Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 51 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,197 Year: 5,454/9,624 Month: 479/323 Week: 119/204 Day: 19/16 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   one step at a time
John
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 64 (24404)
11-26-2002 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by forgiven
11-26-2002 9:21 AM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
i really try to build arguments one step at a time, which explains the earlier thread entitled 'knowledge'...
The weird part to me is that you insist on skipping the first step. No offense....
quote:
knowledge is the true, warranted belief of a properly functioning mind...
Sorry, no dice. I'm not buying your buddy Plantinga's epistemology. It is a house of cards. Is this the thread where we were discussing that?
quote:
can all that passes for knowledge be empirically verified?
Without empiricism, what does it mean to verify?
quote:
assuming for the sake of argument that my mind is properly functioning
Just a note, I think Plantinga's 'properly functioning mind' is the assumption of something that doesn't exist. 'Properly functioning' is a very very hard thing to pin down.
quote:
i have no mental or physical deficencies that might result in a belief i hold, do i have warrant to believe the universe exists?
What if you do have mental or physical defects that MIGHT result in a belief you hold? How do we know THAT these defects do in fact result in the belief you hold? How do we know your belief's are a function of the part of your brain that works?
I really should move this Plantinga stuff to the other thread.
quote:
obviously so, unless not only my senses but the collective senses and evidences gathered via those senses of millions of others with properly functioning minds, is thrown out the window...
This is weird to me, because this 'truth' is fluid across cultures, assuming you look outside of christian/greek/roman derived cultures. Cultural anthropology ought to cure this ethnocentrism but noboby bothers to read the cultural profiles.
quote:
now it's true that the number of people, even if each have properly functioning minds, who hold a belief doesn't a priori make that belief true
Glad you realize that. As I read Plantinga though, this seems to be exactly what he is trying to slip in the back door.
quote:
it's also a fact that for the converse to be true (a requisite for knowledge) the burden of proof is on the ones holding the converse view
Fine, as far as it goes. But what is proof? The opinions of properly functioning minds? Dangerously close to circular.
quote:
i can argue for the existence of the universe on intuitive, inductive, and deductive grounds, but to the person who insists all is illusion, all will remain illusion... you might be a huge brain in a universal vat imagining all of this, and if you believe that to be so nobody can convince you otherwise...
Well, what you've got here is a counter to your arguments-- postulated in the first sentense-- for the existence of the universe. Seems to me that everything is working the way it should. We start with the majority opinion and criticise it, but then...
quote:
but could you be said to hold that belief from a properly functioning mind? and would you be warranted in holding that belief?
Here is the sneaky bit. You appeal back to the properly functioning mind idea to get out of the difficulty. In other words, those that disagree have improperly functioning minds. No longer dangerously circular, but quite decidedly circular.
quote:
Universe: def. ('juni,ves) n. 1. the whole of all existing matter, energy, and space
You've defined universe to include everything no matter what it is, so long as it exists. This is not typical usage in philosophy and should have been specified. More typical usage, and the usage implied in your initial statements is that of a dualism-- I and Universe.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by forgiven, posted 11-26-2002 9:21 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by forgiven, posted 11-26-2002 1:48 PM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 64 (24529)
11-26-2002 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by forgiven
11-26-2002 1:48 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
what first step? and none taken
The examination of your premises.
quote:
not saying your first take is in error, merely that there's far more to it than either i or the web can supply
Look. Everything I can find about the guy tells me that he tracks pretty much with thousands of minor and forgotten philosophers. And he reminds me especially of certain branches of modern philosophy characterized predominantly by the profound shallowness of their work. There. I've said it. Not impressed. Not even intrigued. I see nothing to justify the effort.
quote:
it is far deeper than i've portrayed
I don't believe you. Sorry.
quote:
now now, i stated "assume for the sake of argument" and you didn't so assume!! tsk tsk
But you see the fragility of Planinga's construct yes?
quote:
it isn't circular when the term 'knowledge' is defined...
Nope. It is circular precisely because the term is defined. You've got your epistemological model of truth being the output of properly functional brains. You line up some brains and some of them disagree. So to sort out which ones are reliable you appeal to the epistemological model. In other words, knowledge from brains which is reliable because it is from brains..... brains brains brains....
quote:
that would seem to include "I" eh?
