Principles vs Pragmatism

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by Logik »

surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 8:27 pm Nobody wants to live in the past because the quality of life was comparatively worse than it is today
Society progresses over time despite the human condition which unfortunately will always be with us
Precisely. So we have some sense of what's "better" and "worse" for us.

And even if we don't know the particulars, we have a general sense that "away from the mistakes of the past" is the right direction.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by surreptitious57 »

Logic wrote:
the concept of objectivity and the meaning of objective morality is created by humans . And yet we have given those invented concepts
meaning . Then somewhere along the line we seem to have deified them and rather than remembering that we invent language
and concepts for our own use we have decided to give them power over us
This is why I dont do dogma because if I did then what you have said here would mean absolutely nothing at all to me
What I do when I find a missing piece of the puzzle is let the sub conscious absorb it until it is committed to memory
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by surreptitious57 »

Logic wrote:
To speak of something working without stating ones goals and criteria for success / failure is to be guilty of vagueness
At the other end of the extreme - because language is imprecise I can never quite hit the mark with what Pragmatism means
I am a pragmatist so I have to define what it means to me : anything that is possible which does not violate my moral code
My moral code is not something set in stone but is subject to change over time acquired through knowledge and experience
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by surreptitious57 »

Logic wrote:
We invented the concept of objectivity
Yes we did and even though it is unattainable in its highest form it is there as an incentive
An incentive which exists to make one a better person by bringing them closer to their God

I dont do God but have zero problem with anyone using an ideal as a means towards self improvement [ whatever it may be ]
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by Nick_A »

Charm wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 6:38 pm
Nick_A wrote: Tue Jan 29, 2019 4:27 am Simone Weil — 'When a contradiction is impossible to resolve except by a lie, then we know that it is really a door.'

I remember during my first year of high school I experienced a contradiction I couldn’t resolve. In those days students were taught about the obligation to vote. I being the type who would seek to find holes in any argument reasoned that since a person just has one vote and elections are decided by millions, why bother? There are more important uses for their time. At the same time if everyone thought this way we would be living by dictatorship. I was faced with two contradictory but equal truths. Voting is necessary but one vote is virtually meaningless.

When I got older I saw the problem in a new light which is the relationship between the truths of principles and pragmatic truths. Both are true but how does a person balance them?

When I learned of Socrates’ willingness to die it seemed absurd at first? What is gained by it? Why not take the pragmatic alternative and escape with the help of friends? Evidently Socrates acted in accordance with the truths of principles. What could be possibly gained by it and willingly die? Jesus also willingly died. It was known at his birth. So what gives? Why bother with principles and just live according to pragmatic desires? Yet if everyone did that we would soon perish. Both are true. A classic contradiction Simone suggests opens a door. Does logic pass through the door? If not, what does?

Now I read that being confronted with a contradiction and contemplating it as it is without judgment is a door. But a door leading to what and how does a person contemplate in this way? Socrates was teaching something and Simone Weil known as Plato’s spiritual child understood it. Why don’t more? What does this door separate?
I love Simone Weil.. This is really a fundamental question because the use of principals to guide political behavior is an extreme, dangerous, and deadly problem.. Essentially, it is idealism; and the problem with idealism is that people are judged by ideals when they should be the judge of ideals.. Failed Ideas should not leave a trail of corpses before people recognize them as failed.. Principal is prejudice, but if I had a principal in regard to physics, such as a law, then every new fact either challenges my principal, or destroys it.. It does not matter how true you think your principal is because if the result is millions of dead bodies or a destroyed world, then you will not convince me it is true.. In our failed form of government we have had the highest judges in the land as well versed in the principals that imbued the average capitalist.. Social Darwinism, or the misunderstood edicts of Adam Smith are principals that have caused untold suffering, and that suffering often destroyed people and their progeny.. Who is there to ask if these principals are truly true but the very people who must suffer them.. It is not on principal that democracy is tolerated but on practical, that is, pragmatic considerations.. And the rich have no respect for democracy even when under the protection of democracy they have grown rich while the many have grown poor.. We make the mistake of believing the Greek Democracy was their invention.. No one would invent democracy if they did not have it because the rich would not want it, and the want of the people would be meaningless.. Greek democracy always existed, and democracy has existed universally.. It is defensive as a form of social organization, and no people would be denied their own voice and then answer yes to defending the wealth of the wealthy- and their own poverty.. Pragmatism like social justice demands the people judge what is best for themselves.. Principals are judgements made by others, authorities.. It is common to let the past determine our future on principal, but that is not democratic or pragmatic, or in the least- wise.. We need to judge on the facts.. All concepts as principals need to be judged against reality, and it is only the people who are capable of making that judgement.. How well do your principals work because in the past judging people against principals has been murder.. Judge principals against the welfare of the people, and allow the people to hear the case..
Could we agree that there are different principles essential for the human search for objective truth and principles asserted by political parties for the sake of indoctrination? Simone Weil Wrote:
"When a man joins a political party, he submissively adopts a mental attitude which he will express later on with words such as, ‘As a monarchist, as a Socialist, I think that …’ It is so comfortable! It amounts to having no thoughts at all. Nothing is more comfortable than not having to think."
Could we agree that to “Know Thyself” as meant by Socrates is an essential principle necessary for a person to experience their nothingness in the context of the potential for human being. To "Imagine Oneself" is a principle essential for indoctrination

As I see it the cause of freedom requires certain principles to defend it and open ones mind while the cause of statist slavery must have principles essential to assure psychological slavery through an indoctrinated closed mind free from impartial reason. If this is true we have to agree on our goal. If my goal is freedom and the support for the human striving to become themselves and another has the goal of statist slavery and indoctrination into the principles which support it, we could never communicate.

