity or to recognize even the idea of either it is required that there is a difference to be recognized in the first place or else how could such demarcation in language come about. I am but a fool. Pls tell me how you are denoting the difference.

YYW:
Knowledge is that which can be empirically observed. What we cannot empirically observe are things like "morality." That's one of the foundations of what I've been saying.

The Fool:
and you base this of what, faith , expectation, believe, trust, mystics. And so we should include that which we haven't yet observed but rather that which is capable of being so IS KNOWLEDGE. I beg your pardon.
It's a popular positivist notion, but it fails to justify its self. Sense information is not the only knowledge. For you must be able to demarcate what is genuinely sense information as appose to other information, dreams, imagination, and bias formulation such as faith. But of course physical theories depend on math/logic. Pls explain where you see this with your eyes. Math, laying about, hmmmmm, Where in nature are there perfect squares which are not based upon the extrapolation of geometry intuited from our imagination when in fact there are no perfect squares or triangle that exist, in nature alone. Or perhaps that is a priori and perhaps thus too do we learn the rules of them just like magic/faith or are we simply breaking down the rules imbedded in our thought from whence we copy the square itself from!

YYW: Things to think about....

The Fool: it's called mind Garbage. Mushmind! You are confusing Theology with philosophy. Only on is of reason. The other simply uses the word ‘reason', without any particular criteria.

The Fool says you are a Sophist. not a philosopher.

YYW: And no, I'm not. I'm arguing that philosophy as a method or practice (where reason is the means to philosophize) is not capable of arriving at objective or absolute system of morality. What cannot be absolute or objective is necessarily subjective.


The Fool:
and that would have to be absolute now, wouldn't it. Come tither now. Pls teach me: with what justification do you make this claim.

To be continued
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 11:45:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
My friend, the fool, Is this your final version?

I want to be sure you have given me your best before we continue.

Is there ANYTHING else you wish to change?

Perhaps an additional edit? A part 3? I just want to be sure that everything you have to challenge me with is out on the table.

And again, I am honored that an entire thread has now been devoted to lambasting me. I've been called a troll, various other foul things and now, the highest honor... a sophist. A bloody sophist. How. Magnificent. From you, that is an allegation which I can receive as nothing other than a compliment.

The reason is because calling me a sophist, and saying that I misuse language, foul logic etc. is all that you will ever be able to do. The problem with yours and my way of thinking is that not only does what I say eviscerate your peculiar philosophical stance, but it then, ultimately, proceeds to kill philosophy by the very tools it was constructed with.

Of course, this is all in good humor...

But now then... is there anything else you desire to edit about your various edits/versions/etc.?
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 11:51:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 11:45:11 PM, YYW wrote:
My friend, the fool, Is this your final version?

I want to be sure you have given me your best before we continue.

Is there ANYTHING else you wish to change?

Perhaps an additional edit? A part 3? I just want to be sure that everything you have to challenge me with is out on the table.

And again, I am honored that an entire thread has now been devoted to lambasting me. I've been called a troll, various other foul things and now, the highest honor... a sophist. A bloody sophist. How. Magnificent. From you, that is an allegation which I can receive as nothing other than a compliment.

The reason is because calling me a sophist, and saying that I misuse language, foul logic etc. is all that you will ever be able to do. The problem with yours and my way of thinking is that not only does what I say eviscerate your peculiar philosophical stance, but it then, ultimately, proceeds to kill philosophy by the very tools it was constructed with.

Of course, this is all in good humor...

But now then... is there anything else you desire to edit about your various edits/versions/etc.?

Or even more so, perhaps any more quotes from me that you would like to mischaracterize? You tricky, devious fool... lol
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2012 1:03:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 11:51:39 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/25/2012 11:45:11 PM, YYW wrote:
My friend, the fool, Is this your final version?

I want to be sure you have given me your best before we continue.

Is there ANYTHING else you wish to change?

Perhaps an additional edit? A part 3? I just want to be sure that everything you have to challenge me with is out on the table.

And again, I am honored that an entire thread has now been devoted to lambasting me. I've been called a troll, various other foul things and now, the highest honor... a sophist. A bloody sophist. How. Magnificent. From you, that is an allegation which I can receive as nothing other than a compliment.

The reason is because calling me a sophist, and saying that I misuse language, foul logic etc. is all that you will ever be able to do. The problem with yours and my way of thinking is that not only does what I say eviscerate your peculiar philosophical stance, but it then, ultimately, proceeds to kill philosophy by the very tools it was constructed with.