Not to many of the most famous philosopher is history. Dictionary definitions are dangerous. Dictionaries record colloquial and sometimes conflicting usages of words. You really ought not assume that everyone has your dictionary and picks the particular nuance that you choose. I actually never looked up the word, but went with what seems to me to be the most common usage in philosophy.
[quote][b]but granting even cognito presupposes the universe...[/quote]
[/b]
cogito ergo sum-- Descarte can be dismantled simply by asking where is the "I" that you presuppose is thinking?
quote:
therefore, the universe exists by definition
As per your definition...
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by forgiven, posted 11-26-2002 1:48 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by forgiven, posted 11-27-2002 12:17 AM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 64 (24540)
11-27-2002 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by forgiven
11-27-2002 12:17 AM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
i already did # 1 long ago, and nobody objected...
People have been objecting all throught the thread as it appears to me. And are generally being told to go away if they won't accept your presuppositions.
quote:
i can't do much about that outside of using your definition.. but why should i?
Yep. You can work out what it means to exist among other things.
quote:
know what sometimes amazes me? how often it seems that message board readers/posters truly believe some of the greatest minds of history have been "dismantled"...
Want to know what amazes me? how often it seems that message board readers/posters truly believe some of the greatest minds of history have NOT been "dismantled". They have been.
quote:
you are thinking, ergo you exist... you are a thing, ergo some thing exists...
Think about this.
>>>>>I<<<<<< am thinking
Therefore,
>>>>>I<<<<<< exist.
It is damned blatant textbook obvious circular. The conclusion is assumed in the premise. The end.
quote:
at the risk of repeating myself, it isn't my definition
You don't get it. It is your argument, it is YOUR definition.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by forgiven, posted 11-27-2002 12:17 AM forgiven has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 64 (24596)
11-27-2002 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by forgiven
11-27-2002 9:45 AM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
P or Q
~P
Q

You are so funny with your little diagrams.
1. A ⊃ (B ⊃ C)
2. B ⊃ (C ⊃ d) / ∴ A ⊃ (B ⊃ D)
3. A / ∴ B ⊃ D (C.P.)
4. B / ∴ D (C.P.)
5. B ⊃ C 1,3, M.P.
6. C 5,4, M.P.
7. C ⊃ D 2,4, M.P.
8. D 7,6, M.P.
quote:
it's simply an evidentialist vs. anti-evidentialist argument, and one leads to a more open discourse in which a person's knowledge claim is viewed with an open mind
So, in other words, you've gone a very long way to get to 'we both disagree'
quote:
christians rarely counter with, "but why don't you have a burden of proof in this?"
Same reason we don't have the burden of proof for the disbelief in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, unicorns, magical french fries and Plantinga's wit . Basically, I can make up anything I want and the burden of proof is on YOU to disprove it. That is patently absurd. How will you respond? Well, what evidence do we have for unicorns? ... but my belief is evidence!!!! ta ta taaaaaaaaa ........ I win!!!!!!
I cannot believe you do not see how hollow this philosophy is.
A bit more seriously, the burden is on YOU to disprove Kali (my fave), Peli, Quetzalcoatl and coutless others.
quote:
the reason is because there's an antipathy between the views whereby one or the other is unwilling to really *listen*
Back to my contention that the entire contruct is an plea that we play nice.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
[This message has been edited by John, 11-27-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by forgiven, posted 11-27-2002 9:45 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by forgiven, posted 11-27-2002 3:55 PM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 64 (24695)
11-27-2002 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by forgiven
11-27-2002 3:55 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
ok john... what are your definitions of:
knowledge
universe

knowledge:
What is the source of information? What is the most basic thing we have to work with? Perceptions. You know, those irritating bumps, whirs and whistles that get in the way of there not being anything at all. I am not aware of any way to bootstrap oneself out of this perceptual world. So we cross our fingers and make one assumption: there are dependable patterns in the chaos. Once you have dependable patterns, you are in like Flynn. These patterns, and the analysis of these patterns, are what we call knowledge.
The Universe:
The Universe can remain undefined. I really don't see the need for it.