Since you love Simone Weil let me pause for a commercial:

http://www.americanweilsociety.org/
We are hereby pleased to announce the 39th Annual Colloquy of the American Weil Society, which will be held at IQS (Institut Quimic de Sarrià), one of the schools associated to the Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, on April 25, 26 and 27, 2019, hosted by Oriol Quintana, Associate Professor at IQS. This colloquy will have an intentional international character, reaching scholars from around the world, specially from France, Italy and Spain. The topic of this year’s colloquy is: Rootedness, Identity, and Nation. This theme is deliberately broad, so that Weil’s religious, political, and/or ethical philosophy may be addressed under the heading.
You may enjoy being a part of AWS. For example this thread can be contemplated in the context of this years AWS topic. Being rooted doesn't mean being a slave of the Great Beast. Becoming an individual doesn't negate being part of a nation. Is the purpose of a nation to force the sacrifice of individuality to serve the state or is the purpose of the state ideally to encourage the ability to become an individual? I support the AWS since it supports contemplation inspired by Simone as important as it is rare in modern society driven by mindless political agendas.
Charm
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:13 am

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by Charm »

Nick_A wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:55 pm
Charm wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 6:38 pm
Nick_A wrote: Tue Jan 29, 2019 4:27 am Simone Weil — 'When a contradiction is impossible to resolve except by a lie, then we know that it is really a door.'

I remember during my first year of high school I experienced a contradiction I couldn’t resolve. In those days students were taught about the obligation to vote. I being the type who would seek to find holes in any argument reasoned that since a person just has one vote and elections are decided by millions, why bother? There are more important uses for their time. At the same time if everyone thought this way we would be living by dictatorship. I was faced with two contradictory but equal truths. Voting is necessary but one vote is virtually meaningless.

When I got older I saw the problem in a new light which is the relationship between the truths of principles and pragmatic truths. Both are true but how does a person balance them?

When I learned of Socrates’ willingness to die it seemed absurd at first? What is gained by it? Why not take the pragmatic alternative and escape with the help of friends? Evidently Socrates acted in accordance with the truths of principles. What could be possibly gained by it and willingly die? Jesus also willingly died. It was known at his birth. So what gives? Why bother with principles and just live according to pragmatic desires? Yet if everyone did that we would soon perish. Both are true. A classic contradiction Simone suggests opens a door. Does logic pass through the door? If not, what does?

Now I read that being confronted with a contradiction and contemplating it as it is without judgment is a door. But a door leading to what and how does a person contemplate in this way? Socrates was teaching something and Simone Weil known as Plato’s spiritual child understood it. Why don’t more? What does this door separate?
I love Simone Weil.. This is really a fundamental question because the use of principals to guide political behavior is an extreme, dangerous, and deadly problem.. Essentially, it is idealism; and the problem with idealism is that people are judged by ideals when they should be the judge of ideals.. Failed Ideas should not leave a trail of corpses before people recognize them as failed.. Principal is prejudice, but if I had a principal in regard to physics, such as a law, then every new fact either challenges my principal, or destroys it.. It does not matter how true you think your principal is because if the result is millions of dead bodies or a destroyed world, then you will not convince me it is true.. In our failed form of government we have had the highest judges in the land as well versed in the principals that imbued the average capitalist.. Social Darwinism, or the misunderstood edicts of Adam Smith are principals that have caused untold suffering, and that suffering often destroyed people and their progeny.. Who is there to ask if these principals are truly true but the very people who must suffer them.. It is not on principal that democracy is tolerated but on practical, that is, pragmatic considerations.. And the rich have no respect for democracy even when under the protection of democracy they have grown rich while the many have grown poor.. We make the mistake of believing the Greek Democracy was their invention.. No one would invent democracy if they did not have it because the rich would not want it, and the want of the people would be meaningless.. Greek democracy always existed, and democracy has existed universally.. It is defensive as a form of social organization, and no people would be denied their own voice and then answer yes to defending the wealth of the wealthy- and their own poverty.. Pragmatism like social justice demands the people judge what is best for themselves.. Principals are judgements made by others, authorities.. It is common to let the past determine our future on principal, but that is not democratic or pragmatic, or in the least- wise.. We need to judge on the facts.. All concepts as principals need to be judged against reality, and it is only the people who are capable of making that judgement.. How well do your principals work because in the past judging people against principals has been murder.. Judge principals against the welfare of the people, and allow the people to hear the case..
Could we agree that there are different principles essential for the human search for objective truth and principles asserted by political parties for the sake of indoctrination? Simone Weil Wrote:
"When a man joins a political party, he submissively adopts a mental attitude which he will express later on with words such as, ‘As a monarchist, as a Socialist, I think that …’ It is so comfortable! It amounts to having no thoughts at all. Nothing is more comfortable than not having to think."
Could we agree that to “Know Thyself” as meant by Socrates is an essential principle necessary for a person to experience their nothingness in the context of the potential for human being. To "Imagine Oneself" is a principle essential for indoctrination

As I see it the cause of freedom requires certain principles to defend it and open ones mind while the cause of statist slavery must have principles essential to assure psychological slavery through an indoctrinated closed mind free from impartial reason. If this is true we have to agree on our goal. If my goal is freedom and the support for the human striving to become themselves and another has the goal of statist slavery and indoctrination into the principles which support it, we could never communicate.

Since you love Simone Weil let me pause for a commercial:

