Total Posts:65|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The #1 Fallacy of Nihilism

sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 10:50:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The foremost fallacy to be overcome in comprehending Nihilism, as I see it, is the conflation of Nihilism with Pessimism. There is a very important difference between the two: while Nihilism proposes to abandon all universal values, Pessimism retains these higher values while asserting that they can never be attained. In Pessimism, while the hope of attaining these values is abandoned, the values themselves as values are decisively affirmed.

Why is this fallacy so prevalent? In fact, it is so common that basically all discussion and understanding of Nihilism has been simply the constant regurgitation of this fallacy under different names and within different vocabularies. In my understanding, this is inherent to the nature of all orthodox (non-Nihilist) philosophy: the first principle of any orthodox philosophy is the impossibility of avoiding its underlying tenets. The prospect of denying them - of not applying them to oneself - is understood as inherently and by definition only a different way of saying that one fails to apply them; it is to "not reach up to their heights". The difficulty lies in the fact that the orthodox ideology "rewrites the code of the universe", so that each person by their nature already affirms its premises. All philosophy which follows can only consist of various degrees of allegiance to those underlying first principles which it knowingly or unknowingly presupposes. By positioning these propositions (ie, affirmations of universal values or truths) as pointing to conditions of philosophy, and of human life in general, rather than as specific positions upheld within a certain world-view or philosophy, the notion of validating or refuting them is circumvented.

For instance: "But is it objectively true that nothing is objectively true?"... The phrase "Nothing is objectively true" is seen as logically impossible to properly assert, because it must contain by nature the premise that "Statements are asserted as objectively true." By affixing this premise to every possible statement, it secures itself against any vulnerability to criticism: it is affixed pre-emptively to the criticism and thus the criticism is deemed impossible. It is not even 'entertained' -- it is no criticism at all. However, this analytic game even taken in the most charitable sense does not stand up to scrutiny: it is entirely possible (at least, it doesn't entail a clash of definitions) that one could affirm something without necessarily affirming it as a Justified True Belief which is true in all cases, at all places and times. This is really nothing else than the systematic exclusion of Nihilistic ideas from discourse, disguised as rationality or philosophy. When pressed for its justification, the orthodox philosopher will at last reply, "It is an 'axiom'; it cannot be justified."

This is the basis for the most common criticism of Nihilism: that it is "self-contradictory". It must be (by the orthodox assessment) self-contradictory, because whether or not it states these principles, it affirms them simply by way of existing; these universal standards of value are understood not as statements to be either upheld or rejected, but codes unearthed from the very fabric of the cosmos, such that any time I state something, I also implicitly state them. Thus, nihilism can in a sense only be "understood from within". Until one has already abandoned these premises as one's frame for any subsequent understanding of a philosophy, one cannot understand a philosophy whose primary project is the rejection of that frame itself. Once this misunderstanding, which is equally often perpetrated by Nihilists and non-Nihilists alike, is properly and thoroughly defined and corrected, Nihilism will finally be able truly to come into its own as a genuinely revolutionary philosophy.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 12:43:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 10:50:11 AM, sdavio wrote:
However, this analytic game even taken in the most charitable sense does not stand up to scrutiny: it is entirely possible (at least, it doesn't entail a clash of definitions) that one could affirm something without necessarily affirming it as a Justified True Belief which is true in all cases, at all places and times.

What do you think "affirm" means? When you affirm a statement, you are saying that what it says is true, you aren't just "putting it out there". The statement "Nothing is objectively true" is false if there's ever a time or place in which it does not apply. So by affirming that statement, you are, in fact, claiming that your statement describes reality. On the other hand, if you don't want to claim that, you would have to say "Objective truth does not necessarily exist" (which, of course, is also false, because the very truth of that statement would undermine its own assertion).
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 1:56:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 12:43:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/23/2015 10:50:11 AM, sdavio wrote:
However, this analytic game even taken in the most charitable sense does not stand up to scrutiny: it is entirely possible (at least, it doesn't entail a clash of definitions) that one could affirm something without necessarily affirming it as a Justified True Belief which is true in all cases, at all places and times.

What do you think "affirm" means? When you affirm a statement, you are saying that what it says is true, you aren't just "putting it out there". The statement "Nothing is objectively true" is false if there's ever a time or place in which it does not apply. So by affirming that statement, you are, in fact, claiming that your statement describes reality. On the other hand, if you don't want to claim that, you would have to say "Objective truth does not necessarily exist" (which, of course, is also false, because the very truth of that statement would undermine its own assertion).

What are the criteria by which you know whether or not a statement 'applies'? How would you know that a statement applies at all places and times without being omniscient, and thereby knowing what occurs at 'all places and times'?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 2:01:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 1:56:00 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 12:43:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/23/2015 10:50:11 AM, sdavio wrote:
However, this analytic game even taken in the most charitable sense does not stand up to scrutiny: it is entirely possible (at least, it doesn't entail a clash of definitions) that one could affirm something without necessarily affirming it as a Justified True Belief which is true in all cases, at all places and times.

