AnthonyAdams45

I have not self-destructed Nor do I need a boy to run infront of me because my skepticism is so great. "Reality must somehow" -- that's not an argument, that's an imperative, and one that is neither compelling nor defended.

It will not do to say I lie, because you do not know me well enough to judge my honesty. My words cannot not be sent back against me, as they are all quite consistent with my claim.

What on earth do you mean? History, indeed the present, is filled with non-destructive, let alone non-self-destructive Xians, B'ists, Jews, M'lims, etc. Does your desire to exaggerate so outweigh your rationality that I cannot even trust your claims to be an absolutist? Surely an absolutist has no respect for a relativist, we are after all wrong, and therefore, of no importance, but surely your self-respect is absolute and will not let you make such ridiculous remarks.

After all, my relativism, in its generosity, requires I judge you by your standards, not mine.

Primal

Yes actually I do Hugo. But that's not the point. The point is they could not they do. That's like attempting to refute the question posed to utilitarians "If you could end world suffering by torturinga child for eternity...would you?" With a "well I've never heard of that happening." Quote being so thick-skulled.


Kinda strange how a relativist or somewhat of such ilk can so quickly declare a claim: False. Kantian: An absolutist in method, relativistic in cconclusions.


So before we question the almight Kantian we have to read several one or two thousand plus page books? Nevermind this is proof surrogate. That's like a creationist saying I have to read Phillip Johnson before arguing against creationism in general. And I'll admit this is a good thing to do, but its not necessary Kantian. And you miss the fact that once relativists have agreed to privelege a position: they have left relativism.



Which is a totally HUGE and unwarranted assumption. In essence then you are merely attacking objectivism by assuming relativist premises, mainly those of extreme LHR theories at the outset.



Nice simplistic history lesson and a cheap shot made to link Objectivism and science with Christianity. In reality though its not like Descartes had much choice but to pay lip service to God first off.

Secondly it is you who misses the point my dear Kant. The fact is certain foundationalist axioms: those of logic, and sense experience, along with rational standards: such as the principle of parsimony are at odds with theism now at days.

I also see that you are still arguing in circles: maintaining still that there can be no absolute axioms: because there are no indubitable beliefs. Basically there can be none...because there can be none.

That would work IF foundationalism(or what you call "radical foundationalism") allowed for no inference or variation. That's bull Kant and you know it. Quite beating down the straw man Mr.Gish. This is good ICR material but bad philosophy.


Which simply means that Protagoras has accepted some objective facts and abandoned relativism.

Wow, really fancy language. Nice presentation with little substance. There is a use and abuse of a large vocab where you my poor Kant fall into the latter. People like you Kant are simply pompous, simplistic, disingenuine, obscurantists(aha, beat you at your own game) plain and simple.


So we accept what there is evidence for and ignore the "real", "unseen" Truth underlying it? Where have I heard THAT before.....

Kantian you are starting to come off as a crypto-spiritualist.



You seriously have to be joking, not a belief but a "meta-belief"......as if there really is a difference. What is a "meta-belief" a belief so big its no longer a belief or a belief concerning beliefs....gee that completely different from a belief system. Kind of like Christians who say "Christianity is not a religion, its about a relationship with Jesus Christ."

Just so you know Kant: Any idea or conscious thought in your head counts as a belief.



Uh huh. Just imagine saying that in a debate "I know absolutely that nothing is absolute."



Yes and your point is? Elaboration please. All you seem to do Kant is go "well this great thinker thinks X" and leave it at that. It's not that simple Kant, you can refer to great thinkers. But IF you do not present their actual argument the reference is vaccuous.


Hypocrites. And I'll quote Richard Dawkins on this: "You show me a postmodernist at thirty-thousand feet and I'll show you a hypocrite."



Or he's rolling with what they are saying and observing they do not practice what they preach.(It's also amazing how sure you are of the options when there are no absolutes Kantian: again the absolutist method, I guess dogma isn't dogma if not aknowledged.) A relativist may say everything is relative and for example, that there is no objective basis for saying that "drinking Orange juice is better for you then drinking gasoline." But I guarantee you the next day that same relativist will be drinking orange juice and never even consider drinking gasoline.



You are avoiding the obvious: It doesn't matter. One only has to observe their behavior and their beliefs and see how they differ. A relativist for example may believe that the idea that our reliance on modern airports is merely a product of "bias and scientism" but if they have to travel a great distance you don't see them going to cargo cults but a normal airport.


True.


Didn't you say previously that empricism was a foundationalist endeavor...by george I think you did:

Alas Kantian caught up in such a blaringly obvious contradictions....how can it be?!

How can one be for example an empiricist, that gives epistemic "priveledge" to observation and/or a pragmatist that gives it to "what works" but then declare no position is priveledged? Sorry Kantian but your argument resemble a man who is trying to get out of quick sand by digging a hole.



