Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Hm. Let me define a type of philosophy, Garfunkelism: Interpretation of systematic schemes via idiosyncratic obscurity…^•
The practitioners of this type of philosophy take the creative (often exploratory or speculative) work of others and "dogmatize" it; then spend the rest of their time defending their own misunderstandings!

What is it that I keep emphasising throughout? Purpose! Without a purpose, your talk is just buzzing of the flies. You buzz a lot, but it's just buzzing. Now you gave your style a Hilarious Word: Garfunkelism.

ersi, you require -psychologically- a closed system, answers to all questions derivable, questions to be either easily answered or deemed incoherent… You're not that different from the Logical Positivists.
You avoid their fate by boxing (putting in a box) your views and ignoring anything outside of your box.

What's the other thing I keep emphasising throughout? Demonstrate! You don't get to just assert, you have to build a full argument to demonstrate your case. Otherwise your talk is just buzzing of the flies a.k.a. Garfunkelism.

When I say I have strong nominalistic tendencies, I do indeed mean that I see no reason to accept Platonic (Metaphysical) Realism… (Or Idealism: the terms are equivalent!) But, before that, I mean that I've heard people speak, read what they've written; and I've rejected theories that require full knowledge of some systemization of linguistics, before I (or anyone else) can understand such.

And what did I say in the first post in this thread? I said: Can you state the basic tenets of Nominalism and explain in a few words why it's better than Platonic ideas? You never got to that, and you never will.
Edit: For now you are on the level of "I like A and I don't like B" - and this is your ENTIRE reasoning. For me, this is not reasoning to begin with.

You may have read a lot and even thought many things through, but what's the point of mentioning it when you give no demonstration or evidence of it?

Quine's holism makes much sense; but it, too, is deficient… (I mention him, since you seem to think I argue from Authority… ) As someone once said, cogently, "The map is not the territory."

Okay, added to the list of things you reject for flimsy reasons.
Edit: ANY theory is a map. Are maps useless? Problems begin when you forget they are maps - and also when you demand map be the territory. Why do you want a map that is the territory, hence impossible to carry around and to safely learn from before one goes out into the wild?

Why must Red be granted existential superiority? Can we not just see how "red" is used…?

(And can't the blind student of physics and physiology still understand electromagnetic radiation and optics?)

In terms of electromagnetic radiation and optics there's no red. There is just a continuous scale of wave frequencies. As long as electromagentism and optics is the only definition of red for you, the blind student will remain blind to red.

Why must a mathematician who poses a problem and, then, its solution…be coerced to say, "I didn't create anything… I just stumbled across something left there unnoticed, before."
Because -as you said, in "your" language, the distinction is differently apprehended? LOL! Is that the fault of your language or of your understanding? I don't know… Perhaps your socialization was particularly harsh, and you absolutely have to be right — meaning, whoever disagrees with you (your formulations) must be wrong!

I said a whole lotta more meanwhile that you have already conveniently forgotten even though I said it repeatedly. I am tired of being the only one to make full points. I won't do your job for you. I just keep pointing out that you are not doing your job. When you are not listening to what I say, you keep returning to the same irrelevant wrong-headed soundbites that were already refuted and replaced long ago. That's the power of projection on your part - you have a so effectively closed mind that you think everybody else is closed-minded except you. Ah, no point. I have already demonstrated your projection to you and you did not listen to this either.

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-16, 18:18:04

I'd demur… That is, I don't have to be right; but our common experience must be accounted for.

Indeed, but here's what you are doing: You don't account for common experience yourself (most lately you just denounced red!) yet you think it's everybody else who fails to take common experience into account, despite proof and evidence to the contrary. The proof and evidence you simply ignore...

Try again. Try harder, better. Try the right way. Surely you have read a book about how to make a point. Use it!

(Edited to better point out to you how to begin to make a point, since your books haven't taught you this yet.)

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #77 – 2014-07-17, 08:36:56

Can you state the basic tenets of Nominalism and explain in a few words why it's better than Platonic ideas?