http://www.americanweilsociety.org/
We are hereby pleased to announce the 39th Annual Colloquy of the American Weil Society, which will be held at IQS (Institut Quimic de Sarrià), one of the schools associated to the Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, on April 25, 26 and 27, 2019, hosted by Oriol Quintana, Associate Professor at IQS. This colloquy will have an intentional international character, reaching scholars from around the world, specially from France, Italy and Spain. The topic of this year’s colloquy is: Rootedness, Identity, and Nation. This theme is deliberately broad, so that Weil’s religious, political, and/or ethical philosophy may be addressed under the heading.
You may enjoy being a part of AWS. For example this thread can be contemplated in the context of this years AWS topic. Being rooted doesn't mean being a slave of the Great Beast. Becoming an individual doesn't negate being part of a nation. Is the purpose of a nation to force the sacrifice of individuality to serve the state or is the purpose of the state ideally to encourage the ability to become an individual? I support the AWS since it supports contemplation inspired by Simone as important as it is rare in modern society driven by mindless political agendas.
I think it is impossible to have objective moral principals since there are no objects involved but only spiritual objective, like justice, or happiness.. Still, we can tell when we are being had, and tell when principals commonly held as truth work against our well being.. Principals as axioms are clearly useful in the physical world but we live in the moral world, and we conceive of ourselves spiritually, and seek a certain state of virtue.. What Weil said of parties is absolutely true.. I don't know if she ever tried to express it as a theory of forms but clearly this is true of all forms.. They put us in relationship with all people inside our form, or outside our forms.. They give us our identity, but also give us real being.. No one can exists without forms, and they also give us our identity as with a uniform.. We know our friends, and we know our enemies, and no others knowledge is as essential as this.. As far as being an individual, it is the same as being formless.. People rely on forms to guide their experience of life, to know what to do in any given situation.. Even while the individual is preached to people, it is false on its face.. There is no such thing, and what does it mean.. The word only means indivisible. You can never make an individual brick out of halves of individual bricks.. The division makes them something different like dividing a man would make a corpse.. In this land we are correct to associate individualism with outlaws, the Billy the Kids, and Jesse James.. No one else had names.. Community is morality, and for people to step out of their communities makes one an outlaw, and an individual.. The individual is a fetish, but everyone buys off the rack.. Everyone huddles.. I am the most natural individual ever, and even I huddle because with people is joy, and without is pain.. With individualism a fetish, people are expected to stand alone, and die alone.. This is exactly like the Roman Army fighting Barbarians.. The Barbarians were individuals no matter how numerous, and each stood as one against an army that fought as a unit.. Is it any wonder the Romans invented the corporation??? Their armies were corporations.. What all people understand is that we live as individual people, but we exist as a group, in fact, in forms, in forms of relationship. The reason the group identity is popular. is ease. Healthy forms make our lives easier.. It is easy to follow the leader and join the party, and surrender your individual identity in pursuit of an objective.. All forms have this in common, that those who relate through the form must make a sacrifice, and most often that is a sacrifice of self, of individual identity.. This fact is also the destruction of unequal relationships since one party demands sacrifice to the point of self extinction, or devotion.. No matter how often we sacrifice for the common good, the rulers will only ask for more until the whole idea of the form grows wicked.. Then refer to Jefferson in the Declaration.. We change our forms under necessity..
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by Nick_A »

Charm
I think it is impossible to have objective moral principals since there are no objects involved but only spiritual objective, like justice, or happiness.. Still, we can tell when we are being had, and tell when principals commonly held as truth work against our well being.. Principals as axioms are clearly useful in the physical world but we live in the moral world, and we conceive of ourselves spiritually, and seek a certain state of virtue.. What Weil said of parties is absolutely true.. I don't know if she ever tried to express it as a theory of forms but clearly this is true of all forms.. They put us in relationship with all people inside our form, or outside our forms.. They give us our identity, but also give us real being.. No one can exists without forms, and they also give us our identity as with a uniform.. We know our friends, and we know our enemies, and no others knowledge is as essential as this.. As far as being an individual, it is the same as being formless.. People rely on forms to guide their experience of life, to know what to do in any given situation.. Even while the individual is preached to people, it is false on its face.. There is no such thing, and what does it mean.. The word only means indivisible. You can never make an individual brick out of halves of individual bricks.. The division makes them something different like dividing a man would make a corpse.. In this land we are correct to associate individualism with outlaws, the Billy the Kids, and Jesse James.. No one else had names.. Community is morality, and for people to step out of their communities makes one an outlaw, and an individual.. The individual is a fetish, but everyone buys off the rack.. Everyone huddles.. I am the most natural individual ever, and even I huddle because with people is joy, and without is pain.. With individualism a fetish, people are expected to stand alone, and die alone.. This is exactly like the Roman Army fighting Barbarians.. The Barbarians were individuals no matter how numerous, and each stood as one against an army that fought as a unit.. Is it any wonder the Romans invented the corporation??? Their armies were corporations.. What all people understand is that we live as individual people, but we exist as a group, in fact, in forms, in forms of relationship. The reason the group identity is popular. is ease. Healthy forms make our lives easier.. It is easy to follow the leader and join the party, and surrender your individual identity in pursuit of an objective.. All forms have this in common, that those who relate through the form must make a sacrifice, and most often that is a sacrifice of self, of individual identity.. This fact is also the destruction of unequal relationships since one party demands sacrifice to the point of self extinction, or devotion.. No matter how often we sacrifice for the common good, the rulers will only ask for more until the whole idea of the form grows wicked.. Then refer to Jefferson in the Declaration.. We change our forms under necessity..
Correct me if I’m wrong but what you describe as forms Simone describes as the collective and on a large scale it is the Great Beast. Plato first described society as a beast and Simone expanded it into the Great Beast. First Plato’s description of the Beast in book VI of the Republic.
I might compare them to a man who should study the tempers and desires of a mighty strong beast who is fed by him--he would learn how to approach and handle him, also at what times and from what causes he is dangerous or the reverse, and what is the meaning of his several cries, and by what sounds, when another utters them, he is soothed or infuriated; and you may suppose further, that when, by continually attending upon him, he has become perfect in all this, he calls his knowledge wisdom, and makes of it a system or art, which he proceeds to teach, although he has no real notion of what he means by the principles or passions of which he is speaking, but calls this honourable and that dishonourable, or good or evil, or just or unjust, all in accordance with the tastes and tempers of the great brute. Good he pronounces to be that in which the beast delights and evil to be that which he dislikes...
Simone elaborated in the book “Gravity and Grace:”
The Great Beast [society, the collective] is the only object of idolatry, the only ersatzof God, the only imitation of something which is infinitely far from me and which is I myself.

It is impossible for me to take myself as an end or, in consequence, my fellow man as an end, since he is my fellow. Nor can I take a material thing, because matter is still less capable of having finality conferred upon it than human beings are.

Only one thing can be taken as an end, for in relation to the human person it possesses a kind of transcendence: this is the collective.
IYO are we just a form within a collective of similar forms conditioned to react to external influences? IYO even if we are just creatures of REACTION is there any potential to become conscious beings capable of conscious ACTION or are such thoughts merely wishful thinking?