You mean he declares it self-evident? I mean the theist couldn't simply be wrong....kind of like they tend to be when they call creationism a "science".......


No well poisoning or straw men or ad hominids there...


Actually if you really look at it, its the theists and relativists who have the most in common. Both deny materialism, science, reason. and humanist values. Both tend to promote majoritarianism and both wish to replace logical with emotionalism and fallacious thinking.

In the end what they both oppose is rationalism: because it threatens strong faiths held by both, and makes for very simplistic answers to complex question. Answers that neither want to be checked against any objective standards and evidence. The parallels of both thouugh quite strking are hardly coincidence: as they both represent belief systems completly devoid of reason and based on pure emotion and wishful thinking.


~Lacking belief in a Transcedental reality~

Kantian

The shoe fits pal.
It’s a question, not a response. I take it you meant to admit neither knowledge nor opinion of a relativist acting in such a manner. So why are you even bothering to weigh in on what you don’t know about?

Not quite. A relativist, content with the belief that his truths do not transcend his perspective, is capable of working with another relativist, irrespective of the truths they hold, and reach an “intersubjective” agreement.

Not quite. Look up the fallacy. Since you did write such in another forum, I can’t be blamed for taking you at face value. Now will you read the writings of James or not?

Nice hand-waving, seeing that you cannot even address it. Moving on...

That was the most pathetic dodge I have seen in a long time. All these concepts have a history. To ignore history is to repeat it, and to endeavor to understand a concept without studying its history is to presume some kind of cultural bias.

No surprise. It was an effort to demonstrate how the truth of relativity was contingent upon the subject in question, but you cannot even grasp that

Why don’t you tell me what I am lacking, instead of declaring so? And that was another complete dodge. Try and address what I wrote, this time. Furthermore, there is no “we” in the language of Objectivism, is there? You can only speak for yourself.

Another non-answer. Typique. Then the people who fancy themselves as theists, or specifically Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc, are all dishonest. You were overdue for a blanket generalization about a bunch of people who do not worship at the altar of Randianism, anyway.

Wrong. A relativist bases his arguments on the fluctuating, empirical nature of appearance. Study the history of philosophy and you will no longer misapprehend non-Objectivists.

Wrong. You need to refresh yourself with how the relativists, specifically, the sophists, argued their points.

The Objectivist’s faith in reason is the equal of the theist’s positing faith in a concept beyond, since both treat their foundation as truly divine and superior. Explain the difference, por favor, Big Chief Objectivist.


I wouldn’t bother.

~transcendentalist~
[edited to fix grammah]

Primal

Actually I did which is why I said it opened the door for presuppositionalism. Please read my posts and pay attention. And why doesn't it make sense to say "all knowledge is relative but I believe you are going to hell?" Why not exactly?

By that token does "relatively living" make any sense? You are confusing beliefs with actual events.


Some religions do this but others do not btw. Taoists,Buddhists,Hindus etc, do not believe in punishment for nonbelievers.



But who's to say a person is making something up? A relativist cannot say someone is wrong on any basis but "just cause", which leaves plenty of room open for simply making stuff up.



To declare "never" is a pretty absolute statement. Perhaps some relativists simply see themselves as needing to learn nothing more.....



Nope, via definition of the word self-evident in regards to my axioms. It's just not possible by valid means.

You are not answering the question. I mean "I am having a sensation" as in "I am seeing" or "I am hearing". I do not mean, that it actually corresponds to an external world. Or to say "I am absolutely certain that I believe Oakland will win the superbowel." Please answer the question, and if you say "no" tell me how I can be wrong.

Kantian

FWIW, i'm not Hugo. And the rest of your post does not even deserve a response, seeing how incompetent, amateurish, and completely inept it is. Reading your posts is a painful experience, since they are full of appeals of persecutions, redirections, confusion, weak insults, selective memories, pithy one-liners worthy of Ed, dogmatic assertions, and other species of inarticulateness.

Free advice: Take a few philosophy classes, read more philosophy books, grow a few brain cells, and then bore the living crap out of the rest of your brethren with the new and improved philosophy of Primal. I no longer give a damn.

~Transcendentalist~
__________________
Reason has often led us into transcendent metaphysics that "overstep the limits of all experience, [and] no object adequate to the transcendental ideal can ever be found within experience."

AnthonyAdams45

I never claimed such an inference. What I did claim is that one could not embrace the idea that all properties are relations and the idea that an absolute assignation of values leading to a relocation to a dreadful afterlife were compatible. Again, the key here lies in absolutes cannot be dependent on a network of relations for their existnce so an absolute valuation and a relative worldview are incompatible. At least according to my logic.

Yes, I'm pretty sure it does.