Now dear forgiven, it is your thread and your turn.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by forgiven, posted 11-27-2002 3:55 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by forgiven, posted 11-27-2002 11:23 PM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 64 (24720)
11-28-2002 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by forgiven
11-27-2002 11:23 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
hmmm... so in your opinion knowledge is the analysis of dependable patterns which we observe or perceive... and even the dependability of these patterns we base on an assumption?
So far you've got it.
quote:
no mention of the analysis being in fact true
Didn't think I'd have to spell everything out... We have dependeble patterns, which we analyze-- find the patterns, find the bigger patterns, find the hidden patterns, whatever. It is a compare and contrast game.
quote:
i suppose since the pattern we're analysing is itself based on the assumption it's dependable?
Reliable. That was the assumption.
quote:
well this is so funny...
I agree. You asked how I would define universe. I wouldn't define it. And I don't need to define it, that I can see.
quote:
i did define both, you didn't like the definition of universe i posted yet won't offer your own...
I am not trying to make your argument work. That is your job. And I don't have to offer a definition of your term in order to point out the problems of your definitions. Defining your terms isn't my job. I'll define my terms when making my arguments.
quote:
in that case, we'll use mine by default
Don't really care that much actually. I can't think of anything useful you can do with a definition as broad as the one you've got. I pointed it out because your usages had confused me.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by forgiven, posted 11-27-2002 11:23 PM forgiven has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 64 (24724)
11-28-2002 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by joz
11-28-2002 12:03 AM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
Your definition begs the question by including yourself in the universe....
More than that it is based on an assumption of materialism, after all you might not be part of the universe you might be one of your transcendental entity thingamabobs, the only way you can include self in universe is if that self is material....
Guess whats next....
How do you know that you aren`t one of thos transcendental buggers?
So your definition a)begs the question, and b)fails to account for that transcendental possibility....

To whom are you replying, and to what post?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by joz, posted 11-28-2002 12:03 AM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by joz, posted 11-28-2002 12:20 AM John has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 64 (24801)
11-28-2002 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by forgiven
11-28-2002 8:13 AM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
as for a) you seem to be saying that if the definition of universe is as i stated earlier, "the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated," then including "I" in it begs the question... but is that true?
For myself, I am not sure. I am interested in what joz has to say on the matter though.
My problem with your definition is that it is too braod to be meaningful.
quote:
john objected to the definition, but by his failure to offer his own his objection is merely a groundless assertion...
1) I pointed out that your definition was non-standard in philosophy. No problem, but confusing until you clarified it.
2) I believe I pointed out that you need to define 'exists' which you have not done.
3) Your final clause is absurd. My not offering a definition has nothing to do with my objections to your definition. Your definition has the same problems it always had. And the same it would have if I defined universe as the sum of all twinkies, or anything else. The two are not related. Maybe you should read up on informal logic.
quote:
now you say including "I" in the above begs the question but don't show how...
Yes he did.
quote:
so unless you mean to say it begs the question because the definition of universe isn't as i offered, you seem to be equivicating on the terms
Let me try this. You have as premise one that the universe -- as per your def.-- exists. Premise two is that you exist. Premise two isn't really a new premise. It is derived from premise one. It seems to me therefore that any argument you make is really based upon premise one. This makes the whole thing tautalogical.
quote:
as for b), it assumes transcendental entities aren't themselves included in "the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated"... but on what grounds is this assertion made? it appears that for a transcendental entity to fall outside the definition it needs to be defined as "supernatural"... if that's how you want it defined, i'll do that... and in that case, you'd be correct *if* "I" am in fact transcendental
You've just assumed everything in one fell swoop. Not much of a philosophy.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by forgiven, posted 11-28-2002 8:13 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by forgiven, posted 11-28-2002 6:31 PM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 64 (25000)
11-29-2002 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by forgiven
11-28-2002 6:31 PM


quote:
Talking to myself but...
quote:
Originally posted by John:
1) I pointed out that your definition was non-standard in philosophy. No problem, but confusing until you clarified it.

I reviewed this thread from the beginning and the definitions I thought you were using are in fact the definitions you started out using-- I and Universe as seperate things. You then added that Universe includes I.
quote:
2) I believe I pointed out that you need to define 'exists' which you have not done.
And still have not done.
quote:
3) Your final clause is absurd.