It's not a school or a doctrine in your sense, ersi; so I doubt you can understand… But I'll try again to explain…
(To me, you seem like a bright high school student — or a dim high school teacher. I'd prefer to discuss things with interested, interesting adults, but c'est la vie!)
Let's start with Platonic Ideas, even though even you'd have to admit we actually start with a nominalistic viewpoint…
How would you determine that someone didn't believe in Platonic Entities, if they never discussed "philosophy"? That is, on what evidence might you conclude that they didn't understand how to use the word "red" — because they didn't grok Redness?
(Yes, I'm asking you to actually think about it…

)

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-16, 18:18:04

In terms of electromagnetic radiation and optics there's no red. There is just a continuous scale of wave frequencies. So physics is not what red is about, and the blind student will remain blind to red, if this is the only definition.

If you mean to say that the blind student will remain blind, you're probably right… But per Plato why would physical blindness hamper "perception" in the non-physical realm of Ideas? You have yet to display any means to connect the physical with the non-physical. (I blame Descartes, primarily… But that's another argument.) But shouldn't you argue, contra ersi, that the blind student must have the same access, as a matter of logic?
I find it uncontroversial that people easily agree that something is red; so, I don't see the need of Redness too, specially not as an eternal perfect entity.
I also find it hard to believe that you find it controversial that people agree that something is red; and so much so that you think another realm of being is required to quell such qualms, yours and theirs!
Would you describe this controversy for me? (I'll accept hear-say evidence…)

Perhaps you'd like to argue that the blind student has not experienced the instantiations of Redness and, so, cannot "connect" his higher perceptions to his senses… But I don't think that really works: the physics and optics are adequate tethers for Redness, if such exists!
And if it doesn't, they are adequate tethers for the way of speaking that has most people agree that something is red… Even the blind student can see that.
——————————————
Another task: How would you explain a merely color-blind student's deficient apprehension of the non-physical Redness? How many different ways can the world of Platonic Ideas become unavailable, via physical disability?
Better put, the question becomes, How many different ways is the world of Platonic Ideas a chimera? And how confused does one have to become to see such cryptozoological specimens as real?

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #78 – 2014-07-17, 10:09:10

It's not a school or a doctrine in your sense, ersi; so I doubt you can understand… But I'll try again to explain…

And you have no problem with how *vague* you are? Only with how *vague* others are? Okay, I will still try my best to not dismiss your stance as irrelevant and unworkable the way I have dismissed e.g. postmodernism, a very bad and sad twist of fate in the affairs of philosophy. I will try to be as patient with you the way I am with the American horridly undefined thing called Pragmatism, which seems to be the umbrella under which congregate postmodernists who shun the label of postmodernism.

I will do my best to be patient and see how you little by little give an exposition of your system. But wait, you didn't give any exposition. All you do is criticise Platonism, without showing any better alternative. '

You are just plain hopeless. I will get back to you when I'm done with more important things. Meanwhile get your act together and present some positive substance to go with all the demolition of Platonism that you attempt here. You constantly pretend that nothing in the world is good enough for you, but this is just sheer Garfunkelism as long as you have not laid out your standard based on which you determine what *good* means.

Destructive criticism is okay, when done competently (which you haven't - and I'll get back to that), but constructive criticism - a better alternative - is always better. If you disagree, then accept that I am dealing with you accordingly - as with someone not okay.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #79 – 2014-07-17, 13:41:54

You have manoeuvred me to formulate a defence for Platonism, but it necessarily comes with qualifications. I am not a Platonist, certainly not the kind of Platonist that you assume. This is the main qualification.

When you assume the multiplicity of Platonic forms, that the forms inhabit a certain spatial dimension, etc. this is entirely false. It's not just false concerning me, but also false concerning Plato. As much as I have read Plato, I did not manage to read such assumptions into his writings. I consider "forms" the wrong translation of the word "idea" which Plato actually used. This translation issue is a specifically Anglophone problem which doesn't exist in continental Europe. I consider the true Platonism to be basically the same as Neoplatonism as per Plotinus, and that's what I am defending. And from this perspective your criticism is completely incompetent.

How would you determine that someone didn't believe in Platonic Entities, if they never discussed "philosophy"? That is, on what evidence might you conclude that they didn't understand how to use the word "red" — because they didn't grok Redness?
(Yes, I'm asking you to actually think about it… )

Why should it matter what someone thinks? It matters what things are. When it comes to understanding things, then for oneself it matters to take note how the mind and the senses operate, whereas in relation to others it matters to be sufficiently precise and relevant with formulations. And when these things are in order, there's not too much of a problem.