Simone would agree with both of us since she was wary of morality. However people like Simone and Einstein also believed in the human potential to experience objective conscience. IYO can a person awaken to the experience of objective conscience or what Plato called soul knowledge?
1954
“We will be destroyed unless we create a cosmic conscience. And we have to begin to do that on an individual level, with the youth that are the politicians of tomorrow…. But no one, and certainly no state, can take over the responsibility that the individual has to his conscience.” Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 141. Conversation in Summer of 1954)
Conscience is not a goal of the collective which survives and functions by indoctrination. Conscience is an attribute of the individual. Do you question individuality to the degree that conscience is merely imagination?
Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by Judaka »

Logik

I don't really understand how anyone can think we created the concept of objective morality while also believing in objective morality. Let's draw a distinction between something being objectively true and objectivity. Objectivity is something like "judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices" essentially it's a way of thinking for humans. Whereas something being objectively true essentially just means it's true MIND-INDEPENDENT. Objective morality means mind-independent truths about morality with unquestionable validity.

I really want to avoid a conversation about epistemology because it's one of the least pragmatic things one can think about and you seem to have an even less pragmatic branch of epistemology than usual, however, what I've read is that you believe there is a real world but you separate that from what we know because knowledge is experienced by humans. This is not post-modernism and I could agree with this if it recognised that some knowledge is not "created by humans" but rather we're just born with it. Whether this view is reasonable or not pretty much depends on whether it's some social constructionist nonsense or merely differentiating between the truth and the experience of humans.

Even if we agreed on this, the idea of universalising definitions hasn't become more useful or realistic whatsoever. You seem like a smart guy even if your personality is a little warped, I'm struggling to believe that you really can't see the practical problems and implications of monopolising definitions. You even argued against VA when he tried to give a definition of philosophy which demeaned the actions of others while making his own actions seem more righteous (in his mind at least).

It's not merely world understanding which goes into words but also interpretation. As with VA's philosophy definition, our interpretations result in different definitions. What's more, our conversations haven't been greatly hindered by the problems of language you're concerned about. I am not arguing it's perfect but clarification can be made when needed. This is one case when the cure is better than prevention. The only evidence you seem to have the contrary is your anecdotal experience which I know nothing about. I don't really want to debate this too seriously because it's just a dead-end argument, you can insist you're a pragmatist but this idea of yours is nothing but idealism and meritless hope.
I find it peculiar - a performative contradiction - that a nihilist would insist on any standards for validity, consistency, whatsoever. Since they are all human values/judgments.

In fact, put any of your arguments under a microscope. Do you use adjectives? Value judgments. To insist on this notion if "objectivity" is to insist on language free from values. Go ahead and try to string together any English sentence without using adjectives..
It's easier if rather than talking about nihilism by itself, we talk about it in conjunction with pragmatism. Once again, you ask for objective standards but you don't appear to be listening. You tell me I'm using value judgements but although this is imprecise, I've got no issue with this concept. There are no objective standards for validity, consistency and whatever else you throw at me in my framework. I reject objective standards, objective categorisations, objective arguments, objective rationales and all the things you've just assumed that I agree with.

What I do recognise is the practical utility of ideas, actions, systems and argumentation - even when it's all subjective. That also extends to morality and meaning. If you argue that validity is useless because it's a human concept, why call yourself a pragmatist? You are not concerned with the utility of the concept of validity but rather whether it's true or not. I don't care about anything in this world except causation and my subjective framework.

I don't think my framework is equally good compared to other frameworks from a pragmatic point of view, I do not, however, argue that my framework is objectively superior (another concept I don't believe makes sense). That my framework is not objectively superior or that my assertions are not objectively true has no practical implications for me. A nihilist who rejects all the things I've rejected to be objective wouldn't just struggle to live, they'd be the ultimate idealist. My value judgements are necessary for me, they are beneficial to me from a pragmatic sense, I care about causation, I see truth and validity as just tools.

I didn't really accept you calling all value judgements moral but in answer to your earlier question:
The distinction between systems of behaviour and systems of morality is artificial.

From an analytic perspective all systems are made up of rules which define what "correct" and "incorrect" behaviour/thought/reasoning/interaction means. Error means rule-violation.

Go ahead and provide a convincing argument for why we should build systems to prevent/minimise errors and see if you will come up with anything other than a moral argument.
As I've already argued, pragmatism relies on interpretation and principles which aren't necessarily moral arguments but they are certainly value judgements. I cannot answer a question of "why" I "should" do something without value judgements. I have no problem with this, Logik, there's no contradiction here.
I am simply appealing to the fact that for 2000 years people have been trying to contrive an argument to begin with.

So clearly there is a need/desire for this thing "objective morality". Clearly we, humans think it will be wayyyy beter than what we have now!
Well once again Logik, you have this pre-made argument that works under the assumption that people think in the way you're determined to argue against. Not only do I have no desire for objective morality, I despise the concept and I think it's impossible for it to exist. So who's "we humans?" Embrace the nuances.

You also say we "we invent an unattainable ideal and hold ourselves to it". You've been calling out my sophistry (on no argument), saying I've got circular logic and what have you. Now, what are you talking about? Stop telling me what "humans" do as if it has something to do with me. I despise people who talk in absolutes and I despise people who argue with caricatures.
That's part and parcel with the problem of language - you speak the one you have been given.
I speak the one I invented.
Logik, if you were speaking a language you invented, why can I read what you're saying? The language you're speaking is ENGLISH and you didn't invent it. Are you merely saying you question definitions and challenge them? I will wait for clarification on what you're talking about here but honestly, what do you think self-awareness means? Does it mean thinking you're the special one and that everyone else is as blind rats?
Part of being a constructivist is that I don't associate my concepts with words. I construct meaning as I go along. Which is why my use of language is peculiar.I invent/re-purpose words on the fly. I use language metaphorically more than I do literally.
You DEMANDED that I use definitions that everyone can understand, that I give definitions and presumably STICK BY THEM and you not only never do this yourself, you dare to tell me that you just invent meaning to your words on the fly? Why do you think you're not the greatest hypocrite who ever lived? I mean really, I'm giving you a chance to explain it to me. It sounds to me like there's one set of rules for Logik and another set of rules for everyone else.
Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by Judaka »

Nick_A

I'm not really sure what you're ideas behind the goal of science are, I think science has no objecive ideal and people will have their own ideas on what it should be for. The pragmatist doesn't really have a clear idea on what science should be used for, it depends on how short-long term they're thinking, who they're trying to benefit and what their goals are.