What do you think "affirm" means? When you affirm a statement, you are saying that what it says is true, you aren't just "putting it out there". The statement "Nothing is objectively true" is false if there's ever a time or place in which it does not apply. So by affirming that statement, you are, in fact, claiming that your statement describes reality. On the other hand, if you don't want to claim that, you would have to say "Objective truth does not necessarily exist" (which, of course, is also false, because the very truth of that statement would undermine its own assertion).

What are the criteria by which you know whether or not a statement 'applies'? How would you know that a statement applies at all places and times without being omniscient, and thereby knowing what occurs at 'all places and times'?

The only thing we can know for sure is that which is logically necessary.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 2:19:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 2:01:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:56:00 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 12:43:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/23/2015 10:50:11 AM, sdavio wrote:
However, this analytic game even taken in the most charitable sense does not stand up to scrutiny: it is entirely possible (at least, it doesn't entail a clash of definitions) that one could affirm something without necessarily affirming it as a Justified True Belief which is true in all cases, at all places and times.

What do you think "affirm" means? When you affirm a statement, you are saying that what it says is true, you aren't just "putting it out there". The statement "Nothing is objectively true" is false if there's ever a time or place in which it does not apply. So by affirming that statement, you are, in fact, claiming that your statement describes reality. On the other hand, if you don't want to claim that, you would have to say "Objective truth does not necessarily exist" (which, of course, is also false, because the very truth of that statement would undermine its own assertion).

What are the criteria by which you know whether or not a statement 'applies'? How would you know that a statement applies at all places and times without being omniscient, and thereby knowing what occurs at 'all places and times'?

The only thing we can know for sure is that which is logically necessary.

Are all objective truth statements logically necessary?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 5:12:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I really like this post. I was worried it was going to be yet another misguided attack on nihilism - but your post is lucid on seems largely on-track.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 11:38:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 2:19:53 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:01:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:56:00 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 12:43:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/23/2015 10:50:11 AM, sdavio wrote:
However, this analytic game even taken in the most charitable sense does not stand up to scrutiny: it is entirely possible (at least, it doesn't entail a clash of definitions) that one could affirm something without necessarily affirming it as a Justified True Belief which is true in all cases, at all places and times.

What do you think "affirm" means? When you affirm a statement, you are saying that what it says is true, you aren't just "putting it out there". The statement "Nothing is objectively true" is false if there's ever a time or place in which it does not apply. So by affirming that statement, you are, in fact, claiming that your statement describes reality. On the other hand, if you don't want to claim that, you would have to say "Objective truth does not necessarily exist" (which, of course, is also false, because the very truth of that statement would undermine its own assertion).

What are the criteria by which you know whether or not a statement 'applies'? How would you know that a statement applies at all places and times without being omniscient, and thereby knowing what occurs at 'all places and times'?

The only thing we can know for sure is that which is logically necessary.

Are all objective truth statements logically necessary?

All truth is tautological because for the truth to be true by some virtue other than being true is nonsensical.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 11:45:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 11:38:17 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:19:53 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:01:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:56:00 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 12:43:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/23/2015 10:50:11 AM, sdavio wrote:
However, this analytic game even taken in the most charitable sense does not stand up to scrutiny: it is entirely possible (at least, it doesn't entail a clash of definitions) that one could affirm something without necessarily affirming it as a Justified True Belief which is true in all cases, at all places and times.

What do you think "affirm" means? When you affirm a statement, you are saying that what it says is true, you aren't just "putting it out there". The statement "Nothing is objectively true" is false if there's ever a time or place in which it does not apply. So by affirming that statement, you are, in fact, claiming that your statement describes reality. On the other hand, if you don't want to claim that, you would have to say "Objective truth does not necessarily exist" (which, of course, is also false, because the very truth of that statement would undermine its own assertion).

What are the criteria by which you know whether or not a statement 'applies'? How would you know that a statement applies at all places and times without being omniscient, and thereby knowing what occurs at 'all places and times'?

The only thing we can know for sure is that which is logically necessary.

Are all objective truth statements logically necessary?

All truth is tautological because for the truth to be true by some virtue other than being true is nonsensical.

If I'm to take it that you agree with Dylan's statements, then this literally entails omniscience.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 11:55:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 11:45:05 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 11:38:17 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:19:53 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:01:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:56:00 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 12:43:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/23/2015 10:50:11 AM, sdavio wrote:
However, this analytic game even taken in the most charitable sense does not stand up to scrutiny: it is entirely possible (at least, it doesn't entail a clash of definitions) that one could affirm something without necessarily affirming it as a Justified True Belief which is true in all cases, at all places and times.

What do you think "affirm" means? When you affirm a statement, you are saying that what it says is true, you aren't just "putting it out there". The statement "Nothing is objectively true" is false if there's ever a time or place in which it does not apply. So by affirming that statement, you are, in fact, claiming that your statement describes reality. On the other hand, if you don't want to claim that, you would have to say "Objective truth does not necessarily exist" (which, of course, is also false, because the very truth of that statement would undermine its own assertion).

What are the criteria by which you know whether or not a statement 'applies'? How would you know that a statement applies at all places and times without being omniscient, and thereby knowing what occurs at 'all places and times'?

