Human, All-Too-Human

[Surendra Darathy]

I am eager to progress to the next stage - which is providing a grounds for metaphysics.... That is, I don't want to be accused of neglecting existent rationale that is opposed to the possibility of presenting a grounds for metapysics. As I keep saying though, I am eager to progress.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

The point of such scepticism is not just to doubt any claims made by myself or like-minded individuals. So, if FBM is being true to his word, he would actually have to support me on this issue, I think.

Only if you abstract it completely from the empirical. Any psychologist would laugh at you for the mere suggestion that this is not empirical and that the evidence is not out on it.

Firstly, I do understand the philosophical stance of metaphysical scepticism, or absolute scepticism. That is, I can sympathise with the position that we cannot know anything more than can be discerned from empirical study. Which is not to say that I agree with that position.
Secondly, there's a significant point here that has to be made apparent. That point being that scepticism about 'us' being 'human'; and our 'limited sphere of our existence'; and 'the innate potential of our capacity to reason', should also be subject to such supreme scepticism, from the onset.

Whatever. I've got mountains of empirical evidence, you've got some hollow rhetoric. How's that end of the boom-boom stick treating you?

Consequently, there's no room here for you (your philosophical stance) to manoeuvre. That is, you cannot make any absolute claims about what we are; nor to the extent of our sphere of existence; nor (consequently) about our [limited] capacity to reason.

So just because there are multiple possibilities one of which can't be excluded absolutely we can't exclude it satisfactorily? You didn't read my OP, did you? Frankly, I expected someone here to be in curtains about my usage of satisfactorily, argument from incredulity, what have you, but I got you before that. I have shown why you need to launch against incredulity, I have exposed you. This is a major win for me. Champagne's on you.

To be frank, you were guilty of making all three claims in the OP. Moreover, you used these claims as the basis of your scepticism. Further, the implied allegiance to an ontology is self-evident.

Ah, you wouldn't know claims if they hit you in the head. The point is I scored.

Psychologists might laugh at me. But that's hardly relevant, is it? After all, what does a psychologist know about metaphysics?

I'm a psychologist.

It is clear to me that your metaphysical scepticism requires refinement, since there are obvious flaws in its conception. Of course, this critique doesn't suffice as providing a grounds for metaphysics, but it was a necessary step towards doing so.

No, not really. Argument or evidence would have done.

The bottom-line is that the basis for your scepticism has been pulled from under you, which renders [metaphysical] scepticism itself as dubious - are there really any reasons to harbour such a perspective? Therefore, if I have a requirement to provide grounds for metaphysics, you certainly have a requirement to provide [new] grounds for doubting that my own requirement is beyond 'my' means.

Yeah, that doesn't make much sense.

[jamest]

Firstly, I do understand the philosophical stance of metaphysical scepticism, or absolute scepticism. That is, I can sympathise with the position that we cannot know anything more than can be discerned from empirical study. Which is not to say that I agree with that position.
Secondly, there's a significant point here that has to be made apparent. That point being that scepticism about 'us' being 'human'; and our 'limited sphere of our existence'; and 'the innate potential of our capacity to reason', should also be subject to such supreme scepticism, from the onset.

Whatever. I've got mountains of empirical evidence, you've got some hollow rhetoric. How's that end of the boom-boom stick treating you?

Mountains of empirical evidence?! Erm, what do you think empirical evidence tells us about the potential to do metaphysics?

Consequently, there's no room here for you (your philosophical stance) to manoeuvre. That is, you cannot make any absolute claims about what we are; nor to the extent of our sphere of existence; nor (consequently) about our [limited] capacity to reason.

So just because there are multiple possibilities one of which can't be excluded absolutely we can't exclude it satisfactorily?

Actually, we are at a juncture where there are only two possibilities, involving our capacity to do metaphysics. Indeed, the last two pages have been about the unsatisfactoriness of your claims. And you still haven't addressed any of the objections that have been forthcoming.

You didn't read my OP, did you? Frankly, I expected someone here to be in curtains about my usage of satisfactorily, argument from incredulity, what have you, but I got you before that. I have shown why you need to launch against incredulity, I have exposed you. This is a major win for me. Champagne's on you.