I am saying that pragmatism is based off such considerations, considerations that one could call principles. Much of what you've tried to depict as being pragmatism, I would say is merely a possible interpretation out of many. There are problems with the interpretation you describe but you don't need to see those problems just by looking at it from the perspective of idealism or science, pragmatism itself can reject the ideas you've laid out.

Whether Socrates was being an idealist or a pragmatist can't be said from just his actions, that's how broad the spectrum of possibilities are for a pragmatic outlook. Which is why I suspect your OP is actually more similar to alternative interpretations from a pragmatist framework clashing, as opposed to a depiction of something vs pragmatism.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by Logik »

Judaka wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 4:24 am I don't really understand how anyone can think we created the concept of objective morality while also believing in objective morality.
Because "objectivity' is a concept.
Judaka wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 4:24 am Let's draw a distinction between something being objectively true and objectivity.
You are trying to sprint when we can't even run. Lets not do that - philosophers have failed for thousands of years to define truth.
Part and parcel of being a pragmatist is recognising the implications of Tarrski's undefinability theorem ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27 ... ty_theorem ). Truth is undefinable!
It is precisely because I know the above AND because I am a pragmatist I say "truth is what works". More than that I cannot say.
Judaka wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 4:24 am Objectivity is something like "judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices"
Are you familiar with the two fundamental (and eternal) problems in epistemology: justification and criterion? Because this is where the debate is going to end up...

1. Vague: What aspect of a phenomenon is one to judge?
2. Incoherence: "uninfluenced by emotions and personal prejudices" My perception of reality has no control over my brain's wiring and pre-processing of the information it receives. I cannot take the rose-coloured glasses off whether I wanted to or not. Neither can you.

Judaka wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 4:24 am essentially it's a way of thinking for humans.
Truism.
Judaka wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 4:24 am Whereas something being objectively true essentially just means it's true MIND-INDEPENDENT. Objective morality means mind-independent truths about morality with unquestionable validity.
You lost me. I told you a few pages back that any speak of mind-independence is a religion.
Judaka wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 4:24 am I really want to avoid a conversation about epistemology because it's one of the least pragmatic things one can think about and you seem to have an even less pragmatic branch of epistemology than usual
I am not talking about the academic understanding of 'epistemology'. I work in the field of artificial intelligence.
I build mechanical epistemologies. When I say 'epistemology' I mean Bayesian networks.
Judaka wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 4:24 am , however, what I've read is that you believe there is a real world but you separate that from what we know because knowledge is experienced by humans. This is not post-modernism and I could agree with this if it recognised that some knowledge is not "created by humans" but rather we're just born with it.
OK, categorising things is hard. Whether it's post-modernism or not is moot. It s a way of thinking that's similar to post-modernism.
This line of reasoning demands that we define what knowledge is.

But any definition of what things ARE is talk of metaphysics. To speak what things ARE instead of what things DO in this universe is a misnomer.
Even science doesn't make this mistake.

Simply: if we adopt behaviourism when speaking of phenomena (such as knowledge) we are more likely to agree on something.

Judaka wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 4:24 am Whether this view is reasonable or not pretty much depends on whether it's some social constructionist nonsense or merely differentiating between the truth and the experience of humans.
Your set of hypothesis is incomplete.

Another possible explanation is that while we may experience things exactly the same, we narrate our experiences differently.

Language is all.
Judaka wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 4:24 am Even if we agreed on this, the idea of universalising definitions hasn't become more useful or realistic whatsoever.
Definitions are a linguistic property. Conceptual consensus is far more desirable than a linguistic one.
Judaka wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 4:24 am You seem like a smart guy even if your personality is a little warped, I'm struggling to believe that you really can't see the practical problems and implications of monopolising definitions.
And you are also struggling to see that what I am proposing is the exact opposite. Language is a form of expression! A tool for communication.

Use it however works! To insist that "some sentences are true by definition" IS to monopolise language.
It IS giving authority to the Oxford dictionary where it has none.
Judaka wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 4:24 am You even argued against VA when he tried to give a definition of philosophy which demeaned the actions of others while making his own actions seem more righteous (in his mind at least).

It's not merely world understanding which goes into words but also interpretation.
Again - this is a conceptual misalignment. Definitions don't tell me anything beyond setting a broad context.
It's like pointing in a vague direction so we are not totally lost.

Judaka wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 4:24 am It's easier if rather than talking about nihilism by itself, we talk about it in conjunction with pragmatism. Once again, you ask for objective standards but you don't appear to be listening. You tell me I'm using value judgements but although this is imprecise, I've got no issue with this concept. There are no objective standards for validity, consistency and whatever else you throw at me in my framework. I reject objective standards, objective categorisations, objective arguments, objective rationales and all the things you've just assumed that I agree with.
That would be a performative contradiction...

Do you adhere to any rules? Rules of logic? Rules of language? Rules of the road? Rules of behaviour?
Have you subjected yourself to any authority for any pragmatic consideration?

That's your moral system...

And you are still using the word "objective" as "mind-independent". It's a religion - I tell you.

For any judgment/claim/assertion about reaility one but has to ask:

Is this claim objective?
Is this claim mind-independent?

Both of the above are yes/no questions. Only an Oracle ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_machine ) can answer them...
Theoretical decision theory aside, the only Oracle machine known to us is the human mind.

Judaka wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 4:24 am What I do recognise is the practical utility of ideas, actions, systems and argumentation - even when it's all subjective. That also extends to morality and meaning. If you argue that validity is useless because it's a human concept, why call yourself a pragmatist? You are not concerned with the utility of the concept of validity but rather whether it's true or not. I don't care about anything in this world except causation and my subjective framework.
All I am doing is holding you accountable to "pragmatism". Concepts are tools.
The concept of "objectivity" is a tool. What is its utility?