The only thing we can know for sure is that which is logically necessary.

Are all objective truth statements logically necessary?

All truth is tautological because for the truth to be true by some virtue other than being true is nonsensical.

If I'm to take it that you agree with Dylan's statements, then this literally entails omniscience.

All truth that is known is known absolutely, so there's omniscience within the range of knowledge one knows to be certain, sure. Anything outside of that which has yet to be conceptualized isn't known, though, and I don't see how you would argue that his statements lead to any other conclusion.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 12:17:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 11:55:52 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/23/2015 11:45:05 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 11:38:17 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:19:53 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:01:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:56:00 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 12:43:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/23/2015 10:50:11 AM, sdavio wrote:
However, this analytic game even taken in the most charitable sense does not stand up to scrutiny: it is entirely possible (at least, it doesn't entail a clash of definitions) that one could affirm something without necessarily affirming it as a Justified True Belief which is true in all cases, at all places and times.

What do you think "affirm" means? When you affirm a statement, you are saying that what it says is true, you aren't just "putting it out there". The statement "Nothing is objectively true" is false if there's ever a time or place in which it does not apply. So by affirming that statement, you are, in fact, claiming that your statement describes reality. On the other hand, if you don't want to claim that, you would have to say "Objective truth does not necessarily exist" (which, of course, is also false, because the very truth of that statement would undermine its own assertion).

What are the criteria by which you know whether or not a statement 'applies'? How would you know that a statement applies at all places and times without being omniscient, and thereby knowing what occurs at 'all places and times'?

The only thing we can know for sure is that which is logically necessary.

Are all objective truth statements logically necessary?

All truth is tautological because for the truth to be true by some virtue other than being true is nonsensical.

If I'm to take it that you agree with Dylan's statements, then this literally entails omniscience.

All truth that is known is known absolutely, so there's omniscience within the range of knowledge one knows to be certain, sure. Anything outside of that which has yet to be conceptualized isn't known, though, and I don't see how you would argue that his statements lead to any other conclusion.

How can you possibly claim to know truth? The best you can do is to claim that you know what is logically consistent, and that given a system of logic, there is such a thing as truth. Without such a system, which is in itself not a necessity, you don't have truth.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 12:22:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 5:12:04 PM, Envisage wrote:
I really like this post. I was worried it was going to be yet another misguided attack on nihilism - but your post is lucid on seems largely on-track.

I think the title is a bit misleading...perhaps "The #1 Misconception of Nihilism" would have described the OP a bit better.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 12:32:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 11:45:05 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 11:38:17 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:19:53 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:01:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:56:00 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 12:43:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/23/2015 10:50:11 AM, sdavio wrote:
However, this analytic game even taken in the most charitable sense does not stand up to scrutiny: it is entirely possible (at least, it doesn't entail a clash of definitions) that one could affirm something without necessarily affirming it as a Justified True Belief which is true in all cases, at all places and times.

What do you think "affirm" means? When you affirm a statement, you are saying that what it says is true, you aren't just "putting it out there". The statement "Nothing is objectively true" is false if there's ever a time or place in which it does not apply. So by affirming that statement, you are, in fact, claiming that your statement describes reality. On the other hand, if you don't want to claim that, you would have to say "Objective truth does not necessarily exist" (which, of course, is also false, because the very truth of that statement would undermine its own assertion).

What are the criteria by which you know whether or not a statement 'applies'? How would you know that a statement applies at all places and times without being omniscient, and thereby knowing what occurs at 'all places and times'?

The only thing we can know for sure is that which is logically necessary.

Are all objective truth statements logically necessary?

All truth is tautological because for the truth to be true by some virtue other than being true is nonsensical.

If I'm to take it that you agree with Dylan's statements, then this literally entails omniscience.

I don't agree with bossy, by the way. He denies the analytic-synthetic dichotomy, while I don't.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 12:35:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 2:19:53 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:01:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:56:00 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 12:43:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/23/2015 10:50:11 AM, sdavio wrote:
However, this analytic game even taken in the most charitable sense does not stand up to scrutiny: it is entirely possible (at least, it doesn't entail a clash of definitions) that one could affirm something without necessarily affirming it as a Justified True Belief which is true in all cases, at all places and times.

What do you think "affirm" means? When you affirm a statement, you are saying that what it says is true, you aren't just "putting it out there". The statement "Nothing is objectively true" is false if there's ever a time or place in which it does not apply. So by affirming that statement, you are, in fact, claiming that your statement describes reality. On the other hand, if you don't want to claim that, you would have to say "Objective truth does not necessarily exist" (which, of course, is also false, because the very truth of that statement would undermine its own assertion).

What are the criteria by which you know whether or not a statement 'applies'? How would you know that a statement applies at all places and times without being omniscient, and thereby knowing what occurs at 'all places and times'?

The only thing we can know for sure is that which is logically necessary.

Are all objective truth statements logically necessary?

