Metaphysics as an Error

[Little Idiot]

Good clear argument there James.

Is it just me, or is 'our side' producing post after post of logical argument set out in a clear way which makes it easy to identify any weakness in the argument, only to be met by casual dismissals which go off on a random tangent or rant or attack, but not actually pointing to any possible errors in the lodical points presented.

Exactly. On the whole, serious logic meets silence; laughter; rhetoric; condescension; ad hominem.

I think we should be commended for our patience - especially yourself, who has had to endure the brunt of it recently.

Btw, that argument that you just mentioned probably has ramifications for your own philosophy - if I understand your philosophy correctly. Having established both a grounds and approach for metaphysics, perhaps we might move on to discussing that, eventually - notwithstanding any serious counters to our arguments. I feel that it's getting to the point where little else can be said. Suffice to say, I'm clear in my own mind that relativism is a dead and worthless philosophy.

I have had enough of this shit to be honest.
I intend to try respond to SoS's recent posts out of respect for him, then I think I am done here.
I would welcome an exchange about the significance to my philosophy, but not in this thread (and maybe not in this forum as the personal insults we would be sure to draw from some of the crew are not worth the energy they drain). But its not polite to discuss another location here.

[GrahamH]

I have shown how Absolute truth is not part of time

Um, no, Little Idiot. You have asserted that "absolute truth" exists, and asserted that as part of your definition, "absolute truth" does not exist in time. You have not made the merest iota of a smidgen of an attempt to show how "absolute truth" or (if you prefer) "timeless truth" is possible, let alone stating any of it, notwithstanding Paul Brunton's word salads.

Thank you for confirming exactly the point I was making, which as I stated "YOU asked for statements about absolute truth; you think I am gonna pop out with truth and you will take me seriously?" right before the piece you gleefully attack bellow.
I was showing, as I stated, that what ever I actually say; if I jump in and say absolute truth is <imsert anything> then even if I achieved a perfect statement despite saying earlier this is impossible for all human language, and despite not actually claiming to have access to the said truth there is absolutly no way that I would be taken seriously.
Therefore, if we are to talk of 'absolute truth' we need to start at the beggining. This is what I did before you started ranting.
Since you didnt seem to be getting my point I showed by example; I 'made a statement' and sat back to watch your reaction even though the very words before it say its not to be taken seriously

Look at your bullshit. Again. And again:

YOU sir are the one spouting bullshit. Even if my logic is in error, a reasonable response would entail showing why one of the C's is wrong or one of the P's doesnt follow from them.
But no, you assert that I am bullshitting.
Which C is an error? Which P is an error?
Oh no I forgot, my logical argument is not worth your effort - strange how you spent so many words on attacking it though....
Anyway, the very first step is to show what absolute truth is not and where it can not possibly be to help distinguish possible truth from certain error, dont you think?
But I tire of repeating my self for you, I said the exact same thing first time you reviewed my informal logic with little more depth of insight than the word 'Bullshit'

That is a very silly think to say. I have done far more than that. I have shown how Absolute truth is not part of time; therefore we can make a lot of progress, not wasting our time loosing in time is the first step to finding truth. It is also essential to understand that because of this we know empirical method is ineffective in the search.

P1 If there is absolute truth, it must not change, or it is not absolute.
P2 Everything in time changes
C1 Absolute truth is not in time.

This is a shorter word salad, but that is all that it is.

My opinion is as irrelevent as yours when it comes to the highest reality which is as it is regardless of our ideas.

Oh? OK. And the following is somehow distinguished from being an opinion?

Sucker punch landed on you, again; thats my point, it is no more than an opinion. Thats why we have to start at the beggining and establish such a framework to identify exactly this point of what can be and what can not be truth, which I did above.
Thanks for quoting the exact post where I clearly made the same point. Saves me doing it.

It is you and James who think there is something that can be said about "absolute truth" which is "more than an opinion". Isn't that what metaphysics is supposed to be about, by your own definition? Your opponents say metaphysics is, and can only be, unjustified opinion, or mythology, because there is no way to ground it.

The only things that have bee said for metaphysics here so far are fanciful speculations spiralling off from empirical physics - e.g. Cosmic background, or fanciful claims that mathematics is not based on empirically defined axioms.

I think there is no need to defend maths as being able to produce knowledge , pi = 3.142 the ratio of the diameter to radius of a circle is known, and is knowledge. Given X and an equation we can find Y. This does not need defending.
You know this, as you dont actually commit to saying mathd does not give knowledge, which is a shame, we could do with a laugh.

I did get a chuckle out of that. How do we come by the knowledge of PI? By measuring circles and working out ways to better approximate the ratio we find! You have that one backwards.