In other words: What is your question about? Are you pretending to get anywhere or have you stopped pretending?

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-16, 18:18:04
In terms of electromagnetic radiation and optics there's no red. There is just a continuous scale of wave frequencies. So physics is not what red is about, and the blind student will remain blind to red, if this is the only definition.

If you mean to say that the blind student will remain blind, you're probably right… But per Plato why would physical blindness hamper "perception" in the non-physical realm of Ideas?

To speak specifically about redness, there's no such thing. The so-called realm of ideas is completely different than you imagine. It's a single homogeneous continuum comprising everything conceivable. For a sluggish stubborn particularist (like yourself) it will necessarily look like an ocean stuffed with dead fish and industrial junk - and you would be forever stuck on those items and talking about them - but it won't change the fact that the imagined boundaries between things are not really there.

If you desire possessions, you can always separate an area of space and label it "my house" or "my castle" - even get a certificate from authorities that the place yours - but this won't change the fact that it's really indivisible space where ultimately anyone and anything can come and go.

You have yet to display any means to connect the physical with the non-physical. (I blame Descartes, primarily… But that's another argument.) But shouldn't you argue, contra ersi, that the blind student must have the same access, as a matter of logic?
I find it uncontroversial that people easily agree that something is red; so, I don't see the need of Redness too, specially not as an eternal perfect entity.
I also find it hard to believe that you find it controversial that people agree that something is red; and so much so that you think another realm of being is required to quell such qualms, yours and theirs!
Would you describe this controversy for me? (I'll accept hear-say evidence…)

The controversy only exists as long as you think that redness is another thing in another realm that should somehow be connected with this realm. And that's what you think, but I don't, so the controversy is yours alone.

The so-called other realm of Platonic ideas (and of mathematical objects and of metaphysical categories) is *analytically separable,* but ontologically everything everywhere is the same single realm. I have given you an example earlier how to separate the meaning from the word analytically, but you could not grasp it due to your astonishing lack of analytical skills. The example is still available in this thread. Go and repeat the lesson until you get it.

Perhaps you'd like to argue that the blind student has not experienced the instantiations of Redness and, so, cannot "connect" his higher perceptions to his senses… But I don't think that really works: the physics and optics are adequate tethers for Redness, if such exists!

The adequate tether to connect an object to the subject is the live senses and the mind. The tether is not physics and optics. The tether is not the senses alone. The active mind by itself can serve as the sufficient tether to the objects, but the objects would look totally different without the mediation of the senses. Instead of Euclidian, they would look topological. Instead of Epicurean, the experience is annoyingly Platonic without the senses. Specifically, Platonic the way I understand it, not the way you try to vilify.

For the sake of argument let's for the moment concede that redness exists. On Platonic epistemology, redness (assuming that it exists) pertains to the senses, not directly to the mind. Therefore, on Platonic psychology, redness moves from the senses to the mind, not from the mind to the senses the way you keep falsely assuming.

And if it doesn't, they are adequate tethers for the way of speaking that has most people agree that something is red… Even the blind student can see that.

The senses are the organs of input and the mind is the organ of digestion of the input. There's also some input directly to the live mind, but without the mediation of the senses there's no *direct perception* of redness and, as already said contrary to your false assumptions, redness as a Platonic object in some other realm mysteriously connectible with this realm does not exist - and if you insist we shoud talk about redness anyway, then on Platonism it's construed to pertain to the sense of vision, not directly to the mind.

Therefore the blind student, lacking sense of vision, would remain without the experience of redness, just like a person who is tube-fed directly into the stomach remains without the taste of food, even though he gets fed, whereas the person whose stomach ceased functioning would die of hunger no matter how well and how long you explain the biological function of digestion to him.

"Suchness" exists in Aristotelian theory of forms, but this would be another argument. And I am much less an Aristotelian than I am Platonist. I find Platonism defensible, but not Aristotelianism.

Another task: How would you explain a merely color-blind student's deficient apprehension of the non-physical Redness? How many different ways can the world of Platonic Ideas become unavailable, via physical disability?

Looks like the same task. I already handled it.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-23, 05:59:51

Better put, the question becomes, How many different ways is the world of Platonic Ideas a chimera? And how confused does one have to become to see such cryptozoological specimens as real?