Any claim which is justifiably put forth as absolutely true is, yes.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 1:07:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/24/2015 12:17:25 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/23/2015 11:55:52 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/23/2015 11:45:05 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 11:38:17 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:19:53 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:01:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:56:00 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 12:43:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/23/2015 10:50:11 AM, sdavio wrote:
However, this analytic game even taken in the most charitable sense does not stand up to scrutiny: it is entirely possible (at least, it doesn't entail a clash of definitions) that one could affirm something without necessarily affirming it as a Justified True Belief which is true in all cases, at all places and times.

What do you think "affirm" means? When you affirm a statement, you are saying that what it says is true, you aren't just "putting it out there". The statement "Nothing is objectively true" is false if there's ever a time or place in which it does not apply. So by affirming that statement, you are, in fact, claiming that your statement describes reality. On the other hand, if you don't want to claim that, you would have to say "Objective truth does not necessarily exist" (which, of course, is also false, because the very truth of that statement would undermine its own assertion).

What are the criteria by which you know whether or not a statement 'applies'? How would you know that a statement applies at all places and times without being omniscient, and thereby knowing what occurs at 'all places and times'?

The only thing we can know for sure is that which is logically necessary.

Are all objective truth statements logically necessary?

All truth is tautological because for the truth to be true by some virtue other than being true is nonsensical.

If I'm to take it that you agree with Dylan's statements, then this literally entails omniscience.

All truth that is known is known absolutely, so there's omniscience within the range of knowledge one knows to be certain, sure. Anything outside of that which has yet to be conceptualized isn't known, though, and I don't see how you would argue that his statements lead to any other conclusion.

How can you possibly claim to know truth?

Why don't you tell us, as you're clearly under the impression that you've found some.

The best you can do is to claim that you know what is logically consistent, and that given a system of logic, there is such a thing as truth. Without such a system, which is in itself not a necessity, you don't have truth.

Logic is not a system artificially imposed on anything. Quite simply, logic is the recognition of what we take for granted merely by theorizing. Without logic, things needn't be themselves, which is not even a meaningful prospect. In some sense, you are "aware" of all logical truths, since your awareness could not exist if it did not recognize the fact that A is A.

So basically, logic is the theory that answers the question "What distinguishes information from non-information?"
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 1:22:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/24/2015 12:17:25 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/23/2015 11:55:52 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/23/2015 11:45:05 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 11:38:17 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:19:53 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:01:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:56:00 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 12:43:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/23/2015 10:50:11 AM, sdavio wrote:
However, this analytic game even taken in the most charitable sense does not stand up to scrutiny: it is entirely possible (at least, it doesn't entail a clash of definitions) that one could affirm something without necessarily affirming it as a Justified True Belief which is true in all cases, at all places and times.

What do you think "affirm" means? When you affirm a statement, you are saying that what it says is true, you aren't just "putting it out there". The statement "Nothing is objectively true" is false if there's ever a time or place in which it does not apply. So by affirming that statement, you are, in fact, claiming that your statement describes reality. On the other hand, if you don't want to claim that, you would have to say "Objective truth does not necessarily exist" (which, of course, is also false, because the very truth of that statement would undermine its own assertion).

What are the criteria by which you know whether or not a statement 'applies'? How would you know that a statement applies at all places and times without being omniscient, and thereby knowing what occurs at 'all places and times'?

The only thing we can know for sure is that which is logically necessary.

Are all objective truth statements logically necessary?

All truth is tautological because for the truth to be true by some virtue other than being true is nonsensical.

If I'm to take it that you agree with Dylan's statements, then this literally entails omniscience.

All truth that is known is known absolutely, so there's omniscience within the range of knowledge one knows to be certain, sure. Anything outside of that which has yet to be conceptualized isn't known, though, and I don't see how you would argue that his statements lead to any other conclusion.

How can you possibly claim to know truth? The best you can do is to claim that you know what is logically consistent, and that given a system of logic, there is such a thing as truth. Without such a system, which is in itself not a necessity, you don't have truth.

If you don't think that A is A, I can't have a conversation with you. It's like talking to a wall - you don't have the sufficient qualities for it to be worthwhile (namely the self-awareness of the fact that you are literally and blatantly contradicting yourself with every word you write).
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 1:51:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/24/2015 1:22:46 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/24/2015 12:17:25 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/23/2015 11:55:52 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/23/2015 11:45:05 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 11:38:17 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:19:53 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:01:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:56:00 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 12:43:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/23/2015 10:50:11 AM, sdavio wrote:
However, this analytic game even taken in the most charitable sense does not stand up to scrutiny: it is entirely possible (at least, it doesn't entail a clash of definitions) that one could affirm something without necessarily affirming it as a Justified True Belief which is true in all cases, at all places and times.

What do you think "affirm" means? When you affirm a statement, you are saying that what it says is true, you aren't just "putting it out there". The statement "Nothing is objectively true" is false if there's ever a time or place in which it does not apply. So by affirming that statement, you are, in fact, claiming that your statement describes reality. On the other hand, if you don't want to claim that, you would have to say "Objective truth does not necessarily exist" (which, of course, is also false, because the very truth of that statement would undermine its own assertion).

What are the criteria by which you know whether or not a statement 'applies'? How would you know that a statement applies at all places and times without being omniscient, and thereby knowing what occurs at 'all places and times'?

