Judaka wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 2:14 pm
It is amazing listening to you go though, I'm a nihilist, I've constantly recognised the problem of interpretation and subjectivity in language to you, I reject objective meaning, objective morality, objective logic and so on. Why are you so convinced we even disagree on whatever it is you're talking about?
Because you are "nihilist" who is on a philosophy forum. And I am reading into your actions more than you can ever say with your words.
Yes, nihilism is the logical conclusion of all skepticism and rational inquiry, but I am not a nihilist.
To agree with Camus: "The literal meaning of life is whatever you're doing that prevents you from killing yourself." You are still alive so... something prevents you.
Judaka wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 2:14 pm
I don't recall having made an argument against what you're saying except that what you're proposing (defining all terms and agreeing on them with each other) is impractical and secondly that you don't actually practice what you preach. If you're actually a pragmatist and you actually recognise how subjective language and terms can be then why the fk would you hope for universal agreement on terminology?
Because society is a contractarian construct. If we share no common goals - then we need not share opinions either.
Or waste each other's time.
Judaka wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 2:14 pm
It's a completely insane and unrealistic approach and what's more, while you ask others to give their definitions, you don't feel the need to give your own. Look at page 1 of this thread, you don't offer any definitions whatsoever despite it being the first few posts - the best time to clarify such things.
That's because I don't care to share my concepts with you if we don't share a common goal.
Without a common criteria for success/failure - all arguments are masturbatory power-struggles. With each person trying to frame the interpretative context.
Furthermore, it's a very realistic approach for people who understand how language-acquisition and language-creation works.
Consensus-building is a science. A computer science. But in order to play the "game" according to the "rules" we have come up with to evolve communication to such level you first gave to give up your dogma....
Hence why the level at which I CHOOSE to engage you and everybody on this site is "symbol manipulation".
Some call it logic.
Some call it metaphysics.
It's the same things.
Judaka wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 2:14 pm
Every argument in this forum, you say the same things, tell people to do things THAT YOU YOURSELF DONT DO and act superior. I find the whole thing absolutely hilarious.
Correct. And I find your use of the law of non-contradiction hilarious. I asked you about para-consistent logic - you didn't answer.
I'll put it to you as simply as I can.
1. The is-ought gap cannot be conquered (so say philosophers).
2. Arguments convince people to cross the is-ought gap.
So arguments are these magical things which fly over the gap that which is impossible to cross?
*yawn*
Explain this magic trick to me.
But, for philosophy's sake - you couldn't be further from the truth. Not only am I not a nihilist but I believe in objective morality and objective meaning. Of the inter-subjective kind. I am a constructivist to very last bone in my body.
If you believe of mind-independent anything you are a theist in my books.