[SpeedOfSound]

No one wants to touch jamest's argument. I quit reading after the ii.

Why?

I understand that the post was dry and formal, but I'm hoping that you have more reason than that to overlook it.

Insufficient grounding. It's not worth the 1000 posts it would take to get past that and I know that we never would get past it anyway.

[Animavore]

Good clear argument there James.

Is it just me, or is 'our side' producing post after post of logical argument set out in a clear way which makes it easy to identify any weakness in the argument, only to be met by casual dismissals which go off on a random tangent or rant or attack, but not actually pointing to any possible errors in the lodical points presented.

Yes. It is just you.
I find the other side to be succinct and lucid were as "your" side I generally don't have a clue what you're talking about.
It just seems like a load of word salad.

EDIT: Just so you in case you think I'm taking sides, I generally don't follow philosophy. I'm an outsider looking in. The "other" side are right about one thing though. You have failed consistently to provide evidence for your arguments.

[jamest]

I have had enough of this shit to be honest.

Yes - that's why I took a break yesterday.

I intend to try respond to SoS's recent posts out of respect for him, then I think I am done here.

SOS has been the exception to the rule.

I would welcome an exchange about the significance to my philosophy, but not in this thread (and maybe not in this forum as the personal insults we would be sure to draw from some of the crew are not worth the energy they drain). But its not polite to discuss another location here.

This forum would be fine, since we could just refer any derision associated with not proving a grounds for metaphysics, to this thread. That is, we could just ignore such responses altogether. We wouldn't have to justify the basics any more.

There's no rush anyway.

Edited to change 'thread' to 'forum'.

[jamest]

It is you and James who think there is something that can be said about "absolute truth" which is "more than an opinion". Isn't that what metaphysics is supposed to be about, by your own definition? Your opponents say metaphysics is, and can only be, unjustified opinion, or mythology, because there is no way to ground it.

The only things that have bee said for metaphysics here so far are fanciful speculations spiralling off from empirical physics - e.g. Cosmic background, or fanciful claims that mathematics is not based on empirically defined axioms.

More rhetoric. I haven't seen you address a single post of mine Graham, so spare me the unfounded judgement.

[SpeedOfSound]

One more story. We had a physics and algebra teacher in my high school. He was considered a sciency type. Turns out he was a shop teacher before I got him for science and math. Long after, I was in college making money for my TI Sr-52 calculator and my drinking problem by tutoring CSci 101. He was taking the course because the HS made him.

I discovered to my absolute fucking horror that he didn't know what a quadratic equation was. I had to teach him.

Hehe.
Good teachers of maths and science (and more so physics particularly) are hard for schools to find and retain.
I have had to train people content minutes berfore they deliver it to a class, sad but true. On one occasion we were standing at the front of a class of students while I explained the physics to the teacher before going to teach my own class leaving her to teach her own class.

Your profession as a teacher is being handled harshly. Had you never used it as an argument it wouldn't be. we are all in the same boat. We all at some time or another want to explain how smart we are and what are credentials are. It never goes well for us on these forums. My claim to fame is "I read some books, once". Oh and some people said my brain was the size of a small planet. But they must be wrong if physicalism is true. Only you and jamest have philosophy that would support that nonsense.

This is related to quotes from old famous guys too. It never goes well.

So I think for myself I must endeavor to avoid the bait and not make the claims to begin with. The only way to get any respect around here is with solid arguments.

[jamest]

No one wants to touch jamest's argument. I quit reading after the ii.

Why?

I understand that the post was dry and formal, but I'm hoping that you have more reason than that to overlook it.

Insufficient grounding. It's not worth the 1000 posts it would take to get past that and I know that we never would get past it anyway.

I should have added 'whitewashing' to the list.

[Little Idiot]

It is you and James who think there is something that can be said about "absolute truth" which is "more than an opinion". Isn't that what metaphysics is supposed to be about, by your own definition? Your opponents say metaphysics is, and can only be, unjustified opinion, or mythology, because there is no way to ground it.

The only things that have bee said for metaphysics here so far are fanciful speculations spiralling off from empirical physics - e.g. Cosmic background, or fanciful claims that mathematics is not based on empirically defined axioms.

I think there is no need to defend maths as being able to produce knowledge , pi = 3.142 the ratio of the diameter to radius of a circle is known, and is knowledge. Given X and an equation we can find Y. This does not need defending.
You know this, as you dont actually commit to saying mathd does not give knowledge, which is a shame, we could do with a laugh.

I did get a chuckle out of that. How do we come by the knowledge of PI? By measuring circles and working out ways to better approximate the ratio we find! You have that one backwards.