The only thing we can know for sure is that which is logically necessary.

Are all objective truth statements logically necessary?

All truth is tautological because for the truth to be true by some virtue other than being true is nonsensical.

If I'm to take it that you agree with Dylan's statements, then this literally entails omniscience.

All truth that is known is known absolutely, so there's omniscience within the range of knowledge one knows to be certain, sure. Anything outside of that which has yet to be conceptualized isn't known, though, and I don't see how you would argue that his statements lead to any other conclusion.

How can you possibly claim to know truth? The best you can do is to claim that you know what is logically consistent, and that given a system of logic, there is such a thing as truth. Without such a system, which is in itself not a necessity, you don't have truth.

If you don't think that A is A, I can't have a conversation with you. It's like talking to a wall - you don't have the sufficient qualities for it to be worthwhile (namely the self-awareness of the fact that you are literally and blatantly contradicting yourself with every word you write).

People who don't accept logic have failed at the simplest task one could hope for.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 1:52:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/24/2015 12:22:00 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/23/2015 5:12:04 PM, Envisage wrote:
I really like this post. I was worried it was going to be yet another misguided attack on nihilism - but your post is lucid on seems largely on-track.

I think the title is a bit misleading...perhaps "The #1 Misconception of Nihilism" would have described the OP a bit better.

lol I realized this after I posted it. Damn. Maybe it'll lure in some more objectivists I guess :-P.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 1:54:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 11:55:52 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/23/2015 11:45:05 PM, sdavio wrote:
If I'm to take it that you agree with Dylan's statements, then this literally entails omniscience.

All truth that is known is known absolutely, so there's omniscience within the range of knowledge one knows to be certain, sure. Anything outside of that which has yet to be conceptualized isn't known, though, and I don't see how you would argue that his statements lead to any other conclusion.

"[A statement] is false if there's ever a time or place in which it does not apply."

This would mean that knowledge of any particular fact would be identical to knowledge of all facts universally.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 2:04:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/24/2015 1:54:16 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 11:55:52 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/23/2015 11:45:05 PM, sdavio wrote:
If I'm to take it that you agree with Dylan's statements, then this literally entails omniscience.

All truth that is known is known absolutely, so there's omniscience within the range of knowledge one knows to be certain, sure. Anything outside of that which has yet to be conceptualized isn't known, though, and I don't see how you would argue that his statements lead to any other conclusion.

"[A statement] is false if there's ever a time or place in which it does not apply."

This would mean that knowledge of any particular fact would be identical to knowledge of all facts universally.

In order to know with 100% certainty that something applies at a particular spot in space and time, you must know about that place and time itself in order to make a judgement about it.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 2:20:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/24/2015 2:04:10 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/24/2015 1:54:16 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 11:55:52 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/23/2015 11:45:05 PM, sdavio wrote:
If I'm to take it that you agree with Dylan's statements, then this literally entails omniscience.

All truth that is known is known absolutely, so there's omniscience within the range of knowledge one knows to be certain, sure. Anything outside of that which has yet to be conceptualized isn't known, though, and I don't see how you would argue that his statements lead to any other conclusion.

"[A statement] is false if there's ever a time or place in which it does not apply."

This would mean that knowledge of any particular fact would be identical to knowledge of all facts universally.

In order to know with 100% certainty that something applies at a particular spot in space and time, you must know about that place and time itself in order to make a judgement about it.

Not really.

"Logical induction does not have to assume the uniformity of nature; it can be taken for granted that nature is uniformly logical. For if nature were anywhere illogical, then it would be inconsistent, and could not be coherently perceived or conceived. But if something cannot be coherently perceived or conceived, then it cannot be recognized as reality, and has no place in a theory of reality. So for theoretical purposes, reality exhibits logical homogeneity, and logical induction thus escapes Hume's problem of empirical induction."
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 2:35:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/24/2015 2:20:01 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/24/2015 2:04:10 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/24/2015 1:54:16 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 11:55:52 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/23/2015 11:45:05 PM, sdavio wrote:
If I'm to take it that you agree with Dylan's statements, then this literally entails omniscience.

All truth that is known is known absolutely, so there's omniscience within the range of knowledge one knows to be certain, sure. Anything outside of that which has yet to be conceptualized isn't known, though, and I don't see how you would argue that his statements lead to any other conclusion.

"[A statement] is false if there's ever a time or place in which it does not apply."

This would mean that knowledge of any particular fact would be identical to knowledge of all facts universally.

In order to know with 100% certainty that something applies at a particular spot in space and time, you must know about that place and time itself in order to make a judgement about it.

Not really.

"Logical induction does not have to assume the uniformity of nature; it can be taken for granted that nature is uniformly logical. For if nature were anywhere illogical, then it would be inconsistent, and could not be coherently perceived or conceived. But if something cannot be coherently perceived or conceived, then it cannot be recognized as reality, and has no place in a theory of reality. So for theoretical purposes, reality exhibits logical homogeneity, and logical induction thus escapes Hume's problem of empirical induction."