Still arguing this one I see.
quote:
ummmm ok, i'll do a little more work on informal logic
Muchos gracias
quote:
but what i actually said was that an objection based on an assertion of error
Which, actually, I can't find. If I ever posted a particular objection to your definition I cannot find it. (I did state that it is too broad to be useful.) What I did do was press you to define it and to defend the definition, as per my comments that you are skipping the first steps.
Joz, of course, has posted objections. He was twice, I believe, told the go play in another sandbox, but he stuck around. Chara, brought in some good information as well and was accused of playing semantic games (like, you said, happened in another thread )
quote:
(the error being my definition of universe)
The error being you hardly had a definition of the universe when this thread started. Review. I think you'll see that the definition has changed.
quote:
no, actually he didn't...
You missed this then?
quote:
Your definition begs the question by including yourself in the universe....
More than that it is based on an assumption of materialism, after all you might not be part of the universe you might be one of your transcendental entity thingamabobs, the only way you can include self in universe is if that self is material....
Guess whats next....
How do you know that you aren`t one of thos transcendental buggers?
So your definition a)begs the question, and b)fails to account for that transcendental possibility....
You may not agree and you can contest it, but it is an argument. You may contest it, of course.
quote:
he never even attempted to give a reason, which led to my statement below
Your post #49 is a direct response to the reasons you say joz did not give. Are you serious?
quote:
1) i exist
2) the universe exists

Let me try this. You have as premise two that the universe -- as per your def.-- exists. Premise one is that you exist. Premise one isn't really a new premise. It is derived from premise two. It seems to me therefore that any argument you make is really based upon premise two. This makes the whole thing tautalogical.
[quote]
1) "i" am a thing
2) the universe is a thing
3) the universe is made up of (insert defintion)
4) "i" fall into the category of (insert definition)
5) therefore "i" am a part of the universe
[quote] 1) now you need to define 'thing' Is this the same as 'something that exists'?
2) you need to define 'thing' This probably isn't an objection after objection #1 has been answered.
3) hmmm.... the universe is a conglomerate? Interesting. The universe is a thing that is filled with things or the things that fill the universe make up the universe.
Insert definition????? How can you leave out a key feature like that?
4) Repeating #1 perhaps?
5) Actually, I can think of a couple of different ways to Venn diagram the above. Why don't you clean it up and resubmit.
quote:
whew... when an objector fails to state the nature of the objection in clear terms, or fails to define those terms, one is left with no alternative but to use some definition he hopes will be acceptable... so i guess i could have just asked like this
Whew.... it isn't my job to write your arguments. The point of my comment being that you just ASSUMED EVERYTHING. What's left to do? Might as well just go home. Which is my problem with your current definition of universe. It is too broad to be useful.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by forgiven, posted 11-28-2002 6:31 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by forgiven, posted 11-30-2002 8:44 AM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 64 (25034)
11-30-2002 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by forgiven
11-30-2002 8:44 AM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
i honestly wasn't aware that my words have been written in an unclear manner
Now you know.
quote:
john, my house is a thing, the universe is a thing, yet the universe includes my house... i am a thing, the universe is a thing, yet the universe includes 'i'...
The house and the universe, are they the same kind of thing?
quote:
what is so hard about this to understand?
Is the universe a thing that contains countless other little things, or it it one all inclusive thing?
quote:
i didn't "add" anything, i thought it was self-evident
If I were yourself perhaps it would have been evident.
quote:
sigh... this is mind-boggling... i honestly didn't know which words you don't have a working knowledge of, which words you don't understand or need definitions for...
My working knowledge of a word is thoroughly irrelevant to your needing to define your terms. I can thnk of about a dozen ways that the word 'exist' has been defined. Want I should pick one and go from there? I'll certainly be accused of using the wrong definition. It is your argument. You make the definitions.
quote:
i wrongly assumed, i guess, that you knew that 'exist' means 'to have being, whether material or spiritual'
Is that what it means, then? It has at various times been associated with Forms, with substance alone, with mind alone, with the unknown... Apparently, you wrongly assumed that everyone thinks like you do.
Fine. Now we have another definition.
quote:
but a person who asks (demands!!) a definition and then rejects that definition as "too broad" or "too narrow" or "too blue" or "too red" and then refuses to state a counter definition as acceptable is being merely argumentative
BS. I offered my option-- don't define universe. Drop it altogether. Besides which, I did not reject your definition but statedt hat it is too broad to be useful. Please, try to use it for something.
quote:
again i wasn't aware most people have a problem understanding everyday language... now i am...