Of course, this is all in good humor...

But now then... is there anything else you desire to edit about your various edits/versions/etc.?

Or even more so, perhaps any more quotes from me that you would like to mischaracterize? You tricky, devious fool... lol

And just so we're all on the same page, I want to point out the irony that I am being accused as a sophist by a fellow who both has mischaracterized arguments AND who refuses to type according to the norms of the English language.

Irony. A bitch indeed.

*plays Tomorrow Never Knows*
Tsar of DDO
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2012 1:22:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
A change of heart.

YYW: The real question is what is the final claim of atheistic morality?

The Fool: Is that really the REAL question? Come on now. lol Does it even follow that they are atheistic, For you are assuming a Christian God as the only type of God. For a Kantian God cannot help but be universally moral. Nothing has to do with "Sayings". It is a popular notion to use the word "saying" is used intentionally to straw man and claim, because it give the sense that there are just sounds, not a justified rational behind the claim.
.

I have cut this down because it gets very messy dealing with a large set of concepts at a time. This smaller focus is more efficient at arriving at conclusion. If you are not ready to be wrong and change you views upon new information and or rational arguments then don't bother responding. I am have no desire with a fundamentalist.(And I mean fundamentalist as in one who doesn't not reason with coherent with logic, but rather out of bold assertions.) Where something is just true(a correspondence truth) Where your idea is just taken to correspond with some other distinction without grounding or verification.

I am not going to respond to language like this.

Random sophist: I always thought the sophists got a bad rap... .(baseless and vague assertion) it's often those who are Sooo sure that are the true abusers of language.(baseless and vague assertion)

Vague where the world "many" gives no information as to how many, or even if its above or below or the possibility of it being verified.

Or

Sophist YYW:

And again, I am honoured that an entire thread has now been devoted to lambasting me(bold assertion) . I've been called a troll, various other foul things and now, the highest honour... a sophist.(irrelavent/non-sequitar) A bloody sophist. How. Magnificent. From you, that is an allegation which I can receive as nothing other than a compliment.(rhetoric not reason)

The Fool: Rhetoric is what Sophist were popular for that is why it's considered a misuse of the language when reasoning.

The reason is because calling me a sophist, ((and saying that I misuse language, foul logic etc)

This is sophism because you have used the word AND which is an attempt to deceive the reader in thinking there is more then what was said.

It's like saying you're awsome and exellent and a good. But these are over lapping concepts so there is really only one. But it give the audience an false acculimation effect.

And likely there was only the word "sophist", which was justified by your overwhelming use of Sophisms even in just a few sentences. Make sure you can back up your claim of what you call me. That is all I am going to say about it. So keep it at one argument at a time. You must have at least on premise and conclusion for me to respond, Unless it is something self-evident, or common sense.. I have a lot of things going on right now, and this is not at the top of the list.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2012 3:59:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/27/2012 1:22:07 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
A change of heart.

YYW: The real question is what is the final claim of atheistic morality?

The Fool: Is that really the REAL question? Come on now. lol Does it even follow that they are atheistic, For you are assuming a Christian God as the only type of God. For a Kantian God cannot help but be universally moral. Nothing has to do with "Sayings". It is a popular notion to use the word "saying" is used intentionally to straw man and claim, because it give the sense that there are just sounds, not a justified rational behind the claim.
.

I have cut this down because it gets very messy dealing with a large set of concepts at a time. This smaller focus is more efficient at arriving at conclusion. If you are not ready to be wrong and change you views upon new information and or rational arguments then don't bother responding. I am have no desire with a fundamentalist.(And I mean fundamentalist as in one who doesn't not reason with coherent with logic, but rather out of bold assertions.) Where something is just true(a correspondence truth) Where your idea is just taken to correspond with some other distinction without grounding or verification.

I am not going to respond to language like this.

Random sophist: I always thought the sophists got a bad rap... .(baseless and vague assertion) it's often those who are Sooo sure that are the true abusers of language.(baseless and vague assertion)

Vague where the world "many" gives no information as to how many, or even if its above or below or the possibility of it being verified.

Or

Sophist YYW:

And again, I am honoured that an entire thread has now been devoted to lambasting me(bold assertion) . I've been called a troll, various other foul things and now, the highest honour... a sophist.(irrelavent/non-sequitar) A bloody sophist. How. Magnificent. From you, that is an allegation which I can receive as nothing other than a compliment.(rhetoric not reason)

The Fool: Rhetoric is what Sophist were popular for that is why it's considered a misuse of the language when reasoning.