I think you're confusing conditions of existence with conditions of conceptualization.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 2:43:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/24/2015 2:35:03 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/24/2015 2:20:01 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/24/2015 2:04:10 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/24/2015 1:54:16 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 11:55:52 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/23/2015 11:45:05 PM, sdavio wrote:
If I'm to take it that you agree with Dylan's statements, then this literally entails omniscience.

All truth that is known is known absolutely, so there's omniscience within the range of knowledge one knows to be certain, sure. Anything outside of that which has yet to be conceptualized isn't known, though, and I don't see how you would argue that his statements lead to any other conclusion.

"[A statement] is false if there's ever a time or place in which it does not apply."

This would mean that knowledge of any particular fact would be identical to knowledge of all facts universally.

In order to know with 100% certainty that something applies at a particular spot in space and time, you must know about that place and time itself in order to make a judgement about it.

Not really.

"Logical induction does not have to assume the uniformity of nature; it can be taken for granted that nature is uniformly logical. For if nature were anywhere illogical, then it would be inconsistent, and could not be coherently perceived or conceived. But if something cannot be coherently perceived or conceived, then it cannot be recognized as reality, and has no place in a theory of reality. So for theoretical purposes, reality exhibits logical homogeneity, and logical induction thus escapes Hume's problem of empirical induction."

I think you're confusing conditions of existence with conditions of conceptualization.

They're necessarily conflated, because "existence" is conceptual by definition (as is everything else). Anyway, something cannot exist if there is nothing TO exist. So everything which exists must be well-defined, and thus must be consistent.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 3:22:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/24/2015 1:54:16 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 11:55:52 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/23/2015 11:45:05 PM, sdavio wrote:
If I'm to take it that you agree with Dylan's statements, then this literally entails omniscience.

All truth that is known is known absolutely, so there's omniscience within the range of knowledge one knows to be certain, sure. Anything outside of that which has yet to be conceptualized isn't known, though, and I don't see how you would argue that his statements lead to any other conclusion.

"[A statement] is false if there's ever a time or place in which it does not apply."

This would mean that knowledge of any particular fact would be identical to knowledge of all facts universally.

What exactly do you think the statements he was referring to are? There's no way to draw the conclusion assuming that the statements are sufficiently narrow and context-bound.

If I say "On May 5th, 2015, I was in New York", the statement is both true in that instance (assuming I was actually in New York then) and true in all conceivable future instances. That in no way implies anything about other statements.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 3:24:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/24/2015 2:04:10 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/24/2015 1:54:16 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 11:55:52 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/23/2015 11:45:05 PM, sdavio wrote:
If I'm to take it that you agree with Dylan's statements, then this literally entails omniscience.

All truth that is known is known absolutely, so there's omniscience within the range of knowledge one knows to be certain, sure. Anything outside of that which has yet to be conceptualized isn't known, though, and I don't see how you would argue that his statements lead to any other conclusion.

"[A statement] is false if there's ever a time or place in which it does not apply."

This would mean that knowledge of any particular fact would be identical to knowledge of all facts universally.

In order to know with 100% certainty that something applies at a particular spot in space and time, you must know about that place and time itself in order to make a judgement about it.

How is that a problem at all? I don't see your point.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 3:58:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/24/2015 3:22:21 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/24/2015 1:54:16 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 11:55:52 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/23/2015 11:45:05 PM, sdavio wrote:
If I'm to take it that you agree with Dylan's statements, then this literally entails omniscience.

All truth that is known is known absolutely, so there's omniscience within the range of knowledge one knows to be certain, sure. Anything outside of that which has yet to be conceptualized isn't known, though, and I don't see how you would argue that his statements lead to any other conclusion.

"[A statement] is false if there's ever a time or place in which it does not apply."

This would mean that knowledge of any particular fact would be identical to knowledge of all facts universally.

What exactly do you think the statements he was referring to are? There's no way to draw the conclusion assuming that the statements are sufficiently narrow and context-bound.

If I say "On May 5th, 2015, I was in New York", the statement is both true in that instance (assuming I was actually in New York then) and true in all conceivable future instances. That in no way implies anything about other statements.

You will need to add many more caveats in order to completely contain the statement within itself. In fact, infinitely many; it is impossible. You can never contain a statement in sufficient trappings such that it can carry into another instance with absolute self-same-ness.

This was the point of my other post which you asked the point of. It comes down to Leibniz's law of Indiscernibility of identicals: "If two objects are in fact one and the same, they have all the same properties."

https://en.wikipedia.org...

If we move the statement X from one situation into another, it is different simply via the fact that it is in a different situation. It is therefore not 'absolutely identical' and we have thus lost absolute certainty.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 3:29:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/24/2015 1:22:46 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/24/2015 12:17:25 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/23/2015 11:55:52 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/23/2015 11:45:05 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 11:38:17 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:19:53 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:01:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:56:00 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 12:43:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/23/2015 10:50:11 AM, sdavio wrote:
However, this analytic game even taken in the most charitable sense does not stand up to scrutiny: it is entirely possible (at least, it doesn't entail a clash of definitions) that one could affirm something without necessarily affirming it as a Justified True Belief which is true in all cases, at all places and times.

