For you to talk about any possible failure of plausible reasoning is just annoying. If you were asked to as in Nick_A's video, summarise my views on things (anything), I am sure you'd fail miserably. MISERABLY. That's the bottom line. All of your insults, all of your criticism. You think nihilism should lead to suicide, you understand me so little it's comical considering all the things you've said.
You DO contend with the human condition and your bullshit isn't at all convincing. Now, I know that you have me entirely wrong on so many levels its comical. I wonder if you can challenge your assumptions about me? You haven't been able to yet but I really wanted to make this final attempt because it's annoyed me; the way you keep treating me.
This post is going to be exploring some of the misunderstandings, showing at least to some extent that you absolutely contend with the human condition and that my main argument of utility over ideals and interpretation being dominant over everything has been consistent and not really contended with at any point.
All positions are contradictory because all language is recursive. Humans are contradictions.
By what criteria do you evaluate a position as being "flawed" or "sound" and why?
In the paragraph above you failed to disclose your subjective values for "flawed" and "good" arguments. This suggests to me that you don't understand the problems of criterion and justification.
So you should probably follow your own advice and try to learn something.
This is you where you don't contend with your ego?
Here's the first thing you said to me, literally the first thing. Now as we already know, you don't disclose your subjective values for pretty much anything except the occasional "utility" somehow without understanding that "utility" is subjective itself.
This argument went on, I gave you a non-recursive position.
"Cheese is a fantastic, delightful, amazing, cherished, delicious, beautiful, lovely, superb, endearing, soft, tasty, wonderous, excellent, gorgeous, splendid, magnificent option for breakfast."
I have no idea how to assert or verify the truth-value of this claim. So congratulations on your meaningless non-contradictory position.
There's a lot I could pick on in this debate but this post will already be long with quotes so let's keep it to a minimum.
So you claim that you have shown a non-contradictory position. Lets put aside the contradiction or non-contradiction aspect for now and focus on the claim that you have "shown a position".
Have you? Maybe you have - maybe you have not.
How about you allow us to decide for ourselves by being transparent with what you deem to be valid inclusionary AND exclusionary criteria for what entails a "position".
Is this statement a position: Urgen shmurgen burgen wurgen?
How about this one: Waggedy shmoog poof.
This is you as a pragmatist who only cares about utility? You have taken a problem I was aware of throughout this thread, the problem of interpretation. The difference between you and I is that I have accepted some imperfect things because I believe in their utility. Utility is subjective, filled with interpretation and you don't really acknowledge this.
It's really hard for you to argue that you don't recognise the utility of definitions at all, you even talk about how you convert your thoughts into English so that they can be understood and you clearly for the most part, use standard definitions for words, at least when speaking to me.
Since the crux of the matter is that we have no objective standards, there seems to be this unsolvable problem at hand. Who decides?
I didn't respond here but this topic came up later anyway
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?
Explain this magic trick to me.
We cannot provide objectively correct reasons for why someone "ought" to do something but we can provide subjectively valid reasons and possibly even objectively valid reasons given their axioms. That's the magic trick I suppose.
Interpretation is absolutely not a problem that science has conquered, not even close, not a tiny bit close. You can't act in accordance with "science, mathematics and physics". Your goals of "moral progress" and "utility" are complete prisoners of interpretation, mutual co-operation in these things is locked behind a thousand gates.
You don't need to deal with the question of who you are?
You act like a hardcore pragmatist who acts as though you've almost transcended the problems of interpretation but pragmatism itself is utterly beholden to interpretation. Is it a problem for you that you can't draw absolute truths from your pragmatic ideals? Throughout these threads you have not acted in accordance with mathematics, physics, science nor for moral progress or utility. Is it your will? Or is it merely that you are a capricious and conflicting being tormented by the human condition as we all are?
I recognised the problems that you speak of, I don't deny their existence. From categorisation to words and both interpretations and characterisations. The problem is deeper than you've described.
Yet you have no further insight, you've only offered unrealistic, impractical solutions which you yourself don't even try to apply. After all you've said, you shouldn't dare tell me my arguments are "poorly reasoned" without offering your criteria for what that means. You shouldn't dare tell me that you want to live with smarter people without explaining your categorisation. Yet you do, because you don't believe in the shit you spout.
