Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,576 Year: 4,833/9,624 Month: 181/427 Week: 94/85 Day: 1/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

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


Message 46 of 64 (24721)
11-28-2002 12:03 AM


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....

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by John, posted 11-28-2002 12:10 AM joz has replied
 Message 49 by forgiven, posted 11-28-2002 8:13 AM joz has 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

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 64 (24727)
11-28-2002 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by John
11-28-2002 12:10 AM


Buddy boys post where he defined the universe as including his self...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by John, posted 11-28-2002 12:10 AM John has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 64 (24771)
11-28-2002 8:13 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....

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? john objected to the definition, but by his failure to offer his own his objection is merely a groundless assertion...
now you say including "I" in the above begs the question but don't show how... 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
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

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 50 by John, posted 11-28-2002 11:23 AM forgiven has replied
 Message 63 by joz, posted 12-01-2002 3:02 AM forgiven has 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

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 64 (24842)
11-28-2002 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by John
11-28-2002 11:23 AM


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.
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.
ummmm ok, i'll do a little more work on informal logic ... but what i actually said was that an objection based on an assertion of error (the error being my definition of universe) with no argumentation showing the error, or even a counter definition of the term, is by definition without foundation... it's merely an assertion
quote:
quote:
now you say including "I" in the above begs the question but don't show how...
Yes he did.
no, actually he didn't... he never even attempted to give a reason, which led to my statement below
quote:
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.
actually all i did was start with two statements, here's the original with joz's original reply:
quote:

Originally posted by forgiven:
this got bogged down in semantics before, so i think i'll try again, only slower this time... no jumping to the end of the book!!
givens:
1) i exist
2) the universe exists
now that's as far as i'm going till i see how many are gonna argue about it... if there's disagreement on those, i think i'll just hibernate for the winter

quote:
joz:
Better get your pyjamas on then buddy boy....
While I`ll grant you 1) for now (but only as it applies to me)(The cogito etc) why do you assume that the universe exsists?
It could all be fantasy, the earth, the sun, flowers rain, John and I even LL`s rants.....
I happen to agree that the universe exsists but I don`t think you can just assume it a priori without evaluating the alternatives....
so he granted cognition... i then began on this definition of the universe journey.. but if it helps clarify it,
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:
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.
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
1) are transcendental entities part of "the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated?"
2) if not, how can it be asserted they are not part of the universe?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by John, posted 11-28-2002 11:23 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by John, posted 11-29-2002 10:09 PM forgiven 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

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 64 (25024)
11-30-2002 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by John
11-29-2002 10:09 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
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.
i honestly wasn't aware that my words have been written in an unclear manner... 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'... what is so hard about this to understand? you seem to be saying that the universe *doesn't* include 'things'... i didn't "add" anything, i thought it was self-evident...
quote:
quote:
2) I believe I pointed out that you need to define 'exists' which you have not done.
And still have not done.
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... i wrongly assumed, i guess, that you knew that 'exist' means 'to have being, whether material or spiritual'... 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...
quote:
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.
again i wasn't aware most people have a problem understanding everyday language... now i am...
quote:
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 )
joz's objection was simply that he didn't grant the existence of the universe... he seemed to have no problem with understanding what i meant by 'universe' nor what i meant by 'exists'... what made his objection moot was the fact that he ignored an earlier post in which i said i was *not* going to offer a proof for the universe existing, and if one wanted such proof one should look elsewhere... and you misread what chara wrote and what i replied.. my remarks to her were tongue in cheek, and i believe if you ask her you'll find she understood them that way... sorry you didn't, but frankly the reply *was* to her
quote:
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.
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
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....
no, actually i covered this... 'self' falls within the universe for 2 reasons.. first, i have not always existed... second, the definition of the universe (tho perhaps too broad or overcooked or whatever) shows that "i" am a part of it
quote:
How do you know that you aren`t one of thos transcendental buggers?
dare i say it? dare i ask it? did i forget yet *another* definition, 'transcendental'? sigh, silly me.. there i go again, assuming
quote:
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.
i'm not sure what you mean by "the whole thing" above... what is a thing?
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'?
well of *course* i do!!!... i should have known that the casual reader would have trouble with what a "thing" is... sigh... a noun is defined as "a person, place, or thing"... if i said "house" is a noun and you asked why and i said cause it's a thing and you said what's a thing and i ran screaming from the room would you understand why?
thing:
a : a separate and distinct individual quality, fact, idea, or usually entity
b : the concrete entity as distinguished from its appearances
quote:
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.
definition posted.. too broad? well, to you... but it's the one i'm using... i politely offered you the opportunity to post your own, you refuse for reasons stated below, "it isn't my job to make your argument".. that of course is nonsensical, nobody asked you to, but in the absence of your own we'll use mine... of course *that* results in you repeating your objection... you don't like my definition but refuse to state one you do like then accuse me of only being able to sustain an argument via a definition you don't accept.. round and round we go
quote:
Insert definition????? How can you leave out a key feature like that?
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
quote:
4) Repeating #1 perhaps?
whew!!... the definition has been posted for universe... "i" am one of the things (oops, hope everyone knows what that means) included in that definition, ergo i am part of what makes up the universe
quote:
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.
it needs no cleaning up... i wish you would venn it and show us all how the terms of the propositions fail to conform...
quote:
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.
there you go again... 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... you say, well then what would you prefer i use as a definition? and i say, hey it's not *my* job to define *your* terms therefore your argument fails because even tho you defined the term i don't like it.. that's a fair assesment of what you've stated several times
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?
added by edit, the end of previous post:
1) are transcendental entities part of "the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated?"
2) if not, how can it be asserted they are not part of the universe?
that was in answer to joz and stands as unanswered
[This message has been edited by forgiven, 11-30-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by John, posted 11-29-2002 10:09 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by John, posted 11-30-2002 10:51 AM forgiven 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

