Anti-intellectualism

[Whaleboy]

thats all I get, a two word response on something pertinent and a huge paragraph on u luving to hear urself speak. and to top all the fun off we get the lil intellectual slide at the end.

maybe ur just upset ppl can see through ur passive aggressive nature.

wtf? Someone's going back on the block list! When you can demonstrate an ability to debate and converse in a mature, civil manner, I will start to pay you the attention you so clearly yearn for *Whaleboy pats yavoon on the head*

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Whaleboy






wtf? Someone's going back on the block list! When you can demonstrate an ability to debate and converse in a mature, civil manner, I will start to pay you the attention you so clearly yearn for *Whaleboy pats yavoon on the head*

thats quite a defense mechanism u have. are u always this condescending? or just to ppl u feel are undeserving of ur genius?

the quick movement from argument, to arguments of authority, to condescention. care to trot out any other useless things while we're here?

as pertains to the original thread I think u've answered it quite succintly.

[Spiffor]

In the above post, I have just understood yavoon hides his acumen and big brains under his writing style. Although his hiding is obvoius, it has fooled many of us already.

[Whaleboy]

Agreed. Wasted ability.

[Ben Kenobi]

I can say that I am flawed from the perspective of other subjectives and pseudo-objectives in my daily contexts with which I can empathise (because we as humans have variant capabilities of perceiving objectively, in other words, independent of the self

While yavoon hides his skill under his simple posting style, you obfuscate under yours.

"perspective of other subjectives and pseudo-objectives"

So to clarify, you differ from other people, hence you know your arguments are flawed. This does not work, because how do you know who is on the right side of the line? Just because the majority believes in something, does not make the majority correct.

"in my daily contexts"

I cannot make head nor tail of what you are trying to say here.

"variant capabilities of perceiving objectively".

And how can we possibly determine these variations? Majority rule?

... it develops at about 6 months with object permanence and again between 3 - 5 with the theory of mind).

Conscience? Better word. It does not stop developing.

I do not need to presuppose a godhead, or an absolute/infinite objective with which to compare myself, because a) I cannot know it by definition

You cannot know God? Why do you assume this? Surely, if he were omnipotent, he would have the capability of contacting you. By definition, God should be knowable to some extent.

b) there is no evidence for its existence, and my argument certainly does not imply it.

Your argument implies an objective morality. It's another step to go from there to the existence of God, which you manage to do later in your post.

Well in the 3000 odd year history of philosophy, nobody yet has been able to come up with that truth,

And how would you recognise truth if it came up and bit you on the nose? Human beings are limited, they are flawed. Why should we expect them to be able to produce the proper morality on their own? If anything, we would expect the opposite. If people had all of the objective morality, how could they be sure it was right?

and in order for it to be known, it cannot be disputed and should reasonably be an inherently logical theory, that cannot logically be refuted.

People are not logical beings. Often, what they believe to be moral has little to do with logic.

You claim an absolute morality can exist? Show me how.

For that, I need the existence of God. Only God can provide an absolute morality, valid everywhere and at all times.

[Zylka]

I think victimization of intellectuals (?) would have made a more relevant topic; especially regarding our young author. Would someone please tell this dos cvnt he's not yet such a figure, either? Have another go at being "one of the boys" - because further bastardization of insight and expression with obsolete 4 dollar words and well publicized self pity isn't going to get you or the free thinking community past "objectionable nobody"

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Kramerman




who said anything about undistinguishable? just because there is no absolute right and wrong does not mean they are undistinguishable.
Some moral values are more in ones best interest than others. that does not mean they are 'more right' and other morals are 'more wrong'. It just means those morals are more appropriate for you for whatever reason. theres nothing lame about it. pretty understandable and straight foraward really. And if you think that you KNOW the absolute moral code of the universe, then you sir are a moron. You name me something you think is morally wrong, and ill name you some hypothetical society or person who would whole-heartedly disagree

missed a post!

are u implying that if there was an absolute moral code of the universe that everyone would agree on morality?

or perhaps that the fact that ppl disagree implies relativism?