We can talk about cultures that are relatively living,compared to the Carthagenians; say of some persons, "well, compared to me they hardly living" and so address the concept of relatively living.

No, not all religions propose a punishment in the hereafter, but none call you a fellow religionist unless you practice a least some of their practices or believe some of their beliefs. If they don't, why, we're all Xians here after all, and that seems quite strange.

Again, appeal to ignorance and a fallacy, but more interestingly, even if some were, it does not follow that all are. What about those that aren't?

But those persons are not me. So why should I defend them, any more than you'd defend an absolute theist? Oh, and that "never" is only relative to my life, after all, should I find an irreducible absolute, I would have to start on a new philosophy.

No, you're dreaming. But you'll still awake into a safe absolutism in the morning.

Ah, then. And there it is. More attached to axioms than investigation. More assured of truth than interested in dialogue. Leaves nothing to say. I am not, then, a correspondent, but a punching bag. Flail away.

Primal

In other words(and this is not surprising) Kantian would rather call names then respect the other side and listen to them in a fair manner. You have to understand that for Kant its not a matter of reason or right and wrong, but a matter of ego. A YOU VS ME at the OK Coral cowboy style showdown.



Voting is a right so do what's right and vote.

But you are assuming they can, what's to make stop one from assuming they Kant(look I used his name in a funny way har har har)? Are they "just wrong" if they do?


I have read some James Kantian and disagree. But if I don't? Big deal, someone doesn't have to read EVERY SINGLE statement or work a person wrote to understand his or her viewpoint. Or even read anything at all other then a review. Quite basing philosphy on authority.


Well Kant its not like "hand waving" is totally beyond you now is it?

History may influence ideas but they do not totally determine the truth or falsehoods of ideas any more then economics Kant. You judge to quickly for someone who doesn't believe in absolutes Kant. History really proves nothing in philosophical matters.


Yes the Kabtian strategy: imply that the opponent is "stupid." Good,upstanding,open-minded intellectual. Your a legend in your own mind Kant.


The fact that you say there is no "we" in objectivism proves how little you undertsand it.


Or perhaps one you didn't like? Sorry Kantian but an answer doesn't disapear simply cause you dislike it.



Or perhaps disingenuine or ignorant? You are too quick in your condemnations Kant.

Again the cautious relativist quickly declares his opponent "wrong."



Actually I think you speak of empiricism or idealism: not relativism Kant. Maybe you should study an Intro to Philosophy text.


Well simply "Wrong". Well if it came from Kant: I believe it.


The difference is reason allows for self-correction and is very different in quality. Really no need to explain the obvious transcedentalist pipsqueek. As Shermer put it when asked a similiar question about science and pseudoscience "It's like the difference between Art and Pornography, there are no hard and fast definition but when you see it you know."



Well why not? Isn't this the sort of "hand-waving" and "dodging" that you jumped on the "Big Chieif" just a lil while ago? Please tell what is "Transcedentalism"? Did you find the one true religion?

Kantian, all you seem to do is concentrate on proximate matters and what a person says verbatim, while totally ignoring where an ideology ultimately goes and what their statements imply. Meaning you do nothing more then squirt out ink to escape actual criticism.

Primal

Gee just totally unlike yourself huh Kant?

BTW as for the Hugo remark, I apologize for the confusion that resulted from it. But in any event, are you just dodging my points then?

Admitting defeat?

Beaten at your own game.

Primal

Key point: according to "your logic". Though that itself if open to doubt(as all things supposedly are.)

Are you then declaring it impossible for a relativist to maintain absolute values?


Ok, but by that token we can speak of people relatively in hell. Such as those in purgatory. Notice though: You used the word living in a different sense then I implied.

Not all Xians believe nonXians go to hell......

And so what if someone doesn't consider you a fellow religionist? That doesn't mean they condemn you according to "absolute values" necessarily.

How is this an apeal to ignorance?

And "a fallacy"?

Doesn't matter. I am talking about how the system operates, not whether or not people operate in such a manner.



Well then you shouldn't have made the statement as IF it applied to all relativists.



Because you start from the same premises and cannot really say they are wrong or "disprove" them. Whereas with a theist I can do this.


Exactly, so you really didn't mean "never" then did you?

Having sensations while dreaming is still having sensations. Remember: My claim is limited to sensation whether they come from an external world or not. Whether I am awake or dreaming is thus irrelevant.

No actually I see those axioms as necessary for investigation. Whereas with relativism there cannot be any: as nothing has to be "proven" and thus examined to be arbitrarily called "true" in relativism.


No. I am actually just being honest. You as a relativist likewise start by what you consider axioms: mainly the premise that "all axioms are arbitrary."

Hugo Holbling

Wittgenstein makes the same point in the Investigations, particularly 38.