Human, All-Too-Human

[SpeedOfSound]

in short I am skeptical about my ability to fly. I am just the tiniest, tiniest bit skeptical about the idea that I can't fly.


At least when I'm sober.

[jamest]

A sceptic of FBM's calibre would have to be sceptical about any claims - including those asserting our limited capacity to reason. Also, claims made about the limited sphere of our existence.
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.

Precisely, once again. It's not as if each new post we make is on a tabula rasa.

The innate potential of our reasoning capacity is [also] subject to supreme scepticism. If one asserts that 'we' have a limited reasoning capacity, then that individual also [implicitly, even ignorantly,] employs an ontology (about 'us') as the basis of that assertion.

If jamest has an argument, I don't see what difference it makes whether or not his audience is skeptical of any other claims besides his own,

The point is that 'MY' so-called 'navel-gazing' should not but judged upon preconceived ideas about what 'I' actually am ("all too human"); nor upon preconceived ideas about my potential to reason (i.e. 'limited'); nor upon preconceived ideas of 'my' sphere of existence (i.e. as existing solely amidst the world). Each of those preconceptions are obviously open to [metaphysical] debate. Notwithstanding that, they clearly imply an ontology as a basis for their conclusion. Therefore, they cannot be utilised as a means to suppressing metaphysical debate.

Until his own claims are somehow substantiated, I don't think we need to do this.

I've realised that I cannot substantiate my own claims in the presence of individuals that have these aforementioned preconceptions. Hence, the immediate focus.

I need to present my opinions to ABSOLUTE sceptics, or they will not be sincerely considered and understood.

[Surendra Darathy]

I need to present my opinions to ABSOLUTE sceptics, or they will not be sincerely considered and understood.

If you don't present your opinions at all, James, you need have no fear of being misunderstood.

[SpeedOfSound]

Now we are going to get 40 pages about jamest wanting us to be skeptical about his NOT being able to provide a basis? Is this what I'm hearing?

[jamest]

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.

First, this is not the main impetus of his argument. The main point is that you haven't come up with a basis for metaphysics.

Perhaps, but his judgement of whatever argument I provide rests upon his preconceptions about what I am; where I am (sphere of existence); and what I can do (rational potential).

Now. There is a lot of evidence that we are not super-human

Actually, all the empirical evidence points towards ~us~ being 'humans' of various qualities. But since empirical evidence does not extend into the realms of the metaphysical, then such evidence is irrelevant.

Skepticism of course should be applied everywhere but in this case you suggest getting the big brush out of 'supreme skepticism'. I don't see how that is warranted.

I suggest that 'supreme scepticism' should extend to 'you' BEING human.

A couple of wooTards in lotus position are not going to drive me to extremes on this.

I object to discrediting rationale via mere association with belittling concepts such as 'woo'. The point of such debates such as this is to prove what constitutes 'woo' - not to decide what it is upon preconceived ideas about what it isn't.
In other words, your own stance readily exhibits an ontology/bias in its judgement of my own stance. That is, you can hardly be described as 'a sceptic'.

[SpeedOfSound]

I suggest that 'supreme scepticism' should extend to 'you' BEING human.

I had that once when I snorted some PCP but I have since recovered.

[Surendra Darathy]

[jamest]

I need to present my opinions to ABSOLUTE sceptics, or they will not be sincerely considered and understood.

If you don't present your opinions at all, James, you need have no fear of being misunderstood.

C'mon, you're just being totally evasive and nonprogressive.
I don't want any medals here, I just want an attentive audience. Give me the nod, and I'll progress.

[SpeedOfSound]

I need to present my opinions to ABSOLUTE sceptics, or they will not be sincerely considered and understood.

If you don't present your opinions at all, James, you need have no fear of being misunderstood.

C'mon, you're just being totally evasive and nonprogressive.
I don't want any medals here, I just want an attentive audience. Give me the nod, and I'll progress.

There is a difference between being skeptical and being willing to believe anything at all without evidence.

Youare trying a clever and transparent reversal which only once again proves that you have difficulties with logic and reason.

You're fucking first rate at creatively bullshitting us though.

[jamest]

Now we are going to get 40 pages about jamest wanting us to be skeptical about his NOT being able to provide a basis? Is this what I'm hearing?

No, it's not. I just don't want whatever I present to be judged upon the flawed preconceptions that are apparent here.

All I want is a shot at proving my metaphysic to be correct. And that's not for any egotistical reason. But it aint going to happen whilst preconceived ideas (which should be abhorrent to any true sceptic) are ruling the roost.

[SpeedOfSound]

In the name of progress.

Imagine you have two piles. Pile A has all of the possible things ever. Pile B has all of the things you have carefully checked out and believe are very likely to be reliable.

You take stuff from A , find bits of evidence, and pass them over the coals of reason and logic. They get into B if they pass muster.

Now if someone comes along and pulls a bit from pile A and shows some initial evidence then you start to test it.

Skepticism is not just taking the whole fucking pile and considering any of it. That's called insanity.

Pile A is named YerAnus. Not you in particular just YerAnus in general.

[Surendra Darathy]

I just don't want whatever I present to be judged upon the flawed preconceptions that are apparent here.

All I want is a shot at proving my metaphysic to be correct.

Well, if that's what you want, you need at least to accept that you are not the sole arbiter of whether or not you've proven anything, "correct" or otherwise, which is what the notion of proof is about. If you state some sound axioms and definitions, and use sound reasoning, you may be able to prove something consistent with your axioms. If you do so, the only dispute will come in examining your axioms. Therefore, you may not actually need to plead your case. If flaws can be found in your axioms, we will all be spared a good deal of tedium.

You can choose to present it or not. It's all the same to me.

[jamest]

You're fucking first rate at creatively bullshitting us though.

I'll take that as meaning that I've given you food for thought.

The bottom-line is that the potential to provide a grounds for metaphysics - let alone, provide a metaphysic - is reliant upon there being an audience that is open to such an effort.

[jamest]

I just don't want whatever I present to be judged upon the flawed preconceptions that are apparent here.

All I want is a shot at proving my metaphysic to be correct.

Well, if that's what you want, you need at least to accept that you are not the sole arbiter of whether or not you've proven anything, "correct" or otherwise, which is what the notion of proof is about. If you state some sound axioms and definitions, and use sound reasoning, you may be able to prove something consistent with your axioms. If you do so, the only dispute will come in examining your axioms. Therefore, you may not actually need to plead your case. If flaws can be found in your axioms, we will all be spared a good deal of tedium.

Axioms have already been provided which refute scepticism of metaphysics, per se. Therefore, if I am allowed to progress - with these 'axioms' in mind - then also bear in that mind that whatever I do say is not to be judged as it has been previously judged.

You can choose to present it or not. It's all the same to me.

I note your indifference. I also noted the passion that was evidently inherent, when you previously tried to expunge metaphysics from the frontiers of all meaningful enquiry.

[jamest]

I am eager to progress to the next stage - which is providing a grounds for metaphysics. I shall progress to that stage soon, since the grounds for there not being a grounds for metaphysics have been thoroughly explored and refuted, imo. But I shall hang-on for a short-while, in case any new arguments are forthcoming. 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.