VA's Contradictions?

[Veritas Aequitas]

To be charged with claims that are contradictory is a serious charge.
I won't leave this unchallenged.
Those who think I have present contradictions, show me precisely where?

I am not perfect thus it is possible I may have presented a contradictions and if true I will correct it. There is no way I will insist on it.

We are dealing with issues with a lot of nuances.
It is very likely the charge of contradiction against me is due to the other's ignorance and misinterpretations rather than my oversight.

In this last week you put out positions that contradict your own positions at least as much as those of others, but you don't notice this.
You don't notice that when you respond to people, most of the time, much of your response is a re-assertion of your position.

In this case, it is most likely IWP was ignorant and misunderstood my point.
I am waiting for the details of his charge against me.

So, those who think I have presented contradictions, show me precisely where?

To show any real contradiction I have presented, show that
I have accepted p and not-p at the same time AND in the same sense.

Something like;

• Here is your P:
  (give details)
  
  Here is your NOT-P on the same issue:
  (give details)
  
  Then show where I have accept p and not-p at the same time AND in the same sense.

So it is critical you check, if at the same time, did I accept them in different senses.

[FlashDangerpants]

For one thing you've spent about 10 years promoting an argument for moral fact that, if it even worked as a cohesive set of supportive arguments, could only possibly be good for a kind of semi-official ranking of the various competing moral relativist stances.

If you don't completely rethink your entire moral fact platform it will always contradict your entire antirealist one and you will always be left wondering why the people who can do basic philosophy all laugh at you.

[Veritas Aequitas]

For one thing you've spent about 10 years promoting an argument for moral fact that, if it even worked as a cohesive set of supportive arguments, could only possibly be good for a kind of semi-official ranking of the various competing moral relativist stances.

If you don't completely rethink your entire moral fact platform it will always contradict your entire antirealist one and you will always be left wondering why the people who can do basic philosophy all laugh at you.

You need to more precise there is a contradiction.
Note I have argued, while my FSRK is human-conditioned, thus it is definitely relative but at the same time in different sense I claimed it is objective in the relative sense and not in the absolute sense.

Of course it is beyond your comprehension because your vision is too dogmatic and stuck with the philosophical sense of objectivity which is delusional.

[FlashDangerpants]

thus it is definitely relative but at the same time in different sense I claimed it is objective in the relative sense and not in the absolute sense.

Now you are contradicting yourself in the space of five words: objective in the relative sense

[Sculptor]

For one thing you've spent about 10 years promoting an argument for moral fact that, if it even worked as a cohesive set of supportive arguments, could only possibly be good for a kind of semi-official ranking of the various competing moral relativist stances.

If you don't completely rethink your entire moral fact platform it will always contradict your entire antirealist one and you will always be left wondering why the people who can do basic philosophy all laugh at you.

Some people live their wholes lives never dealing with deep contradictions in their thinking.
It's an odd fact about humans, that it can take a great deal of effort to come to the realisation that thinking can be disparate and compartmentalised.
A scholar of Classical History I once learned from used to say "The Greeks could believe 12 contradictory things before breakfast", such was the nature of myths. But its more shocking when you see it so clearly in a person pretending to be a philosopher.
Shocking but not unusual. It can be seem mostly in people who take dogmatic stances. When it is common for the chain of thinking to always end up with a concrete conclusion, the compartmentalisation of brain modes can lead to disparate beliefs.
The only sure strategy to avoid such a dangerous state of dissonace it to believe nothing, but to seek knoweldge with the caveat that all knoweldge is wholly contingent upon the reasoning and evidence that supports it an so is fluid and open to change.
In VA we do not see this characteristic. One of his key failings is to take concrete examples of things that can be factual, such as the existence of a material object and use that as an analogy for esoteric and idealational notions.

[Sculptor]

Note I have argued, while my FSRK is human-conditioned, thus it is definitely relative but at the same time in different sense I claimed it is objective in the relative sense and not in the absolute sense.

Word Salad.

[Veritas Aequitas]

thus it is definitely relative but at the same time in different sense I claimed it is objective in the relative sense and not in the absolute sense.

Now you are contradicting yourself in the space of five words: objective in the relative sense

The Law of non-contradiction states,

• In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "p is the case" and "p is not the case" are mutually exclusive. WIKI

So, p can be not-p at the same time BUT not in the same sense.

I believe I have spoken very loudly what is seeming contradictory in my claim is not in the same sense, perspective, and context.

[Iwannaplato]

Non-Conceptualization
•Definition: Direct, unmediated experience without the use of concepts or categories.
•Role of Thought: Pre-conceptual, based on immediate sensory input and emotional response.
•Source of Knowledge: Direct engagement with the world through the senses and emotions.
•Examples: Experiencing the taste of a piece of chocolate, appreciating the beauty of a sunset, feeling the connection with another person.

You connected yourself to the non-conceptualists. You have connected yourself with meatphysical antirealism/empricial contructivism.

The latter two do NOT fit with unmediated experience. They consider all experience as mediated. There's no raw non-conceptualized experience. It is always mediated and constructed by the filters we have, our senses, our conceptual schemas
in metaphysical antirealism and empirical contructivism.

Unless for some bizarre reason you - bizarre given your beliefs - are suddenly saying people have direct experience of noumena.

•Source of Knowledge: Direct engagement with the world through the senses and emotions.

And note the latter in that sentence. You have often talk about how me must reduce the effect of emotions in order to gain knowledge.

And, I will say in advance that you just don't acknowledge things, not in my experience, not even when they are obvious and pointed out by people with different philosophical positions from each other and in different ways.