I also find weird contention w/ the idea that everyone's moral code differs based upon selfishness. not sure if u actually mean that. that would be nearly as demeaning as the whole moral code by flight of fancy argument.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Spiffor
In the above post, I have just understood yavoon hides his acumen and big brains under his writing style. Although his hiding is obvoius, it has fooled many of us already.

french love

[Whaleboy]

"perspective of other subjectives and pseudo-objectives"

It's simple really. Think of a courtroom, respectively defendant+plaintiff, and judge.

So to clarify, you differ from other people, hence you know your arguments are flawed. This does not work, because how do you know who is on the right side of the line? Just because the majority believes in something, does not make the majority correct.

Relativism does not imply tyranny by majority or the democracy fallacy. The right side of the line? There is none. I differ from other people, and other people differ from other people, and other people differ from me. Objectively, we are all equally worthless or valueless, but someone, somewhere, will always find a flaw in any argument, and it goes back to the notion of logic being able to support or refute any position to a necessarily equal degree.

"in my daily contexts"

The situations where I have to make judgments. Sorry about that, I thought the term would be familial or self-explanatory, my bad!

"variant capabilities of perceiving objectively".

And how can we possibly determine these variations? Majority rule?

No, the best way to describe this is the phrase that we, as subjectives, are capable (to different degrees of course (which seems to run on an intellectual/non-intellectual line but thats very ambiguous so don't take that as in any way conclusive)), emulate objectivity per context. For example, you can see things from another's point of view, "read their minds" or "look through their eyes" as it were. As such you can almost objectify a point of view that is independent to your own, so an emulation of objectivity can occur. We would put this into practice when confronted by a conflict of interest, where our role as judge could be undermined by our own subjective wants, yet we don't breach objectivity. Neat really .

Conscience? Better word. It does not stop developing.

No, a general consensus in developmental psychology is that in our early childhood, there are periods of development, for example, attachments, language development or the theory of mind (which is a pre-requisite imo to developing the ability to emulate objectivity). Not strictly related to this, but showing that we have windows of opportunity in our development, I can refer you to Bowlby's phase account, though I have problems with his methods, it does show to a satisfactory degree that the development of our minds can be phased.

You cannot know God? Why do you assume this? Surely, if he were omnipotent, he would have the capability of contacting you. By definition, God should be knowable to some extent.

To understand my point, you need to have some grounding in dimensions as used in cosmology, particularly general relativity (ah, sweet vindication). Put simply, we have our three spatial dimensions of length, width and depth, and a fourth of time. Ignoring string or superstring theory, we live within a four-dimensional universe (because we can perceive the flow of time). Infinity is a term we use to apply absolute, but really that only works in these dimensions. For example, consider a cricket ball on a rubber mat. This is a three-dimensional analogy. It causes an indentation in the matt (like the curvature of space-time by a body of mass). The cricket balls diameter halves, but its mass remains the same. The indentation grows. You quarter the diameter, it grows. You continue until you reach a point where the mat can take no more, breaks and the ball drops through. Anyone living within the realm of the mat would see that hole as a singularity, a point of infinite gravity and infinitesimal size. We, on the other hand, can imagine and see clearly what has happened. Infinity is related to context. Now we in four dimensions could never reach infinity, because that would imply five. We cannot communicate with any hypothetical three-dimensional being because they would be unable to perceive our extra dimension, as we cannot perceive any 5th dimension (though can theorise what it would be like; 4th dimension becoming a vector yadda yadda).

To cut a long story short, we consider a god to be absolute and infinite. That means that for us, he would be 5-dimensional, and certainly most interpretations of him knowing the future etc would seem to bear that out, though I don't claim to be a theologian, so I'm resorting to the semitic concept of god I'm familiar with. As a result, this being would not be able to communicate with us, nor us communicate with him. He could not be 6-dimensional (again ignore string theory because that goes along with every dimension in one form or another), because then he would not be able to reach down to 5, only that incorporated in his 6).