You seem to have subjected yourself to it as some sort of authority, merely than recognising it for what it is: a rubber stamp of certification.

When a handful of observers agree to a particular statement we label the statement as "objectively true".
Objective truth == certainty or thereabout.
Judaka wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 4:24 am I don't think my framework is equally good compared to other frameworks from a pragmatic point of view,
See! We've ended up talking about good/bad.

How do you assess one framework against another? What are your criteria for 'goodness'?
Judaka wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 4:24 am I do not, however, argue that my framework is objectively superior (another concept I don't believe makes sense). That my framework is not objectively superior or that my assertions are not objectively true has no practical implications for me. A nihilist who rejects all the things I've rejected to be objective wouldn't just struggle to live, they'd be the ultimate idealist. My value judgements are necessary for me, they are beneficial to me from a pragmatic sense, I care about causation, I see truth and validity as just tools.
From your words all I can interpret is that you think the framework that is "more true" is "more superior".

But that doesn't solve the problem of criterion. How do we assert/measure/determine whether framework A is "more true" than framework B?
Judaka wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 4:24 am I didn't really accept you calling all value judgements moral but in answer to your earlier question:
In the broadest possible interpretation of the is-ought gap.
Is == now (time)
ought == future

All value judgments are expectations. You expect something SHOULD be some way different than what it is.
Murder is wrong -> you should not murder.
Your argument is invalid -> your argument should be corrected

Man is the measure and decider of all things. To draw a distinction between moral judgments and any other judgments is artificial.
Judaka wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 4:24 am As I've already argued, pragmatism relies on interpretation and principles which aren't necessarily moral arguments but they are certainly value judgements. I cannot answer a question of "why" I "should" do something without value judgements. I have no problem with this, Logik, there's no contradiction here.
Who is worried about contradictions now? You are conflating non-contradiction with epistemic criterions.
We have agreed on para-consistent logic (contradictions aren't the end of the line).

The pragmatic truth is "what works". What works is contrasted by "what doesn't work".
To be able to determine whether something works or not you need to have some criteria for success. A priori expectations.

At the very least so that you can hold yourself accountable.

Least you build a boat, it sinks and you proclaim - it works!
Is that what you expected/intended?


Judaka wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 4:24 am Well once again Logik, you have this pre-made argument that works under the assumption that people think in the way you're determined to argue against. Not only do I have no desire for objective morality, I despise the concept and I think it's impossible for it to exist. So who's "we humans?" Embrace the nuances.
So we have invented a concept that is impossible to exist? Like God? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Why do we keep doing this? Surely there must be some pragmatic utility in our concepts...
Judaka wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 4:24 am Logik, if you were speaking a language you invented, why can I read what you're saying?
The language you're speaking is ENGLISH and you didn't invent it.
*sigh* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_language_argument

My FIRST language. My native language. The language I THINK in. Is a language I have invented/constructed. It's derived from Mathematics and computer science concepts.

That I am translating between my conceptual schema and English is just you observing the consequence.
Judaka wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 4:24 am Are you merely saying you question definitions and challenge them? I will wait for clarification on what you're talking about here but honestly, what do you think self-awareness means? Does it mean thinking you're the special one and that everyone else is as blind rats?
What I am saying is that I decouple my concepts from English words.
What I am saying is that I consciously avoid logocentrism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logocentrism ).

And in a way, that's not true because my concepts are married to my language, but they are NOT married to the English language.
Judaka wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 4:24 am You DEMANDED that I use definitions that everyone can understand, that I give definitions and presumably STICK BY THEM and you not only never do this yourself, you dare to tell me that you just invent meaning to your words on the fly? Why do you think you're not the greatest hypocrite who ever lived? I mean really, I'm giving you a chance to explain it to me. It sounds to me like there's one set of rules for Logik and another set of rules for everyone else.
*sigh* No I didn't. What I was doing was appealing to the coherence theory. That once the meaning of a word has been established/decided that it be used as consistently as possible WITHIN the context the meaning was established.

Not the definition of the word - the meaning. consensus at the conceptual level.
Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by Judaka »

I'm happy to not discuss truth, not relevant to my arguments anyway, though it's imprecise to say philosophers never succeeded at defining it... rather they never succeeded to agree with each other. Which is reasonable.

The truth being undefinable is not important from a pragmatic perspective, there are some aspects of epistemology that matter but what does it matter from a causation perspective what the truth is? If I''m using a pan to make some pancakes for breakfast, you're going to tell me "the pan.. might be real might not be... you only think the pan is a pan because of your social connections and you'll never know whether the pan is a pan or something else".

The pragmatist is trying to make some pancakes because he's hungry, what you're talking about, it doesn't impact causation or the results.

Objectivity is an endeavour, don't start talking about whether the individual is doing a good job or not.
Logik wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:08 am You lost me. I told you a few pages back that any speak of mind-independence is a religion.
Oh, I remember Logik, I'm remarking the confusing stance you have as someone who believes in objective morality but rejects mind-independent knowledge. Clarify if you want.

I don't really care what kind of epistemology you're talking about, Again, not all epistemology is useless but I really need to be sold as to how I can benefit from an understanding or particular perspective in epistemology.

Well, post-modernism is not just a little different from what you showed me, epistemological constructivism. I won't talk anymore about post-modernism unless you bring it up.
Logik wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:08 am And you are also struggling to see that what I am proposing is the exact opposite. Language is a form of expression! A tool for communication.

Use it however works! To insist that "some sentences are true by definition" IS to monopolise language.
It IS giving authority to the Oxford dictionary where it has non
Alright. The main problem here is cure or prevention, if your idea is to throw out the Oxford dictionary and then bombard me with questions to identify the definitions I've decided to use today as you did in "The Limits of Morality" thread then you've allowed me the freedom to define my own words but at the expense of the functionality of language. This is not helpful. I'd rather just make my definitions clear when I know my usage and understanding of the word is contrary to popular use.
All I am doing is holding you accountable to "pragmatism". Concepts are tools.
The concept of "objectivity" is a tool. What is its utility?

