99Percent

This is interesting. Did we invent the number zero or did we discover it? Did we invent the concept of circularity - the constant pi, or was it discovered? If we beamed the constant pi to other alien civilizations, would they understand it or will they say its simply an invention of ours?

Primal

Not really John. Charles Darwin discovered evolution, does that mean there was a system or theory of evolution already existing?

But such requires an a priori dismissal.

Alas poor John who has done such a thing? When did anyone, the professor included say relativists were corrupt or evil?

The only reference to evil I have seen is your labeling absolutism a cancer.

Primal

And you haven't brought forth evidence for this. How did you prove all statements are relative via lack of evidence for absolutes? How did you deny certain statements were absolute with anything but an a priori dismissal?


So the statement ALL viewpoints are relative is not universal in scope?

So then it's not really relativism even if there is a possibility of chance.


That's not what it means John. What it means is that you don't think any viewpoint correlates with reality better than any other or more accurate at the conceptual level.

Yeah.

Consensus: con�sen�sus [Audio pronunciation of consensus] ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-snss)
n.

1. An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole: ?Among political women... there is a clear consensus about the problems women candidates have traditionally faced? (Wendy Kaminer). See Usage Note at redundancy.
2. General agreement or accord: government by consensus.

Which is basically majority agreement there John.


Any other -ism? You one of those psuedo-intellectuals that "don't adhere to any -ism" John? Would this include then skepticism,atheism,agnosticism etc. John?

Also then you are saying you adhere to objectivist methods, which are derived from objectivism yet denying objectivism and by implication objectivist methods.


Did John and it's still inconsistent. Writing it in a new way doesn't change this.

Yes but that may be because I have objectivist predispositions. However for a subjectivist I fail to see why this debate is useful for anything but for its own sake.

Do you consider being called a freudian a praise?

John Page

See quote from link provided by Keith on Page 9 of this thread. Note that I did not label absolutism a cancer, here's what I said:

Cheers, John

John Page

Charles Darwin invented a Theory of Evolution to make more consistent his observations (discoveries) about the origin of species.

Cheers, John

John Page

Primal:

From your remarks above, you seem to be missing the point that Relativism is a working hypothesis that does not proclaim or require its own absolute truth. An objectivist, on the other hand, proclaims the absolute primacy of reason and logic.

Do you agree all truths are beliefs and all beliefs are contingent?

Cheers, John

Primal

But then you are trying to prove your hypothesis using reason. And if proven you are either doing it because such proof priveldges your hypthesis or just for its own sake.


Yes, so? What else would you propose we use?

No.

John Page

First, how do you know what kind of approach I am using and whether it accords to something hitherto known by Primal as "reason"? Also, how would my reasoning be proven absolutely correct or incorrect?

Again, it is my observation that your "dyed in the wool" objectivist attitude thinks that I am claiming priviledge. While I hope to learn by experience, I am not claiming a priviledged view, period.
Primal this response is a non seq. Unlike objectivism, I am
not proposing the need to "use" anything in particular. Having
experienced faulty reasoning and incomplete/contradictory
logics I have withdrawn my subscription to the "primacy of
reason and logic" thing, period.


Summary: The Primacy of Primal's reasoning is beyond belief.

Cheers, John

Primal

How else would you confirm or disconfirm an hypothesis?

Also I never said all reasoning was absolutely correct. How would you know its relative? [And don't skirt the question by saying "I don't see how it would be absolute" that's simply switching burden of proof(as your side is yet to be established)]

No? Then do you believe your claims to be wrong or pointless?

Well then what you learn is then false or pointless beause it certainly cannot be true(priveledged).

Not really.

So we just make stuff up?

Contradictory logics? When did you prove this?

Likewise when did you prove reaoning is faulty on a universal scope?

Oh yeah, you never did, you're just assuming it's true.


So what else can or should we use to determine truth values then? Quite avoiding teh question with such obvious red herrings. Do you propose then that we just make things up, at random, without standards?


Well you certainly pulled that one out of thin air John. To make that statement you must prove the premise "all beliefs must be provisional" which would be a violation of relativist doctrine.

John Page

Absolutely or contingently?
OK, what reasoning is absolutely correct, Primal? I know (contingently) its relative based on experience that nothing is absolutey true.
My not claiming priiledge for my point of view does not necessarily result in it being wrong or pointless. I believe the claims of relativism to be a more accurate reflection of reality (esp. the relation between my mind, its thoughts and reality) than claiming the primacy of my reason and logic.
Read what I wrote! Are you then arguing that nobody can hope to learn by experience?
Based on your comments on diathelism you concur with my claim anyway!
What is at question is your reasoning, not some mythical truth-telling reasoning in general. This debate stands as evidence of instances of your faulty reasoning. Simply calling yourself an objectivist does not automatically endow you with a perfect mind.
Primal, based on historical evidence, it appears this is exactly what we do. We make standards up and see what best fits them. I don't have any issues with you using propositional logic but it does contain flaws, you know.
This in response to my rejoinder "Summary: The Primacy of Primal's reasoning is beyond belief."
Your reasoning remains beyond belief!! Why is holding a provisional belief a violation of relativist doctrines?

Cheers, John