What do you think "affirm" means? When you affirm a statement, you are saying that what it says is true, you aren't just "putting it out there". The statement "Nothing is objectively true" is false if there's ever a time or place in which it does not apply. So by affirming that statement, you are, in fact, claiming that your statement describes reality. On the other hand, if you don't want to claim that, you would have to say "Objective truth does not necessarily exist" (which, of course, is also false, because the very truth of that statement would undermine its own assertion).

What are the criteria by which you know whether or not a statement 'applies'? How would you know that a statement applies at all places and times without being omniscient, and thereby knowing what occurs at 'all places and times'?

The only thing we can know for sure is that which is logically necessary.

Are all objective truth statements logically necessary?

All truth is tautological because for the truth to be true by some virtue other than being true is nonsensical.

If I'm to take it that you agree with Dylan's statements, then this literally entails omniscience.

All truth that is known is known absolutely, so there's omniscience within the range of knowledge one knows to be certain, sure. Anything outside of that which has yet to be conceptualized isn't known, though, and I don't see how you would argue that his statements lead to any other conclusion.

How can you possibly claim to know truth? The best you can do is to claim that you know what is logically consistent, and that given a system of logic, there is such a thing as truth. Without such a system, which is in itself not a necessity, you don't have truth.

If you don't think that A is A, I can't have a conversation with you. It's like talking to a wall - you don't have the sufficient qualities for it to be worthwhile (namely the self-awareness of the fact that you are literally and blatantly contradicting yourself with every word you write).

Of course, the nihilistic response would be that there being "anything worthwhile" is illusory.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I agree with your assessment of logic, but I realize that logic in and of itself is not a necessary aspect of the human condition or reality in general. All logic is conditional, to include A=A. You must first be given "A", without which logic itself cannot exist.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 3:31:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/24/2015 1:51:09 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/24/2015 1:22:46 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/24/2015 12:17:25 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/23/2015 11:55:52 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/23/2015 11:45:05 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 11:38:17 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:19:53 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:01:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:56:00 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 12:43:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/23/2015 10:50:11 AM, sdavio wrote:
However, this analytic game even taken in the most charitable sense does not stand up to scrutiny: it is entirely possible (at least, it doesn't entail a clash of definitions) that one could affirm something without necessarily affirming it as a Justified True Belief which is true in all cases, at all places and times.

What do you think "affirm" means? When you affirm a statement, you are saying that what it says is true, you aren't just "putting it out there". The statement "Nothing is objectively true" is false if there's ever a time or place in which it does not apply. So by affirming that statement, you are, in fact, claiming that your statement describes reality. On the other hand, if you don't want to claim that, you would have to say "Objective truth does not necessarily exist" (which, of course, is also false, because the very truth of that statement would undermine its own assertion).

What are the criteria by which you know whether or not a statement 'applies'? How would you know that a statement applies at all places and times without being omniscient, and thereby knowing what occurs at 'all places and times'?

The only thing we can know for sure is that which is logically necessary.

Are all objective truth statements logically necessary?

All truth is tautological because for the truth to be true by some virtue other than being true is nonsensical.

If I'm to take it that you agree with Dylan's statements, then this literally entails omniscience.

All truth that is known is known absolutely, so there's omniscience within the range of knowledge one knows to be certain, sure. Anything outside of that which has yet to be conceptualized isn't known, though, and I don't see how you would argue that his statements lead to any other conclusion.

How can you possibly claim to know truth? The best you can do is to claim that you know what is logically consistent, and that given a system of logic, there is such a thing as truth. Without such a system, which is in itself not a necessity, you don't have truth.

If you don't think that A is A, I can't have a conversation with you. It's like talking to a wall - you don't have the sufficient qualities for it to be worthwhile (namely the self-awareness of the fact that you are literally and blatantly contradicting yourself with every word you write).

People who don't accept logic have failed at the simplest task one could hope for.

You're assuming there is such a thing as "failure". Perhaps there isn't.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 3:35:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/24/2015 3:24:00 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/24/2015 2:04:10 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/24/2015 1:54:16 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 11:55:52 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/23/2015 11:45:05 PM, sdavio wrote:
If I'm to take it that you agree with Dylan's statements, then this literally entails omniscience.

All truth that is known is known absolutely, so there's omniscience within the range of knowledge one knows to be certain, sure. Anything outside of that which has yet to be conceptualized isn't known, though, and I don't see how you would argue that his statements lead to any other conclusion.

"[A statement] is false if there's ever a time or place in which it does not apply."

This would mean that knowledge of any particular fact would be identical to knowledge of all facts universally.

In order to know with 100% certainty that something applies at a particular spot in space and time, you must know about that place and time itself in order to make a judgement about it.

How is that a problem at all? I don't see your point.

As sdavio has been stating, it implies omniscience. In order to know anything about any particular spot in space in time, you'd have to be able to compare it to other spots in space and time, and without that knowledge you cannot assume anything about any particular spot in space and time as being "true".