You're a hypocrite and your whole post here, just like most of what you write, is ridiculous.
You came here to dismantle my poorly-reasoned arguments but it's not for your ego, you're doing it for my sake? Who here is going to believe that given the context of what you're saying? Behaving like a parent lecturing a child and telling me it's not for your ego.
Logik, sadly, you don't actually have many answers, I do agree with you on this. I pretty much got this right in our first meeting, you talk about utility but you don't talk in terms of utility. This is the fundamental problem behind this debate. You argue in favour of ideals and truths while I argue in favour of pragmatism, yet you claim you're the pragmatist.
I don't think it's super necessary to go into how you clearly do contend with the human condition, it is important to note though that pragmatism, utility and morality have near infinite variants due to interpretation, you can't argue against these other interpretations without axioms and making validity arguments which is exactly what I've already argued. I don't really think that's been an important issue for us becasue the discussions never reach that point but there you have it.
The real problem is the constant hypocrisy, misunderstanding, incorrect accusations and the reality that most of your arguments towards me are damning me for believing in things which I am adamantly not a believer in.
I come to philosophy forums to dismantle your poorly-reasoned arguments.
So that one day, you may work your way up to epistemology and it’s two fundamental problems: justification and criterion. Which are unsolved and unsolvable. So bad news for you - objective knowledge is impossible.
All I did was ignore your annoying questions which insinuated that I needed to define a plethora of things in order for you to be satisfied I was being coherent, which I rejected as useful and called you out on the hypocrisy of you thinking I needed to do that while never seeking to do it yourself. Apparently, this was your argument against objective knowledge? You had no confirmation that I believed in anything of the sort, now it should be clear to you that I never did though perhaps it isn't but more on that later.
The end result of that conversation was you likened me to a toddler compared to your intellect and understanding, you happily agreed that I was a sacrificial goat and well you threw in more than a few insults that I won't repeat.
Let's review what happened in the pragmatism vs principles thread.
Here's me trying to define what I mean by objective and later objectivity.
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.
This is already a red flag, you talk as though a nihilist/moral relativist who rejects objective morality is being guilty of believing in mind-independent knowledge. I am defining a term I disagree with. Sadly, this was the seed that leads to the argument's cessation and not in a friendly way. It continued.
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.
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.
Again, I'm telling you and agreeing with you that mind-independent knowledge is an impossibility, that I reject it and you continue to "correct" me and lecture me on the very thing that I previously stated, at least twice. This isn't me cherrypicking or making any misleading quotes. Most of the quotes of me saying things have been directly quoted by you in the statements of yours which are quoted.
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.
I'd like to say at some point this misunderstanding is cleared but it wasn't, but not for my lack of trying.
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
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".
Logik, do you understand my nightmare in talking to you? This is the point I'm trying to get across. This is just one example. There are actually multiple things throughout our conversations which have gone through exactly the same process.
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...
Your "thick skin" is concentrated mostly around your skull, do you see how this argument of yours has already been lost multiple times already? If you had listened to me at any point or if you simply used words by their standard definition until you've stipulated changes you want to make then we could have had some productive discussions. Instead, look at this fucking nightmare, are you capable of acknowledging fault? It's a weakness that you can't not the other way around.
impartiality, absence of bias/prejudice, fairness, fair-mindedness, equitableness, equitability, even-handedness, justness, justice, open-mindedness, disinterest, disinterestedness, detachment, dispassion, dispassionateness, neutrality
I impartially assert that you are still hungry and therefore - you have failed to achieve your goal.
In a completely unbiased and unprejudiced manner I assert that 3 days after setting out to make pancakes you have made none. Unless you have eaten something other than the pancakes you failed to make, I am reasonably concluding that you are still hungry. So with an even head and a fair consideration of the plausible scenarios I neutrally predict that you have failed to achieve what you set out to do.
It all boils down to one damn question: Are you still hungry? Yes or no.
Talk about synonymous use of 'objectivity'...
There are also certain words where the definition really doesn't need to be challenged. I don't see any problems with the word objectivity lol.