The basis of your scepticism has been exposed as flawed. Deal with it.

[Surendra Darathy]

There really are more than the two possibilities that you have suggested: 1) Skepticism about the possibility of presenting a coherent case for knowledge other than empirical or 2) Skepticism about the impossibility of presenting a coherent case for knowledge other than empirical

We could just as easily turn the tables on you and request that you present a brief for the deficiencies of the empirical approach. Presenting this brief is a time-honored approach in the world of woo. I am free to ask you a question which you may choose not to answer. Your silence will only suggest that you have run dry of rhetoric.

The basis of your scepticism has been exposed as flawed.

Prediction for you James: Your articulation of the possibilities of metaphysics is going to run up on one of the six rocks noted below, if not more than one.

This looks prejudicial to you, but the longer you hem and haw about how you're not getting a fair hearing in this forum, the more it looks like a reluctance to expose the errors in your thinking.

If you do decide to present formally your argument in favor of the possibility of metaphysics, I implore you to include in a single post a numbered list of your assumptions and definitions, and a disclaimer that this will constitute the sum total of your assumptions (axioms) and definitions. It is so seedy to watch someone modify the foundations of an argument on the fly, as it were.

History of an error

1. The true world -- unattainable but for the sage, the pious, the virtuous man; he lives in it, he is it.

(The oldest form of the idea, relatively sensible, simple and persuasive. A circumlocution for the sentence, "I, Plato, am the truth.")

2. The true world -- unattainable for now, but promised for the sage, the pious, the virtuous man ("for the sinner who repents").

(Progress of the idea: it becomes more subtle, insidious, incomprehensible -- it becomes female, it becomes Christian.)

3. The true world -- unattainable, indemonstrable, unpromisable; but the very thought of it -- a consolidation, an obligation, an imperative.

(At bottom, the old sun, but seen through mist and skepticism. The idea has become elusive, pale, Nordic, Konigsbergian)

4. The true world -- unattainable? At any rate, unattained, and being unattained, also unknown. Consequently, not consoling, redeeming, or obligating: how could something unknown obligate us?

(Gray morning, The first yawn of reason. The cockcrow of positivism)

5. The "true" world -- an idea which is no longer good for anything, not even obligating -- an idea which has become useless and superfluous -- consequently a refuted idea: let us abolish it!

(Bright day; breakfast: return of bon sens and cheer-fulness; Plato's embarrassed blush; pandemonium of all free spirits.)

6. The true world -- we have abolished. What world has remained? The apparent one perhaps? But no! With the true world we also have abolished the apparent one.

(Noon: moment of the briefest shadow; end of the longest error; high point of humanity; INCIPIT ZARATHUSTRA.

The final bullet in the chamber, Number 6, is the one with which you should not play Russian Roulette, James. Try to understand that there is scepticism even that discourse on the dichotomy of REAL/APPARENT is worthwhile. It's evidently where you are at present, or, at least, where we are. A recapitulation of the other 5 is not necessary or even indicative of relevant scholarship.

[Surendra Darathy]

In view of that, one definition of metaphysics might be that it is the invention of Rube Goldberg devices to explain how the apparent world is generated from the real. What we would like from the metaphysicians is something which shows a unique Rube Goldberg device. Mathematicians are adept at demonstrating that certain solutions of equations are unique, but they often like to show that a solution exists before they proceed to show that it is unique.

[jamest]

6. The true world -- we have abolished. What world has remained? The apparent one perhaps? But no! With the true world we also have abolished the apparent one.

The final bullet in the chamber, Number 6, is the one with which you should not play Russian Roulette, James.

Then perhaps I should point the gun at Nietzsche's head.

Try to understand that there is scepticism even that discourse on the dichotomy of REAL/APPARENT is worthwhile.

Would you care to argue the case for this scepticism?

x is x... or x is something else that appears to be x. Or x is nothing, but let us not entertain the silly notion of the 'the world' being reducible to the absoluteness of nothing.

What else do you have in mind? What else can there be in mind? If you want to justify this scepticism, then please answer the questions.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

Then perhaps I should point the gun at Nietzsche's head.