Your argument implies an objective morality. It's another step to go from there to the existence of God, which you manage to do later in your post.

I assure you it most certainly does not. Just because ours are flawed does not imply a less flawed argument, simply because objectively, ours are equally meaningless. Their worth and knowledge is relative to the beholder, hence relativism. I don't see where the difficulty with that lies.

And how would you recognise truth if it came up and bit you on the nose? Human beings are limited, they are flawed. Why should we expect them to be able to produce the proper morality on their own? If anything, we would expect the opposite. If people had all of the objective morality, how could they be sure it was right?

Very true, see my piece about God as well. However, one would take as a clue, as well as an underlying assumption to all humans that would be undisputed and a premise therefore of all human subjectives, a view that no-one could refute. Since that has never been the case, I can say with a degree of confidence that no philosopher has ever stumbled upon the truth.

People are not logical beings. Often, what they believe to be moral has little to do with logic.

Logic is not a single, monolithic being. It is a tool we use in our heads, after all, are our brains not computers, and thus, all they generate have some genesis in logic at at least the most basic level? Morality has a logic all of its own, but as an emotive (or dispositional) stance, it need not hold between more than one person.

For that, I need the existence of God. Only God can provide an absolute morality, valid everywhere and at all times.

Thankyou. There we concur. I believe god does not exist, ergo, I believe absolute morality can exist. The best refutation of my argument would be proof of the existence of god.

I think victimization of intellectuals (?) would have made a more relevant topic; especially regarding our young author. Would someone please tell this dos cvnt he's not yet such a figure, either? Have another go at being "one of the boys" - because further bastardization of insight and expression with obsolete 4 dollar words and well publicized self pity isn't going to get you or the free thinking community past "objectionable nobody"

Zylka: MDMA or speed?

I also find weird contention w/ the idea that everyone's moral code differs based upon selfishness. not sure if u actually mean that. that would be nearly as demeaning as the whole moral code by flight of fancy argument.

That's a very clever point, I hadn't realised that! . While you flame it, I in fact agree. Our moral codes are based fundamentally out of selfishness, though I cannot ply that as a philosophical fact, more an extension of the psychological contention that altruism does not exist. I'm sorry you find it demeaning, perhaps therefore we should agree to disagree?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Sounds like someone's jealous... *sings* jk

Fluffy dice have a use! They're cute!!!.

Your crappy, smutty replies are really very annoying.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
They bring light to darkness. What that means exactly is down to each individual intellectual.

That's a bizarre statement. How can they 'bring light to darkness' when it's down to each individual intellectual what that entails? It's a obscurantist way of saying that you don't know, isn't it? I'd expect as much from an ill-advised attempt to marry hardcore functionalism with relativity.

Usefulness is at least a socially defined state, you can't just proclaim yourself 'useful' because you 'bring light to darkness' only as you know how.

[Zylka]

Originally posted by Whaleboy

Zylka: MDMA or speed?

Ahh, the "intellectual" leans to the same out every low brow chump in this forum exercises in panic. Reality, actually. Have fun being a bitter, ego massaging nobody for the rest of your life. Philosophy minor coupled with accounting, I imagine. What a shame!

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Zylka
Philosophy minor coupled with accounting, I imagine. What a shame!

Ben (Whaleboy) doing accountancy If he goes to uni, my bet would be on English and Philosophy (we don't have major and minor subjects). Ben being a bean counter would be quite a turn up for the books

Ok, this made me chuckle far to much, but if you knew him, you'd understand

[Zylka]

why, is he faking to stir s* up? Would be a refreshing change, if that were the case

[Drogue]

No, but he abhores, IIRC, the idea of a bean counter, someone just shuffling paper.

[Zylka]

it's therefore what he's worth

So it's fate in the making! Man I know how to pick em :-D