Everyday language is good everyday, but now you need to dress it in its sunday best.
quote:
ahhhh i see... i 'hardly had' one... then i posted one... and the one i posted differed from the one i 'hardly had'... no john, i simply wrongly assumed you already knew what 'universe' meant... as i wrongly assumed you knew what 'exists' meant... if there is any word in this paragraph that needs defining before i move on, please let me know
Bad day, forgiven. You seem a bit testy?
quote:
dare i say it? dare i ask it? did i forget yet *another* definition, 'transcendental'? sigh, silly me.. there i go again, assuming
Thinking sucks doesn't it?
quote:
i'm not sure what you mean by "the whole thing" above... what is a thing?
Don't be asinine.
quote:
i should have known that the casual reader would have trouble with what a "thing" is...
Maybe you should take some courses in Philosophy.
quote:
thing:
a : a separate and distinct individual quality, fact, idea, or usually entity
b : the concrete entity as distinguished from its appearances

You realize that your definition has 'thing' as :
1) a separate and distinct individual quality, fact, idea
2) a seperate entity
3) an entity in itself, not as it appears
Probable the differences will be lost on you, but I thought I'd bring it up.
quote:
but it's the one i'm using...
You didn't answer the question.
quote:
SIGH.. i *didn't* leave it out, you rejected it!! so instead of inserting it, i wrote it that way so you can use your own.. sheesh
That's idiotic.
quote:
it needs no cleaning up... i wish you would venn it and show us all how the terms of the propositions fail to conform
Okey dokey.
1) "i" am a thing
2) the universe is a thing
3) the universe is made up of (insert defintion)
4) "i" fall into the category of (insert definition)
5) therefore "i" am a part of the universe
1) and 4) are the same.
2) and 3) are the same.
Eliminate the duplicates 3) and 4) and we have:
1) "i" am a thing
2) the universe is a thing
3) therefore "i" am a part of the universe
This is the syllogistic fallacy known as an undistributed middle.
Want to try again? Maybe clean up some things?
quote:
imagine you present an argument (something you've thus far shied away from doing) and i object on the grounds that one of the terms, one which you assume everyone understands, isn't defined.. so you say, ok here's the definition... i say, oops sorry i can't accept that one therefore your argument fails...
I'd say the process is working as it should, except to say that the argument doesn't fail because I don't accept the definition. I don't accept the definition because the argument FAILS if you use that definition, whether you can see this or not.
quote:
therefore your argument fails because even tho you defined the term i don't like it.
Where are you getting this 'therefore'?
quote:
that's a fair assesment of what you've stated several times
More BS.
quote:
terms should be defined where there's misunderstanding... they *should* be agreed to... but when the person objecting refuses to even offer a possibility of agreement, what can be done?
Excuse me? Refuses to offer a possibility of agreement? I never said any such thing.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by forgiven, posted 11-30-2002 8:44 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by forgiven, posted 11-30-2002 2:00 PM John has replied
 Message 57 by forgiven, posted 11-30-2002 5:35 PM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 64 (25065)
11-30-2002 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by forgiven
11-30-2002 2:00 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
oh really?... then maybe this has been your problem from the start... a failure to understand the basics of the subject can cause your errors to become magnified...
I wouldn't be so quick to fly that flag.
quote:
the middle term in the syllogism, "thing," is distributed in *both* premises...
You misunderstand the concept.
"The 29 students in Mr Strang's classroom gravely considered the two sentences scrawled across the freshly washed blackboard:
All A's are C's.
All B's are C's.
"'The apparent conclusion--that all A's are B's--does have a certain allure, a kind of appealing logic ... it's also dead wrong.'"
No webpage found at provided URL: http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/undismid.html
This looks to me very much like your argument.
quote:
by the way, you worded the conclusion wrongly...
I copied and pasted from your argument. LOL....
quote:
i think you may have been confused as to the validity of an argument based on a faulty understanding of the words 'subject', 'predicate', and 'middle'...
I believe it is you who is confused.