You seem to have subjected yourself to it as some sort of authority, merely than recognising it for what it is: a rubber stamp of certification.

When a handful of observers agree to a particular statement we label the statement as "objectively true".
Objective truth == certainty or thereabout.
You can't continue to use the word objectivity if you don't want to talk about what it means. As far as my definitions are concerned, objectivity has nothing to do with objective truth. You said you don't want to discuss the definitions so there's nothing more to say about your comment here.
Logik wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:08 am See! We've ended up talking about good/bad.

How do you assess one framework against another? What are your criteria for 'goodness'?
No, you have a quote of me saying that I am not thinking about good/bad but whatever.

I don't measure frameworks against each other. There are two types of frameworks in this world; mine and everyone else's. As far as I care, mine is important, the rest are meh. If I say I hate people who talk in absolutes and you say "but I don't and our opinions are both subjective therefore equal" or some shit, philosophically you might have a point but in reality, it's not important. People who talk in absolutes are bad in my framework, I only operate within my framework, your framework is pretty much completely irrelevant. There are contexts where it isn't like when I'm trying to debate you or understand you but it's never going to rival my framework in terms of importance nor can it challenge my framework in any way.

I am not going to explain my criteria for "goodness", I'm not playing that game with you. All you need to understand is that my criteria is subjective, it's based on my values, preferences and interpretations. It is not supposed to be compelling for you, it is not designed for you and you cannot challenge it without utilising the aforementioned methods of validity arguments and offering new interpretations and it's not a battle for objective right or wrong but whether your arguments are compelling to me or not.

To emphasise this, I agree or assert if you don't agree, that everything at some level, comes down to value judgements and principles. When it comes to epistemology, I have rules that I follow, such as not believing in ghosts because I lack the "necessary proof" which I may as well have just arbitrarily decided for all it matters, assuming what I can see is real and ofc it becomes more complicated than this but you get the idea. These are just my principles, I don't really know anything, I can't disprove solipsism, can't prove God doesn't exist and etc. I only assume things based off my rules.

What's your POINT? Logik? What are you trying to encourage me and others to see by asking all these questions? I don't see it. I don't see subjectivity as a weakness, I don't see principles as weaknesses and I really only care about causation and my framework. Pointing out the subjectivity of my ideas isn't news to me. Can you lay out an argument instead of asking questions and defending your previous comments?
Logik wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:08 am That would be a performative contradiction...

Do you adhere to any rules? Rules of logic? Rules of language? Rules of the road? Rules of behaviour?
Have you subjected yourself to any authority for any pragmatic consideration?

That's your moral system...
Another hard comment to respond to when you don't want to define the word "objective". I am not arguing that I reject categorisations, standards, validity, consistency or rationales. I said I reject that these things can be objective, they're necessarily subjective things - I got no problem with that. I think they're still useful and important.

If you don't want to talk about objectivity, objective truth and objective validity then don't, I am okay with that.
You seem to have subjected yourself to it as some sort of authority, merely than recognising it for what it is: a rubber stamp of certification.
LMAO. I either evaluate things by their practical utility as it is defined by me or through my subjective framework, all are my subjective views, MY MY MY MY MY. How's this a sensible response?

I mean you basically repeat yourself a bit here, Just going to ignore most of these comments. I don't even feel that what you're saying is specifically tailored to me, it's just your speech you give everyone.
Logik wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:08 am So we have invented a concept that is impossible to exist? Like God?

Why do we keep doing this? Surely there must be some pragmatic utility in our concepts...
WTF are you talking about? I tell you that you're trying to make into a caricature who believes that which you want to argue against, that you're ignoring nuances in order to make convenient, absolute statements and your response is to continue saying "we" i.e all humans and asking ME why WE all worship God? I try to be pragmatic but that doesn't mean other people, whom I don't speak for, try to be?

Why do I, a nihilist, atheist, moral relativist need to answer questions about why all humans believe in God when they don't? Why?
My FIRST language. My native language. The language I THINK in. Is a language I have invented/constructed. It's derived from Mathematics and computer science concepts.

That I am translating between my conceptual schema and English is just you observing the consequence.
What are you getting at here Logik? You create your own language, you've challenged some established definitions and interpretations, now what?

I haven't really seen you give any indication that you are speaking differently to anyone else, you don't explain your own definitions and instead, you just ask others to explain theirs. You clearly have all kinds of opinions about things but you feel they're substantiated without excessive explanation yet when others do the same, you bombard them with questions challenging their underlying assumptions.

Your actions and your arguments stand in stark opposition and they always have been.
You are still stuck in an illusion.

Do you think you can tell the difference between a troll and a gadfly?

Do you think you can tell when you are wrong and somebody else is right? By what criteria for "wrong" and "right"?
Throughout this forum, to me and many others, you've really just been ranting about complete nonsense. You call it pragmatic and act smug. This is epistemology, it's not pragmatic, it's just you making rules for others which are REALLY dumb and pointless and then you proceed to never, ever follow those same rules. I have never seen you preface your argumentation or logic with "btw... this is all bullshit because we can't actually know anything objectively speaking". I mean I'm listening, I'm willing to apologise if you can show me where I'm wrong but atm you're just talking past me, mostly ignoring what I'm saying and acting as though I'm a God-fearing, moral objectivist who hadn't known that interpretation and subjectivity were even noteworthy concepts.
Man is the measure and decider of all things. To draw a distinction between moral judgments and any other judgments is artificial.
I mean it's not an unreasonable claim but morality is an interpretation, value judgement... use broader terms if you don't want to deal with the minor differences between moral distinctions and others.
Logik wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:08 am *sigh* No I didn't. What I was doing was appealing to the coherence theory. That once the meaning of a word has been established/decided that it be used as consistently as possible WITHIN the context the meaning was established.