The reason is because calling me a sophist, ((and saying that I misuse language, foul logic etc)

This is sophism because you have used the word AND which is an attempt to deceive the reader in thinking there is more then what was said.

It's like saying you're awsome and exellent and a good. But these are over lapping concepts so there is really only one. But it give the audience an false acculimation effect.

And likely there was only the word "sophist", which was justified by your overwhelming use of Sophisms even in just a few sentences. Make sure you can back up your claim of what you call me. That is all I am going to say about it. So keep it at one argument at a time. You must have at least on premise and conclusion for me to respond, Unless it is something self-evident, or common sense.. I have a lot of things going on right now, and this is not at the top of the list.

Is that your final answer? Again, because I want to be sure you give me your best before I rip it apart. I want there to be no misconception about it, and I want you to know that I wasn't just refuting the sloppy happenstance of one of your belligerent tirades.
Tsar of DDO
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2012 4:28:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/27/2012 3:59:44 PM, YYW wrote:
.

Is that your final answer? (strawman)

The Fool: its not an answer its an argument and with a declaration.

YYW: Again, because I want to be sure you give me your best before I rip it apart.
(Bold assumptoin fallacy)

The Fool: I think the future holds that truth.

YYW:I want there to be no misconception about it, and I want you to know that I wasn't just refuting the sloppy happenstance of one of your belligerent tirades(Ad hoc fallacy).

The Fool: make sure its rational. (what I mean by rational is that its incoherent with modern logic)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2012 8:54:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Lets Role!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2012 10:28:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/27/2012 8:54:25 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Lets Role!

Are you sure you don't want to clean up your various sentence fragments, non-points and actually offer more than ad hominem assaults, which you supported with ad hominem assaults and then defended with nothing, coupled with more ad hominem assaults?

I think you've got more in you, Fool. I really do. At least clean up your sloppiness.

I'll give you until I log on tomorrow.
Tsar of DDO
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 7:14:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
A change of heart.

YYW: The real question is what is the final claim of atheistic morality?

The Fool: Is that really the REAL question? Come on now. lol Does it even follow that they are atheistic, For you are assuming a Christian God as the only type of God. For a Kantian God cannot help but be universally moral. Nothing has to do with "Sayings". It is a popular notion to use the word "saying" is used intentionally to straw man and claim, because it give the sense that there are just sounds, not a justified rational behind the claim.
.
Rational as in (your reason must be in line with logic)
principle of charity is in effect.

There is not much to talk about yet. and if you respond one more time with a ball of Sophism. This is done/ I will be posting a lot of things answer to such topics TOI. So you can read up on my there. If you don't get what you want here. ANd you have to GIVE PROVE not only question, a bold assertion.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 9:06:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 7:14:29 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
A change of heart.

YYW: The real question is what is the final claim of atheistic morality?

The Fool: Is that really the REAL question? Come on now. lol Does it even follow that they are atheistic, For you are assuming a Christian God as the only type of God. For a Kantian God cannot help but be universally moral. Nothing has to do with "Sayings". It is a popular notion to use the word "saying" is used intentionally to straw man and claim, because it give the sense that there are just sounds, not a justified rational behind the claim.
.
Rational as in (your reason must be in line with logic)
principle of charity is in effect.

There is not much to talk about yet. and if you respond one more time with a ball of Sophism. This is done/ I will be posting a lot of things answer to such topics TOI. So you can read up on my there. If you don't get what you want here. ANd you have to GIVE PROVE not only question, a bold assertion.

Is this the version you want me to refute?

I ask because I'm going to have some fun with the last version of your earlier psychotic rant as well, but I want to be sure, again, that you don't feel like I mischaracterize what you say. Unlike you, I won't misquote. Unlike you, I won't call you names, other than Fool, which is your username. Finally, unlike you, I'll actually substantiate what I have to say. However, you have demonstrated, multiple times, that you are incapable of articulating a coherent thought in an intelligible way, so this is your FINAL chance to clarify what you're saying.

You've basically reduced your last "revision" to nothing, which isn't especially shocking, but nevertheless it is important to me that you believe you have given your best. When I say "your best" recognize that I mean you have offered the clearest possible description of what you're arguing. Recognize further that some grammatical errors can be forgiven, but when the sentence is so discombobulated that the message of what you're communicating is unintelligible, there is nothing for me to do.

