Hobbs

By the way, being sloppy with language does not help at all. No one feels the 'concept' of love. What people feel is 'love'. Emotions are felt. Experiences are felt. Concepts are thought. Concepts can refer to emotional experiences, or they can refer to objectively existing entities, or any number of other possibilities.

When you mean 'love', say "love." When you mean 'the concept of love', say "the concept of love." That would make this discussion a lot clearer. (And it may clear up your muddy thinking on the topic, thus rendering the discussion moot.)

WJ

Hobbs!

I agree, she doesn't 'love' anything. It is all in her mind, literally.

As for the objectivity issues, thanks for the reply. I am going to carefully consider your arguments and respond accordingly....

Walrus

WJ

Hobbs, please go back and read the issues of what logic provides viz. understanding/meaning of concepts themselves and the aposterior. Did you not understand the primacy paradox with regard to concepts and the meaning of them?

I should get to your other post shortly.

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

DRFseven

She wouldn't try to prove anything; she's three years old and does not question the root of her affection or the worthiness or reality of its object. My point is love is an emotion we feel in response to a stimulus we're "set up" (by life) to respond to. That stimulus can be the perception of a real object or a symbol; the fact that we're capable of experiencing the emotion proves nothing about the reality of the object of the emotion. We are quite capable of showering our affection on real things as well as ideas of things.

Hobbs

I'm trying to straighten out your thinking without having to refer directly to your overly long and muddled posing of the "problem." If, back in the days when I was teaching philosophy, you had handed that in for an assignment, you would not have received a very good grade.

WJ

Hobbs!

Let's take first things first. I thought you said your wife refers to the 'object' of love. (And the argument about the grandmother's object of affection.) Then you said:

"I don't know why you can't see that I have repeatedly explicitly said that 'love' is a subjective experience. Do you think that it is "objectivity"? If so, then you have something else to prove in addition to your claim that your god objectively exists. You have to prove to us that 'love' refers to an objective entity."

The fact is that it *does* refer to an objective entity. It can be argued in an epistemic sense that love is both subjective and objective. It can also be argued that to come to some sense of understanding love it similarly combines the apriori with the aposterior. Again, what is the difference in the belief of the concept God and the belief in the concept love viz. associated feelings people have about them.

Have you seen God or Love?


<img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

True and irrelevant to the question of whether or not a supernatural being factually exists or not.

And here's your fallacy. Nobody feels the "concept" of love, they feel excited, happy, anxious, content, horny, etc., etc., etc., which we collectively call "love."

Ok? They experience all of these emotional/biological stimuli as a result of being intimate with another objectively existing human being.

If the object of one's love does not factually exist, then it is arguably not "love" per se as it is a "fantasy," which is just another word used by humans to describe and delineate a certain sequence of emotional/biological simuli, but this is irrelevant to the discussion.

As everyone has pointed out to you, there is absolutely no problem whatsoever with you experiencing happiness, contentment, anger, love, peace, etc., etc., etc. and you naming that particular collection of emotional/biological stimuli "God;" just like we named the particular emotional/biological stimuli "love" and the particular emotional/biological stimuli "depression," and so on.

In other words, naming a collection of emotional/biological stimuli anything you personally want to name it is the equivalent of naming a pet fish or dog or cat.

You can name your fish "God," but that doesn't therefore mean that the character commonly referred to as "God" depicted in the Judeo/Christian Bible therefore factually exists!

Whether or not you personally feel something and decide to name that feeling "God" does not mean that the character commonly referred to as "God" depicted in the Judeo/Christian Bible therefore factually exists; i.e., objectively, independently exists, separate from your own personal desires.

It also does not mean that such a character commonly referred to as "God" depicted in the Judeo/Christian Bible therefore does not factually exist; i.e., objectively, independently exists, separate from your own personal desires.

All that means is you have named a particular collection of feelings "God," in the exact same way one would name a pet fish or dog or cat.

Got it? In other, more succinct words, objectively speaking in regard to the independent existence of a hypothetical being factually existing, having "feelings" means jack shit.

Jack f*cking shit, to be technical .

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Clip your string, Chatty Cathy.

An atheist has no "feelings" about the concept of God. "I hold no beliefs in a god or gods" is not a "feeling." It is a declaration of fact.

Why do you so consistently try to force this invalid straw man that renders just about everything you post fallacious?

Why?

Do you think "this time, they won't notice!"?

Because you're attempting to force an invalid strawman, that's why.

And there it is in a nutshell.

Who here "believes in" the collection of emotional/biological stimuli we collectively name "Love"? Anybody? Raise your hands.

What do you mean, "What do I mean by 'believes in?'"

Do you believe--i.e, accept as true--that the collection of emotional/biological stimuli we collectively name "Love" actually occur, independent of your own body?

What do you mean, "Emotional/Biological stimuli cannot occur independent of your own body?" That's exactly what WJ is trying to prove!

You know, just like God!

I'll assume you meant, is "Love" an objective (i.e., independent of human existence) emotion, in which case, no, obviously it is not.

It is a name we have given to a particular series of emotional/biological stimuli that differs from person to person.

[qote]MORE: That question is a very important question and quite paradoxical if not contradictory if you care to go there.[/quote]

I'll ask it again and I'm being deadly serious; is English your primary language, because you appear to suffer from a fundamental linguistic disability--such as I do with my dyslexia--that prevents you from making coherent, comprehendable sentences? That is not meant as an insult or any form of ad hominem; it is an honest and sincere question based on the fact that you consistently ask and post technically incomprehensible sentences.

Case in point. What you typed above has no coherent meaning for any of us to address without trying to figure out what the f*ck you're talking about for you.

"Love" is a word created to describe a series of emotional/biological stimuli.

I can only assume you are arguing that the same is true for the word "God," yes? Is that what you mean? That "God" is a word created to describe a series of emotional/biological stimuli???

There is no logical inconsistency, since you have yet to ask a coherent question.

WJ

Koy!

For f*cks sake atheist salesman, your the best! Now that you presumably feel better since you've purged, run aloing now and let the grown-ups talk.

Your little-dick games are old-hat <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

Unless you've got something better to refute your own logical inconsistency with, I'll choose to continue ignoring you. Go market your politics in some other thread.

Can you correct my grammar?

Jayhawker Soule

Where does the atheist say the "EOG= is [dis]proved by the apriori of concepts"?

Adrian Selby

WJ

The fact is that it *does* refer to an objective entity.

Love is an objective entity? DO you have evidence to back up this assertion.

Love is a word that we use to describe feelings and experiences, and these feelings and experiences in different contexts, and perhaps with one or two absent from the set that we think we can ascribe the concept 'love' to, can have different concepts ascribed to them, such as 'lust' or 'longing' and yet our ascription of these terms is a subjective decision on our part, they have no fixed objective meaning, and the no existence outside a dictionary which does its best to outline as broadly as possible what the consensus is on 'love'.