Not the definition of the word - the meaning. consensus at the conceptual level.
Coherence? I called an argument flawed and you proceded to ask me "what is good and flawed" "what is valid" "what is sound" "what is is the objective criterion for proof" and etc. I never changed my usage of any of these words throughout that discussion but you insisted that everything must be defined. Later in the thread, you told me I can't tell the difference between anything without criterion and judgement, don't pretend you didn't have an agenda besides "coherence theory" if we generously assume you even considered "coherence theory" at all.

I acquiesce that you were arguing for universal definitions.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by Logik »

Judaka wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:43 am (...)
Judaka wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:43 am The pragmatist is trying to make some pancakes because he's hungry, what you're talking about, it doesn't impact causation or the results.

Objectivity is an endeavour, don't start talking about whether the individual is doing a good job or not.
So your goal is to satisfy your hunger.

If you are trying to make some pancakes and you burn them thus remaining hungry. Objectively - you have failed at your goal.
Maybe you have a plan B, or C or D to feed yourself. But if in 3 days you are still hungry... objectively - you are busy failing at your goal.
Or haven't yet succeeded. Potato/potatoh.

Observe that I know how to use the word "objectively" even though I have no bloody clue how to define it.
And I think the way I used it is correct.

Competence does not require comprehension.
Judaka wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:43 am Oh, I remember Logik, I'm remarking the confusing stance you have as someone who believes in objective morality but rejects mind-independent knowledge. Clarify if you want.
Spot the recursion:
1. Objectivity is a concept.
2. All concepts exist in minds
3. Objectivity is a concept which refers to things independent of the mind

Oops!
Judaka wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:43 am You can't continue to use the word objectivity if you don't want to talk about what it means. As far as my definitions are concerned, objectivity has nothing to do with objective truth. You said you don't want to discuss the definitions so there's nothing more to say about your comment here.
OK. Lets go right down to first principles.

Before answering this question I want to bring your attention to decision theory and the "decidability" criterion in logic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem

Alan Turing proved that a universal solution to the decision problem is IMPOSSIBLE.
This is the halting problem in computer science ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem ).
In decision theory we have the conceptual tool of the Oracle machine ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_machine ).
It is some magical black box which can answer any yes/no question CORRECTLY (somehow).

The "Oracle machine" is a pragmatic conceptual tool but in practice the only realistic candidate for an oracle machine are:
1. A coin
2. A human.

Equipped with an "oracle machine" to run some thought experiments with I put it to you that:

ALL axiomatic systems (language included) are built upon a single premise/assumption: that the world has a discernable structure.
We don't actually know whether that is true. It's a pragmatic assumption!
The world could be total chaos and any structure we observe is simply coincidental.

However, the question can still be asked: Does the world have a discernable structure?

The answer is yes or no. Take out your Oracle machine.

Whether I say "The world has a discernable structure" is true.
or
Whether I ask "Does the world have a discernable structure" and then answer "Yes".

Every single logical proposition or linguistic expression gets hung up on the decidability criterion in logic ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decidability_(logic) ).

If you say "the argument is valid". I say. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't 50% uncertainty. Who decides?
If you say "There is mind-independent truth" I say "Maybe there is. maybe there isn't.". Who decides?

And so observe that the actual problem for ANY pragmatist is answering the first damn yes/no question:

Does the world have ANY structure I can understand?

If the answer is 'No' I am fucked either way.
Pragmatism mandates that I answer "Yes".


I'll get to the rest of your post later. Time constraints...
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by Logik »

The TL;DR of the above:

Turing's halting problem is demolishes any and all "mind-independent" theories.

Is there mind-independent knowledge?

If you answer "yes" - that's a performative contradiction.
Only an Oracle machine can answer "Yes" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_machine ).

To claim such a machine exists is to invent a God.

The only answer You (as a human) can give is either "No" or "I don't know".
Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by Judaka »

Your opinions about constructivism and epistemology, as far as you've laid it out so far, I don't have any problems with. It's your conclusions that I have a problem with but I've got no idea what mind-independent knowledge could be... given that knowledge is something that resides in the mind... Most of the times you've called me out for talking about mind-independent knowledge, It's you quoting me saying that a concept is impossible and absurd.

I don't know exactly how this belief allows for one to think objective morality and objective meaning can exist, care to explain?
Logik wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 11:25 am Spot the recursion:
1. Objectivity is a concept.
2. All concepts exist in minds
3. Objectivity is a concept which refers to things independent of the mind
No competence definitely requires comprehension, at least in language. The way you're using the word objectivity here is wrong, I know you don't like the idea that you can be wrong with your word usage but I don't agree with your position about dismantling functionality for an impractical dream so I don't care. Synonyms of objectivity:
impartiality, absence of bias/prejudice, fairness, fair-mindedness, equitableness, equitability, even-handedness, justness, justice, open-mindedness, disinterest, disinterestedness, detachment, dispassion, dispassionateness, neutrality

So knowledge exists in the mind, great. You said that these are your "first principles", you are laying the foundation for further clarification? I will let you do that before anything else.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Principles vs Pragmatism

Post by Logik »

Judaka wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 3:23 pm No competence definitely requires comprehension, at least in language.
No it doesn't. You are using it right now - you haven't got the slightest clue about the inner gizzards of linguistics.

The connection between logic, linguistics and computational complexity.
You are using language intuitively, not because you have analytical understanding of grammar, semantics, discourse, contextuality or semiotics.

Richard Feynman once said "What I cannot create, I do not understand". I think of all things - it particularly applies to language!
That which most humans take for granted.

Part and parcel of every computer science course is to invent a new language. A language that can interpret itself.

I'd bet money you don't even have any intuition or concepts pertaining to self-interpreting languages. It sure sounds circular, right?

There's a miniscule distinction between circularity and recursion. One that is lost on most philosophers. Recursion is computation.
Judaka wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 3:23 pm The way you're using the word objectivity here is wrong,
At this point I will pause you and insist that you draw a distinction between 'right' and 'wrong' use of the word 'objective'.

Are you saying that I am not using the word like the dictionary defines it? So much for not prescribing universal definitions...
Last edited by Logik on Thu Jan 31, 2019 4:32 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Post Reply