So, here's your task now: (1) clarify what you're saying even better. If you're actually satisfied, then so be it. I'll work with what's there. (2) Edit, and then edit again. It's a pity that we're having to go through this tedious exercise here, really is. (3) Cut the bullsh!t. Get rid of the superfluous nonsense and attacks. If you think you're a real philosopher, don't mischaracterize what I've said that you're trying to refute. In order for anyone to take anyone seriously in the realm of academic philosophy, you have to give fair and accurate depositions of that which you are addressing. If you don't, then you'll be laughed out the door, as I have with you thus far. If you want to play on that higher level -and I think you do- then be professional about it.

If you don't do those things, then recognize I have no interest in discussing anything with you, because I refuse to entertain petulance and intellectually bastardized nonsense. I used to think you were at least about 20-25 or so. I'm becoming increasingly convinced that you're about 13 or 14. (A witty little tween... but a tween nevertheless.)

And now, finally, this is invariably the last time I'm going to coach you to improve your arguments. It's bit absurd that I'm even doing this, for various obvious reasons, but this is authentically your FINAL chance. Get it right. Check the nonsense at the door if you want me to take you seriously.
Tsar of DDO
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 10:40:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 9:06:05 AM, YYW wrote:
At 5/28/2012 7:14:29 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
A change of heart.

YYW: The real question is what is the final claim of atheistic morality?

The Fool: Is that really the REAL question? Come on now. lol Does it even follow that they are atheistic, For you are assuming a Christian God as the only type of God. For a Kantian God cannot help but be universally moral. Nothing has to do with "Sayings". It is a popular notion to use the word "saying" is used intentionally to straw man and claim, because it give the sense that there are just sounds, not a justified rational behind the claim.
.
Rational as in (your reason must be in line with logic)
principle of charity is in effect.

There is not much to talk about yet. and if you respond one more time with a ball of Sophism. This is done/ I will be posting a lot of things answer to such topics TOI. So you can read up on my there. If you don't get what you want here. ANd you have to GIVE PROVE not only question, a bold assertion.

Is this the version you want me to refute?

I ask because I'm going to have some fun(bold assertion) with the last version of your earlier psychotic(ad hoc) rant as well, but I want to be sure, again, that you don't feel like I mischaracterize what you say. Unlike you, I won't misquote.(THey are based of Direct qoutes) Unlike you, I won't call you names, other than Fool, which is your username.(its justfied and you have called be many) Finally, unlike you, I'll actually substantiate what I have to say.(False) However, you have demonstrated, multiple times, that you are incapable of articulating a coherent thought in an intelligible way,(its not thougth I speak 3 languages, its not my first) so this is your FINAL chance to clarify what you're saying. (this is ad hoc again)_

The Fool: as I said one more like this and you get the axe, The axe has been droppped here. Good luck with you travelles

You've basically reduced your last "revision" to nothing, which isn't especially shocking, but nevertheless it is important to me that you believe you have given your best. When I say "your best" recognize that I mean you have offered the clearest possible description of what you're arguing. Recognize further that some grammatical errors can be forgiven, but when the sentence is so discombobulated that the message of what you're communicating is unintelligible, there is nothing for me to do.

So, here's your task now: (1) clarify what you're saying even better. If you're actually satisfied, then so be it. I'll work with what's there. (2) Edit, and then edit again. It's a pity that we're having to go through this tedious exercise here, really is. (3) Cut the bullsh!t. Get rid of the superfluous nonsense and attacks. If you think you're a real philosopher, don't mischaracterize what I've said that you're trying to refute. In order for anyone to take anyone seriously in the realm of academic philosophy, you have to give fair and accurate depositions of that which you are addressing. If you don't, then you'll be laughed out the door, as I have with you thus far. If you want to play on that higher level -and I think you do- then be professional about it.

If you don't do those things, then recognize I have no interest in discussing anything with you, because I refuse to entertain petulance and intellectually bastardized nonsense. I used to think you were at least about 20-25 or so. I'm becoming increasingly convinced that you're about 13 or 14. (A witty little tween... but a tween nevertheless.)

And now, finally, this is invariably the last time I'm going to coach you to improve your arguments. It's bit absurd that I'm even doing this, for various obvious reasons, but this is authentically your FINAL chance. Get it right. Check the nonsense at the door if you want me to take you seriously.