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 64 (25059)
11-30-2002 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by John
11-30-2002 10:51 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
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.
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...
UNDISTRIBUTED MIDDLE
Description: A syllogistic argument in which the middle term of a categorical syllogism is not distributed in at least one of the premises.
the middle term in the syllogism, "thing," is distributed in *both* premises...
by the way, you worded the conclusion wrongly... it should read 'therefore the universe includes "i" ' for the mood to be acceptable... a common error tho, hardly fatal... you just need to "clean it up" before resubmitting it
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'... this is hardly surprising, given our previous inability to communicate based on a misunderstanding of the meanings of words...
now that i've cleared that up for you, everything else should fall into place

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by John, posted 11-30-2002 10:51 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by John, posted 11-30-2002 2:22 PM forgiven has not 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

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 64 (25082)
11-30-2002 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by John
11-30-2002 10:51 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
"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.
it isn't because my argument isn't "all i's are things; all universes are things; therefore all universes are i's"... that's what you *wanted* it to be, but mine was based on the definition of the terms, and wasn't syllogistic in form... the universe is a thing, by definition... i am a thing, by definition... the universe includes me, again by definition... you attempted to show a fallacy by compacting this:
1) "i" am a separate and distinct individual quality, fact, idea, or usually entity (ie., i am a thing)
2) the universe is a separate and distinct individual quality, fact, idea, or usually entity (ie., the universe is a thing)
3) the universe contains the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated (by definition)
4) "i" am one of the things or phenomena observed or postulated
5) therefore "i" am a part of the universe
into what you wrote... notice i inserted the definitions since you misunderstood my reason for leaving them blank originally... i left them blank in case you wanted to insert your own, but even *that* was cause for argument... the whole point was to show that i am but one of any number of "things" that make up the universe
i am a distinct entity... the universe includes the whole body of distinct entities (and phenomena, etc)...
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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by John, posted 11-30-2002 10:51 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by John, posted 11-30-2002 7:32 PM forgiven has 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

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 64 (25090)
11-30-2002 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by John
11-30-2002 7:32 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
BS. Your response to me in your post #55 indicates that you damn sure did think of it as syllogistic.
my response was based on the fact that i'd i posted a 5 step argument and any mention of an undistributed middle came by virtue of your compacting that according to your own terms... you said at least twice "it's not my job to form your arguments" then did exactly that from my post... 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... that doesn't follow from anything i wrote and *that's* what i thought you were saying...
quote:
you attempted to show a fallacy by compacting this:
quote:
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.
what's disgusting is your continued fear of an open and honest, moderated, debate... 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"
quote:
the whole point was to show that i am but one of any number of "things" that make up the universe
quote:
"Show" wouldn't mean "argue" would it?
no, i did show it, not long after this post started... you simply continued to ask "what does thing mean?" ... "what does exist mean?" ... "what does universe mean?" ... so i defined terms that should need no defining only to hear even more sophmoric objections.. "i don't like that one it's too broad too wet too dry too red too blue" ... when offered the opportunity to post your own you rejected that ... anything to continue an absurd argument...
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...
quote:
What exactly are you going to do?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by John, posted 11-30-2002 7:32 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by John, posted 11-30-2002 9:15 PM forgiven 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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024