[Matthew Shute]

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 00#p388800

Damn, Jerome, your posts make the rest of us look bad.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

I prefer Ashkenazy, but his version on youtube is too poor to endorse. Still, I could not let such a compliment stand without Chopin:

[jamest]

I prefer Ashkenazy, but his version on youtube is too poor to endorse. Still, I could not let such a compliment stand without Chopin:

Jerome, I'm puzzled. Sure, you've had a few compliments for your OP - and I understand why, given that it was well-presented, etc.. But you've been forced, since, to confront significant flaws within your reasoning therein - none of which you have addressed - so why 'the high'? I mean, for instance, Matt - the guy that most recently gave you a compliment - completely overlooked everything that I have said in response to that post of yours. So why place any value upon his endorsement of your opinion? Indeed, in the previous thread associated to this, he even admitted to "skimming over the boring bits", which means that he has a history for overlooking anything that challenges his preconceived ideas, or which doesn't tickle his funny bone. In other words, please don't place so much value upon the endorsement of members that exhibit a specific bias, nor upon members that never provide anything of substance themselves. Argument from popularity is something that you really shouldn't be utilising, especially in a predominatly atheist/sceptical forum.

The most disconcerting theme to emerge from our conversation, thus far, has been exhibited within your evident reluctance to address the rational flaws that I have highlighted from amidst your OP. It bothers me, deeply, that you still feel good about your position without having confronted the challenges presented to that position. And since those challenges are sufficient to render your philosophical stance as 'naive', at best, then I would suggest that you stop looking for support from members such as Matt to substantiate your OP.

You've made some hefty claims about 'us' not being able to do metaphysics. You seriously need to justify these claims, or else how can we have 'a debate'? In other words, prove that you are open to debate, or withdraw yourself from it, along with your preconceived ontology and epistemology.

The notion that you equate yourself or your position to 'absolute scepticism', has been exposed as erroneous. Please ignore the [irrelevant] public reaction here and deal with the challenge that has been presented against you.

[SpeedOfSound]

Jerome, I'm puzzled. Sure, you've had a few compliments for your OP - and I understand why, given that it was well-presented, etc.. But you've been forced, since, to confront significant flaws within your reasoning therein - none of which you have addressed ...

Blah blah fucking blah. Yes they have all been addressed over and over by myself and others and you ignore it.

If you want to be taken seriously you need to stop pretending that you have refuted anything and actually work at understanding what is being said here.

[jamest]

Jerome, I'm puzzled. Sure, you've had a few compliments for your OP - and I understand why, given that it was well-presented, etc.. But you've been forced, since, to confront significant flaws within your reasoning therein - none of which you have addressed ...

Blah blah fucking blah. Yes they have all been addressed over and over by myself and others and you ignore it.

If you want to be taken seriously you need to stop pretending that you have refuted anything and actually work at understanding what is being said here.

Your record is stuck.

[FedUpWithFaith]

I've been following this argument and thinking about getting involved. I'm just afraid if I get drawn in I won't get anything more done in real life for too long. I did want to send out props to jamest though since Serpenti seems to be getting all the glory (and his effort was impressive - don't get me wrong). Jamest's language might not be as flowery at Serpenti's (though still a somewhat dim shadow of his idol Nietzsche's philosophical poetry), but I don't see where any of you have laid many of his key critiques to rest, though you seem convinced you have.

[SpeedOfSound]

I've been following this argument and thinking about getting involved. I'm just afraid if I get drawn in I won't get anything more done in real life for too long. I did want to send out props to jamest though since Serpenti seems to be getting all the glory (and his effort was impressive - don't get me wrong). Jamest's language might not be as flowery at Serpenti's (though still a somewhat dim shadow of his idol Nietzsche's philosophical poetry), but I don't see where any of you have laid many of his key critiques to rest, though you seem convinced you have.

I would love to hear your take on it. Got some examples?

[FedUpWithFaith]

I'm going to kick myself for writing that post. If this were any other time ....but I gotta a project to do and I'm weak!

Let me sleep on it.