IN PCP The word slander is used in stead of adhoc.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 10:47:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
If you want challenge me on something then set up a debate.
I will only debate with these ethics

Debate ethics:
-the most clearest and precise definition is the best and the one we should take.
-Thus No semantic games. Semantics is for clarification only.
-straw men are to be taken seriously.
-a response must assume what most likely was meant by the speaker.
-refutation must quote the claim being refuted.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 10:51:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
And damn Dirty Sophist! is a joke, . Its in refernce to Those Damn dirty Apes! from planet of the Apes. you should know the difference.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 12:14:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 10:47:59 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
If you want challenge me on something then set up a debate.
I will only debate with these ethics

Debate ethics:
-the most clearest and precise definition is the best and the one we should take.
-Thus No semantic games. Semantics is for clarification only.
-straw men are to be taken seriously.
-a response must assume what most likely was meant by the speaker.
-refutation must quote the claim being refuted.

So do you or do you not want me to respond? Because I'm ok either way. You've basically said nothing, attacked nothing, and backed yourself into the corner you were trying to position me into.

And, no, I'm not going to challenge you to a debate. IF you would like to challenge me, that's fine, but I see little point in starting a debate with you, only for you to accuse me of sophistry, when -I am beginning to see- you don't even know what that means.

So far, this is my read of you:

You like to talk about things you don't know much about, but think you know more about then other people.

When people say things that you don't like or are incapable of understanding, for whatever reason, you call them a sophist.

You hold others to a standard which you are incapable of meeting yourself.

For those three reasons:

I really don't care about anything you have to say, what you do, etc. You are interesting, that is for sure. Very interesting indeed, but ultimately you have nothing to offer. That's ok, but as philosophers go, you're not one. Think as you like though, because for those who cannot, the self perpetuating lie is often more palatable than the situational reality that, in fact, is.

To Reiterate:

If you want me to respond, then I will.

If you don't, then I won't.

idgaf...
Tsar of DDO
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 3:05:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
YYW, I'd debate him because it's an easy way to get wins if you care about those things.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 3:17:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 3:05:01 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
YYW, I'd debate him because it's an easy way to get wins if you care about those things.

The Fool: he is right. I tend to argue against what is Common knowledge. I don't debate in the same way I follow the Philosophical Dialectic to the grave.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 3:33:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 3:05:01 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
YYW, I'd debate him because it's an easy way to get wins if you care about those things.

So essentially what you're saying is that I should debate him to boost my ratings because he will likely not see the debate through.

When I first joined the site, I would have probably jumped at that prospect. Now, I'm a bit more mellow.

At 5/28/2012 3:17:47 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 5/28/2012 3:05:01 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
YYW, I'd debate him because it's an easy way to get wins if you care about those things.

The Fool: he is right. I tend to argue against what is Common knowledge. I don't debate in the same way I follow the Philosophical Dialectic to the grave.

lol

An open challenge to The Fool:

You should consider yourself free to challenge me to a debate. I reserve the right to decline for any reason.

An open challenge to anyone:

Anyone may challenge me to anything. I may or may not accept.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 3:34:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 3:17:47 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 5/28/2012 3:05:01 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
YYW, I'd debate him because it's an easy way to get wins if you care about those things.

The Fool: he is right. I tend to argue against what is Common knowledge. I don't debate in the same way I follow the Philosophical Dialectic to the grave.

And moreover, I need to know if it is going to be worth my time to respond. Do you or do you not want me to address what you've said?
Tsar of DDO
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 3:41:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 3:34:44 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/28/2012 3:17:47 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 5/28/2012 3:05:01 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
YYW, I'd debate him because it's an easy way to get wins if you care about those things.

The Fool: he is right. I tend to argue against what is Common knowledge. I don't debate in the same way I follow the Philosophical Dialectic to the grave.

And moreover, I need to know if it is going to be worth my time to respond. Do you or do you not want me to address what you've said?

I Responded to that already. THe axe was dropped.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 3:42:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 3:05:01 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
YYW, I'd debate him because it's an easy way to get wins if you care about those things.

The Fool: and the Hawk has been shocked.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 5:06:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 3:41:23 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 5/28/2012 3:34:44 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/28/2012 3:17:47 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 5/28/2012 3:05:01 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
YYW, I'd debate him because it's an easy way to get wins if you care about those things.

The Fool: he is right. I tend to argue against what is Common knowledge. I don't debate in the same way I follow the Philosophical Dialectic to the grave.

And moreover, I need to know if it is going to be worth my time to respond. Do you or do you not want me to address what you've said?


I Responded to that already. THe axe was dropped.

Does that mean no?
Tsar of DDO