I mean, science accounts for this. All scientific theorems and "facts" are not only falsifiable, if the track record is anything, will be proven false.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 3:40:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/24/2015 1:07:13 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/24/2015 12:17:25 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/23/2015 11:55:52 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/23/2015 11:45:05 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 11:38:17 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:19:53 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:01:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:56:00 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 12:43:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/23/2015 10:50:11 AM, sdavio wrote:
However, this analytic game even taken in the most charitable sense does not stand up to scrutiny: it is entirely possible (at least, it doesn't entail a clash of definitions) that one could affirm something without necessarily affirming it as a Justified True Belief which is true in all cases, at all places and times.

What do you think "affirm" means? When you affirm a statement, you are saying that what it says is true, you aren't just "putting it out there". The statement "Nothing is objectively true" is false if there's ever a time or place in which it does not apply. So by affirming that statement, you are, in fact, claiming that your statement describes reality. On the other hand, if you don't want to claim that, you would have to say "Objective truth does not necessarily exist" (which, of course, is also false, because the very truth of that statement would undermine its own assertion).

What are the criteria by which you know whether or not a statement 'applies'? How would you know that a statement applies at all places and times without being omniscient, and thereby knowing what occurs at 'all places and times'?

The only thing we can know for sure is that which is logically necessary.

Are all objective truth statements logically necessary?

All truth is tautological because for the truth to be true by some virtue other than being true is nonsensical.

If I'm to take it that you agree with Dylan's statements, then this literally entails omniscience.

All truth that is known is known absolutely, so there's omniscience within the range of knowledge one knows to be certain, sure. Anything outside of that which has yet to be conceptualized isn't known, though, and I don't see how you would argue that his statements lead to any other conclusion.

How can you possibly claim to know truth?

Why don't you tell us, as you're clearly under the impression that you've found some.

The best you can do is to claim that you know what is logically consistent, and that given a system of logic, there is such a thing as truth. Without such a system, which is in itself not a necessity, you don't have truth.

Logic is not a system artificially imposed on anything. Quite simply, logic is the recognition of what we take for granted merely by theorizing.

That recognition is "artificial imposition".

Without logic, things needn't be themselves, which is not even a meaningful prospect. In some sense, you are "aware" of all logical truths, since your awareness could not exist if it did not recognize the fact that A is A.

A=A is only possible if you assume "A" to be true, i.e. you assume A to exist in the first place, which by its very nature assumes the argument you're trying to prove. All logic is inherently circular.

So basically, logic is the theory that answers the question "What distinguishes information from non-information?"

Why need there be information in the first place? Isn't information itself an artificial construct?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 3:45:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/24/2015 3:29:11 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/24/2015 1:22:46 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/24/2015 12:17:25 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/23/2015 11:55:52 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/23/2015 11:45:05 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 11:38:17 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:19:53 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 2:01:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:56:00 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 6/23/2015 12:43:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/23/2015 10:50:11 AM, sdavio wrote:
However, this analytic game even taken in the most charitable sense does not stand up to scrutiny: it is entirely possible (at least, it doesn't entail a clash of definitions) that one could affirm something without necessarily affirming it as a Justified True Belief which is true in all cases, at all places and times.

What do you think "affirm" means? When you affirm a statement, you are saying that what it says is true, you aren't just "putting it out there". The statement "Nothing is objectively true" is false if there's ever a time or place in which it does not apply. So by affirming that statement, you are, in fact, claiming that your statement describes reality. On the other hand, if you don't want to claim that, you would have to say "Objective truth does not necessarily exist" (which, of course, is also false, because the very truth of that statement would undermine its own assertion).

What are the criteria by which you know whether or not a statement 'applies'? How would you know that a statement applies at all places and times without being omniscient, and thereby knowing what occurs at 'all places and times'?

The only thing we can know for sure is that which is logically necessary.

Are all objective truth statements logically necessary?

All truth is tautological because for the truth to be true by some virtue other than being true is nonsensical.

If I'm to take it that you agree with Dylan's statements, then this literally entails omniscience.

All truth that is known is known absolutely, so there's omniscience within the range of knowledge one knows to be certain, sure. Anything outside of that which has yet to be conceptualized isn't known, though, and I don't see how you would argue that his statements lead to any other conclusion.

How can you possibly claim to know truth? The best you can do is to claim that you know what is logically consistent, and that given a system of logic, there is such a thing as truth. Without such a system, which is in itself not a necessity, you don't have truth.

If you don't think that A is A, I can't have a conversation with you. It's like talking to a wall - you don't have the sufficient qualities for it to be worthwhile (namely the self-awareness of the fact that you are literally and blatantly contradicting yourself with every word you write).

Of course, the nihilistic response would be that there being "anything worthwhile" is illusory.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I agree with your assessment of logic, but I realize that logic in and of itself is not a necessary aspect of the human condition or reality in general. All logic is conditional, to include A=A. You must first be given "A", without which logic itself cannot exist.

Logic is indeed a necessary aspect of reality in general, since without it, "real" and "unreal" could not be distinguished. If we were not given the first "A", the merest act of perception and cognition would be utterly impossible (which they clearly aren't). You have no basis whatsoever for claiming that the kind of truth that logic establishes and defines isn't universal. You have no way of proving that it is even possible that logic isn't universal.