1) subject = i predicate = thing
2) subject = universe predicate = thing
3) subject = i predicate = universe
middle term = thing
It is a textbook undistributed middle, unless you object to how I translated your argument. If that is the case, do what I have been asking. Clean it up and resubmit.
quote:
this is hardly surprising, given our previous inability to communicate based on a misunderstanding of the meanings of words
Really, I wouldn't be so quick to fly that freak flag.
quote:
now that i've cleared that up for you, everything else should fall into place
I sincerely hope so.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by forgiven, posted 11-30-2002 2:00 PM forgiven has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 64 (25086)
11-30-2002 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by forgiven
11-30-2002 5:35 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
that's what you *wanted* it to be, but mine was based on the definition of the terms, and wasn't syllogistic in form...
BS. Your response to me in your post #55 indicates that you damn sure did think of it as syllogistic. You reacted to my stating that it was a undistributed middle fallacy, not by explaining that it wasn't an argument but by explaining that I didn't understand subject, predicate and middle term. And that further more, the middle term is distributed in both premises. This later statement being the silliest.
quote:
you attempted to show a fallacy by compacting this:
Indeed I did. I gave reasons for each edit. And you had no problem with that until I pointed out that the resulting structure was fallacious. In fact, as above, you first argued that it was not fallacious. Now that you've been nipped on it you've decided to backpedal and play the "you misunderstood" card. Frankly its a bit disgusting. Your own post indicts you.
quote:
the whole point was to show that i am but one of any number of "things" that make up the universe
"Show" wouldn't mean "argue" would it?
quote:
what you seem to want me to do is prove the definitions, but i said much earlier that i'm not going to do that, nor am i even going to attempt to prove the universe exists...
What exactly are you going to do?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by forgiven, posted 11-30-2002 5:35 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by forgiven, posted 11-30-2002 7:55 PM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 64 (25095)
11-30-2002 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by forgiven
11-30-2002 7:55 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
my response was based on the fact that i'd i posted a 5 step argument
It wasn't an argument. Don't you remember?
quote:
and any mention of an undistributed middle came by virtue of your compacting that according to your own terms...
All I did was remove duplicates. You could perfectly well have objected, but didn't.
quote:
you said at least twice "it's not my job to form your arguments" then did exactly that from my post...
Well damned if you do, damned if you don't. You specifically stated in post #53 that:
quote:
i wish you would venn it and show us all how the terms of the propositions fail to conform
This is exactly what I did. Now you complain. Go figure.
quote:
i never said, nor would anyone think i meant, that all "i's" are things, all universes are things, therefore all i's are universes...
Except that is precisely what you wrote. You had numbered lines as if they were premises, and a final line that started with 'therefore'. And nothing stating that this non-argument written like an argument was in fact not an argument. In fact not denial of its nature until I show it to be invalid.
quote:
that doesn't follow from anything i wrote and *that's* what i thought you were saying.
BS.
quote:
what's disgusting is your continued fear of an open and honest, moderated, debate.
Talk about non-sequiturs!!!! LOL..... It is also a red herring and, well, just a cheap shot.
quote:
.. that and, of course, your crude language and demeanor... which might explain the above mentioned fear... there are standards of behavior and language, and maybe the limitations placed on you by being unable to use even abbreviated obscenities would limit your "style"
Wow.... yet more diversionary tactics. I prefer obscenity to cowardly back-pedaling and blatant denial of the obvious.
quote:
so i defined terms that should need no defining only to hear even more sophmoric objections.
Sophomoric is your attitude as reflected in that statement. No, not sophomoric. Its more typical of freshmen.
quote:
speak to people who don't have the semantic problems you do, those who will, when they disagree with a definition, offer an alternative so the discussion can proceed instead of degenerating into absurdities
Submit your argument to a Phil. Professor and see if you don't get the same objections. You seem to be unaware of even the most basic elements of western philosophy. Just trying to help.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by forgiven, posted 11-30-2002 7:55 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by forgiven, posted 11-30-2002 9:37 PM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 64 (25100)
11-30-2002 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by forgiven
11-30-2002 9:37 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
insightful...
Yup.
quote:
my apologies, wasn't meant to be cheap... merely true
So this is how it is then? Back you into a corner and you come out screaming foul play.
Very mature...
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by forgiven, posted 11-30-2002 9:37 PM forgiven has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024