This is not better put. Thus far at your worst you used to make some remote sense, but this time you outdid yourself.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #80 – 2014-07-17, 13:52:10

I'd certainly agree with your estimation of Postmodernism! But some of Charles Sanders Pierce's work was good, for its time… Pragmatism does have -like all philosophical systems- some serious logical problems.

While I take your point about constructive criticism, per se, I reject it as an adequate method for philosophy… The closest I think we can come to a complete and comprehensive system is to be found within science, mathematics and logic. So, I won't likely be offering you yet another set of metaphysical speculations — to fill the psychological void left by the rejection of Platonic Idealism.

But you knew that; I've certainly said it often enough!

I'm sorry you find my "destructive" criticism incompetent. But I'm not charging you to peruse my rambling thoughts, am I?

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #81 – 2014-07-23, 10:56:45

I've long restrained myself from the obvious comment about Plotinus's "philosophy": Is it more than a bad reaction to a traumatic potty-training?

Hmm, I thought you didn't want to comment on my defence of Platonism because it contained analogies, which you seem to dislike on principle, but now it turns out it's because it doesn't contain enough insults to your taste. Okay, you win on insults.

As to the philosophy itself, it formally stands because you offer no refutation or alternative.

In a debating situation one should explicitly set out one's terms. If you value insults higher than argumentation, then say so, and I will do my best to accommodate to your terms. It's basic civility, you see

If you enjoy cage fights in insults, try #philosophy @efnet and #scripture @undernet (IRC channels) but be careful, it's so hardcore there that you may be beaten to dust very early. I won't be there helping you out.

------------------------

For me, analogies and thought experiments are a legitimate formal tool, fitting this thread too, among others. Here's a thought experiment against utilitarian theory of morality.

On utilitarianism, maximisation of utility is the greatest good. Let's say someone in a sufficient position of power is sincerely implementing a policy that genuinely maximises utility. Say the official is now turning to you so that you would be a participant in the implementation of the policy. Since maximisation of utility is the greatest good, you cannot say no, when you are a utilitarian. As the maximisation of utility spreads further this way in the society, more and more people are drawn along into this, whether they want it or not. Those who say no are to be forced, because they are not maximising utility, and on utilitarianism the coercion of such people by whatever means is morally good, because it leads to the greatest good - maximisation of utility. Surely you get the idea by now.

For me, the task of a satisfactory moral theory is to define good in the way that coercion is moderated and balanced against other factors. Utilitarianism fails according to this thought experiment. This thought experiment is easily modified to target any ethical theory where the concept of moral good is defined in whichever reductive way.

Now, either demonstrate that your moral theory is free from this trap or insult the thought experiment. As you please.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #82 – 2014-07-23, 11:25:34

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-23, 10:56:45

If you enjoy cage fights in insults, try #philosophy @efnet and #scripture @undernet (IRC channels) but be careful, it's so hardcore there that you may be beaten to dust very early. I won't be there helping you out.

Hmm... we should organize a punitive DnD expedition there.. theists attack by the right side, atheists by the left, we siege them in a classic move and massacre them all.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #83 – 2014-07-23, 20:46:02

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-23, 02:56:45

In a debating situation one should explicitly set out one's terms.

In conversation, one shouldn't…

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-23, 02:56:45

For me, analogies and thought experiments are a legitimate formal tool, fitting this thread too, among others. Here's a thought experiment against utilitarian theory of morality.

Ah, yet another Grand Theory! That is, an analogy — pushed beyond reasonable application…

I'm not surprised you find it easy to caricature systems you don't like. (I attempted something similar with Platonism.

) But I'd reject all "Greatest Good" systems…

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-23, 02:56:45

For me, the task of a satisfactory moral theory is to define good in the way that coercion is moderated and balanced against other factors.

For me, the task of a theory of morality is to explain the moral facts "on the ground" as it were…

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #84 – 2014-07-24, 05:10:59

Quote from: Belfrager on 2014-07-23, 19:58:12

a) It's your moral duty to try "saving the world" no matter what the result would be. Morality it's not the same as utility.
b) Is the world wanting to be saved a pre condition for a)? good question. The answer can't be a rational but an emotive one, I believe so.