I'm posting this for anyone else who is curious.

[FlashDangerpants]

thus it is definitely relative but at the same time in different sense I claimed it is objective in the relative sense and not in the absolute sense.

Now you are contradicting yourself in the space of five words: objective in the relative sense

The Law of non-contradiction states,

• In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "p is the case" and "p is not the case" are mutually exclusive. WIKI

So, p can be not-p at the same time BUT not in the same sense.

I believe I have spoken very loudly what is seeming contradictory in my claim is not in the same sense, perspective, and context.

Gibberish. Objective in the relative sense is no different from relative in the objective sense.

[Flannel Jesus]

I would rarely describe you as contradictory. I would mostly describe your arguments as nonsequiturs, as absurd. Your recent one about embodied realism is a great example.

[Age]

To be charged with claims that are contradictory is a serious charge.
I won't leave this unchallenged.
Those who think I have present contradictions, show me precisely where?

I have already. But, you will not acknowledge them.

I am not perfect thus it is possible I may have presented a contradictions and if true I will correct it. There is no way I will insist on it.

We are dealing with issues with a lot of nuances.
It is very likely the charge of contradiction against me is due to the other's ignorance and misinterpretations rather than my oversight.

Why would any one who really wants to be presented with what you are, seemingly, asking for here presume or pre-believe that it is, very likely, 'the other' who is ignorant or misinterpreting, before absolutely any thing is given, which you appear to be actually asking for?

Obviously what can come about here now is just more blatant examples of 'confirmation biases'.

In this last week you put out positions that contradict your own positions at least as much as those of others, but you don't notice this.
You don't notice that when you respond to people, most of the time, much of your response is a re-assertion of your position.

In this case, it is most likely IWP was ignorant and misunderstood my point.
I am waiting for the details of his charge against me.

So, those who think I have presented contradictions, show me precisely where?

[Flannel Jesus]

Age is here. Finally, a true intellectual match for VA. I think we should all grab a bag of popcorn and watch the great minds hash it out.

[FlashDangerpants]

[Iwannaplato]

Embodied Realism:
Mind: Seen as fundamentally embodied, meaning it is shaped by and inseparable from the body and its interactions with the environment.
Thought: Considered as largely unconscious and grounded in embodied experiences like sensorimotor activities and emotions.
Knowledge: Arises from embodied interactions, with basic-level concepts (e.g., chair, hot) being directly linked to bodily experiences.
Metaphors: Seen as not just linguistic but also as fundamental structures of thought, shaping how we categorize, reason, and understand the world.
Here are some key points to remember:

and

Non-Conceptualization
•Definition: Direct, unmediated experience without the use of concepts or categories.
•Role of Thought: Pre-conceptual, based on immediate sensory input and emotional response.
•Source of Knowledge: Direct engagement with the world through the senses and emotions.
•Examples: Experiencing the taste of a piece of chocolate, appreciating the beauty of a sunset, feeling the connection with another person.

Do not work together, but they have been presented as representing VA and their negations as representing the people who disagree with him.

Direct, unmediated experience, the very idea of it goes directly against Embodied realism.

Embodied realism is ALL ABOUT MEDIATION. Contradiction 1

If one wants to say there are preconceptual and conceptual stages in experiences or types of experiencing the problem is (for VA) that we are dealing with a form of realism. Raw experience of X. Of something, and this is somehow unaffected by the filters and non-verbal attitudes and outlooks our bodies give us. This does not fit with antirealisms or idealisms.

Direct, unmediated experience

In dreams perhaps, but not in situations using our senses. Unless one wants to throw out the entire FSK of sensory physiology where ALL perception is mediated (literally involved a number of media and also involving all sorts of translations processes: in vision photons travelling t hrough the air, striking the retina, triggering nerve cascades, interpreted by the brain and so on. this is mediation several times over and is not in any way DIRECT. all this coming from the scientific FSK (physics/sensory physiology) the FSK that VA has said many, many times is the most reliable.) Contradiction s (though it could be argued there are several involved)

And notice this

: “We have no direct access to the world as it is in itself, independent of any conceptualization. We can only experience the world as we can conceptualize it, using our conceptual systems.”

That ought to put the nail in the coffin of mixing embodied realism and non-conceptualism. It also causes problems for claiming he isn't a realist. That is a realist formulation.

And let's put a nail in that second coffin.

“We are realists in the sense that we believe that there is a real world that exists independently of us and that we can know something about it. But we are not naive realists in the sense that we do not believe that we have direct, unmediated, or complete access to that world. We are cognitive realists in the sense that we take seriously the results of cognitive science, which show that human understanding is shaped by the body and the brain, and that all thought is embodied in some way.”

[Atla]

To be charged with claims that are contradictory is a serious charge.
I won't leave this unchallenged.
Those who think I have present contradictions, show me precisely where?

I am not perfect thus it is possible I may have presented a contradictions and if true I will correct it. There is no way I will insist on it.

We are dealing with issues with a lot of nuances.
It is very likely the charge of contradiction against me is due to the other's ignorance and misinterpretations rather than my oversight.

In this last week you put out positions that contradict your own positions at least as much as those of others, but you don't notice this.
You don't notice that when you respond to people, most of the time, much of your response is a re-assertion of your position.

In this case, it is most likely IWP was ignorant and misunderstood my point.
I am waiting for the details of his charge against me.

So, those who think I have presented contradictions, show me precisely where?

Using science, which has the refutation of your 100% unknowable noumenon philosophy, as the main pillar of your philosophy?