Can you measure pi? or infinity, or orders of infinity, imaginary numbers and so on.
Do you suggest all maths is based on the emperical?

[SpeedOfSound]

No one wants to touch jamest's argument. I quit reading after the ii.

Why?

I understand that the post was dry and formal, but I'm hoping that you have more reason than that to overlook it.

Insufficient grounding. It's not worth the 1000 posts it would take to get past that and I know that we never would get past it anyway.

I should have added 'whitewashing' to the list.

I'll get to your post later. It would just introduce too damn many new things at this point. I do appreciate posts of this nature.

[SpeedOfSound]

Can you measure pi? or infinity, or orders of infinity, imaginary numbers and so on.
Do you suggest all maths is based on the emperical?

Yes. I would suggest that. 'based on'. They don't stay there by any means. I think you are suggesting the opposite. It's a bit confusing this chicken and the egg thing.

[Little Idiot]

One more story. We had a physics and algebra teacher in my high school. He was considered a sciency type. Turns out he was a shop teacher before I got him for science and math. Long after, I was in college making money for my TI Sr-52 calculator and my drinking problem by tutoring CSci 101. He was taking the course because the HS made him.

I discovered to my absolute fucking horror that he didn't know what a quadratic equation was. I had to teach him.

Hehe.
Good teachers of maths and science (and more so physics particularly) are hard for schools to find and retain.
I have had to train people content minutes berfore they deliver it to a class, sad but true. On one occasion we were standing at the front of a class of students while I explained the physics to the teacher before going to teach my own class leaving her to teach her own class.

Your profession as a teacher is being handled harshly. Had you never used it as an argument it wouldn't be. we are all in the same boat. We all at some time or another want to explain how smart we are and what are credentials are. It never goes well for us on these forums. My claim to fame is "I read some books, once". Oh and some people said my brain was the size of a small planet. But they must be wrong if physicalism is true. Only you and jamest have philosophy that would support that nonsense.

This is related to quotes from old famous guys too. It never goes well.

So I think for myself I must endeavor to avoid the bait and not make the claims to begin with. The only way to get any respect around here is with solid arguments.

I didnt use it as an argument or to suggest I am smart, I used it to draw parallels with the predictable behaviour of naughty and the responses of a certain poster.
But the hostility is still just that; the hungry pack response.

[GrahamH]

It is you and James who think there is something that can be said about "absolute truth" which is "more than an opinion". Isn't that what metaphysics is supposed to be about, by your own definition? Your opponents say metaphysics is, and can only be, unjustified opinion, or mythology, because there is no way to ground it.

The only things that have bee said for metaphysics here so far are fanciful speculations spiralling off from empirical physics - e.g. Cosmic background, or fanciful claims that mathematics is not based on empirically defined axioms.

More rhetoric. I haven't seen you address a single post of mine Graham, so spare me the unfounded judgement.

You claimed that 'radiation of a particular wavelength' (or similar wording) was grounds for metaphysics, did you not?

Why is a model based on, and confirmed by, empirical observation, to be taken as any sort of "knowledge of things as they really are", or whatever your definition of metaphysics is? It is a useful description and predictor of how the observable behaves, but what can keep metaphysical speculations "true" when they depart from empiricism?

[FBM]

MOD NOTE:

Some of the recent comments have been testing the limits of our 'play nice' rule. This is a friendly reminder to do that, viz., play nice. I don't think it's to the point where I should single out anyone. Please just remember to stay away from insults and such. Thanks!

END MOD NOTE:

[GrahamH]

It is you and James who think there is something that can be said about "absolute truth" which is "more than an opinion". Isn't that what metaphysics is supposed to be about, by your own definition? Your opponents say metaphysics is, and can only be, unjustified opinion, or mythology, because there is no way to ground it.

The only things that have bee said for metaphysics here so far are fanciful speculations spiralling off from empirical physics - e.g. Cosmic background, or fanciful claims that mathematics is not based on empirically defined axioms.

I think there is no need to defend maths as being able to produce knowledge , pi = 3.142 the ratio of the diameter to radius of a circle is known, and is knowledge. Given X and an equation we can find Y. This does not need defending.
You know this, as you dont actually commit to saying mathd does not give knowledge, which is a shame, we could do with a laugh.

I did get a chuckle out of that. How do we come by the knowledge of PI? By measuring circles and working out ways to better approximate the ratio we find! You have that one backwards.

Can you measure pi? or infinity, or orders of infinity, imaginary numbers and so on.
Do you suggest all maths is based on the emperical?

Of course you can measure PI, and of course, like any measurement it has imprecision. It can be measured to be 3 and a bit.

Do you think PI is a property of circles, or a "law" that makes circles possible?