You actually made me think here for a minute. It doesn't happen often

I'd say that the world wanting to be saved is not a precondition to our moral duty. Our moral duty is to be compassionate in any case, and act out of it whenever possible. However, the world wanting to be saved is a precondition to the effective completion of the duty. Even the Buddha's compassion is not enough to save the world that doesn't want to be saved. If the world doesn't want to be saved, it won't affect the Buddha's compassion, but it diminishes the world's chances to be actually saved.

And the result actually matters. The result should not be no matter what. The impulse to action should be moral and the outcome should also be moral. Then it's properly moral.

My apologies for finding a rational answer again.

Quote from: Belfrager on 2014-07-23, 19:58:12

Most atheists (so I don't say all of them) are atheists by no rational reasoning but because emotions. Like teenagers they need to be against, just that. There is God will trigger No, there isn't and there you have the best of atheism - disguising emotive impulsions under a pseudo scientific cover.

Where God is at the heights and men at their knees, atheists want to change it. God must knee in front of The Atheist,in front of Man. Wow.

[...]

A civilizational war is happening using well intentioned atheists that don't understand how their emotions are being used.

I find this to be so spot-on that even (rational) atheists cannot deny this.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-23, 20:46:02

I'm not surprised you find it easy to caricature systems you don't like. (I attempted something similar with Platonism. )

The trick is to understand what you are rejecting. Understand the system sufficiently first, so that you know if it fits or not, what its consequences are etc., then you can accept or reject it. You didn't get over the first hurdle.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-23, 20:46:02

But I'd reject all "Greatest Good" systems…

Then you are left with no moral system at all. If you believe you still have it, explain how.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-23, 20:46:02

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-23, 02:56:45
For me, the task of a satisfactory moral theory is to define good in the way that coercion is moderated and balanced against other factors.

For me, the task of a theory of morality is to explain the moral facts "on the ground" as it were…

Explain as opposed to define? Doesn't a good definition also exhaustively explain?

After rejecting greatest good, what moral facts are you left with? And what is ""on the ground" as it were"?

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #85 – 2014-07-24, 06:37:43

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-23, 21:10:59

Then you are left with no moral system at all. If you believe you still have it, explain how.

As I mentioned in other contexts, I was raised by people — so I have some understanding of their ways…

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-23, 21:10:59

Understand the system sufficiently first, so that you know if it fits or not, what its consequences are etc., then you can accept or reject it. You didn't get over the first hurdle.

You seem to require me to return to my high school BS sessions; as if I missed something important! Indeed, I may have. But no philosopher of morality has yet to show me something I'd not already considered. (There are a few exceptions, that I consider unremarkable: For instance, this… You have to laugh, or you'd cry!

) But sometimes even I'm surprised: What would be required for a machine intelligence to be moral? I find that question to be quite interesting.
Do you think morality is imposed? (By nature or God…) Or is it innate? (A pre-set or evolving group of behaviors…) Or is it just what those currently in power require, for their own ends?
Me, I think it's all of those. And more. But arguing about systems won't do much to explain "morality" — unless you're willing to settle for the lexicographer's efforts. (Start with definitions, eh?) You seem to argue as if dictionaries and grammars exist prior to language… To me, this is an absurd position.
"The Greatest Good"? Do we even speak a common language? Do we even live in the same world?

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #86 – 2014-07-24, 08:44:42

As I mentioned in other contexts, I was raised by people — so I have some understanding of their ways…

Sorry to say this, but as you demonstrate very inconsistent signs of comprehension of humanity, you will have to make more effort to convince me.

You seem to require me to return to my high school BS sessions; as if I missed something important! Indeed, I may have.

Indeed.

What would be required for a machine intelligence to be moral? I find that question to be quite interesting.

Wouldn't you perhaps know the answer to this one, had you paid attention at high school BS sessions?

Do you think morality is imposed? (By nature or God…) Or is it innate? (A pre-set or evolving group of behaviors…) Or is it just what those currently in power require, for their own ends?
Me, I think it's all of those. And more.

When it's all those and more, then what prevents you from calling it the greatest good? You have very awkward reactions to certain words, particularly considering that you are a nominalist so words should not matter to you. Words are not *reality*, or how is it? Somehow your mind short-circuits at certain words. Is there a discernible pattern to those words? Have you discovered the pattern of your mental short-circuits? (Serious question.)