You don't see the problem with the concept of objectivity/mind-independence when it has been proven impossible?
"Objectivity" is a 1-word oxymoron!
Is there anything more to say then, except that you have deluded yourself to think you are a pragmatist?
From where I am looking you are a dogmatist/idealist.
This is where you start to get agitated, just as you did in the first debate and it's all because you can't take a damn second to read what I'm saying. All of your insults mean nothing because you have no fucking idea what's going on.
Here's my scepticism Logik, I've defined objectivity at minimum twice now, I've given you a list of synonyms explaining what I think the word means. Putting aside whether it's correct for me to use the generally accepted definition or your own personal definition, I'm here trying my best to tell you what I am referring to when I use the word objectivity but you still, after all this time, don't read my usage of the word to be saying what I've told you I think it says.
We negotiate its meaning/definition. Allow it to emerge rather than prescribe it
Because you have incoherent (self-contradictory) concepts to which you aspire to.
Like the concept of "impartiality" and "absence of bias" etc.
At the mechanical level of decision making there is no material distinction between "bias" and "values".
An unbiased agent has NO prreferences.
An unbiased agent makes NO choices.
An unbiased agent makes NO decisions.
I've never talked about my opinions about any of these things throughout the thread, it's just more of the same really. I knew that miscommunication was occurring but I didn't realise it was this bad until you made that above post.
Including your strategy for navigating around the vagueness, ambiguity and duplicity of language WHILE communicating.
Your strategy is to throw around definitions.
I am not capable of having an actual debate with you any more than you are able to have an actual debate with a 3 year old.
I have no problem interacting with people who understand game theory, strategising and problem-solving in general, and who are less dogmatic about communication/dialectic protocol.
How do you endeavour to determine if you/me/us are becoming more or less objective? For all you know all this talk of objectivity is doing the exact opposite. How do you know we are headed in the right direction?
You are dealing with a reasonable person. More than most.
If I was dealing with a competent pragmatist we would figure out a way forward.
So you want me to manage you like a 3 year old instead?
Ok. I can do that.
So lets get back to "objectivity". I have scanned over the definition/synonyms you have given me:
I can find no common pattern in there. And the image that emerges in my mind is self-contradictory and incoherent.
Fairness (an entirely subjective notion) used as a synonym of objectivity.
open-mindedness/neutrality/disinterest is the opposite of my conception of pragmatism.
open-mindedness is indifference is indecision the same as detachment and disinterest.
Pragmatism is all about making decisions. Which requires bias and subjective initiative and total attachment/immersion in problem-solving.
I have no fucking idea what to make of the fact that you call yourself a pragmatist while giving the definition of "objectivity" above!
As best as I can tell "objectivity" is a concept in your head, but you seem to be having a hard time communicating it.
If you can't measure it - you can't manage it!
Doing this is only necessary because I'm dealing with you, the hardest person to talk to I've ever met. You are still going on about how I hold up objectivity as important in some way. The only reason I'm talking about objectivity at all starts at what I've quoted earlier in this post - yes! Your comments towards me about it!
The concept of "objectivity" is a tool. What is its utility?
You won't find me talking about objectivity before this point and you'll only find me condemning objective morality and meaning as "mind-independent knowledge" and therefore false concepts. Things I thought you would agree with.
So lets try my way: What is the value and utility you perceive in objectivity? What problem do you expect "objectivity" is going to solve?
You can be unbelievably stupid, is it mere willful ignorance? I've told you idk, at least twice that I am not aiming to be impartial or neutral in my stances. I've told you many things that completely contradict this perspective you've adorned me with such as insisting that I see things through my subjective framework, that I don't care about what's true and only causation and a plethora of other things. Here you are cursing and spouting off about how absurd I'm being - are you serious? I never even brought up objectivity except to disagree with the manner you're using the word.
There's no way, absolutely no way - that you've understood anything about me if you're still saying these things. Since the very start of talking to you, it's like there's an imaginary poster here, you mistake his posts for mine and you can't read mine. Endless incorrect and baseless accusations, endless assumptions about me that aren't just baseless or wrong - you've literally read that I think contrary to your assumptions about me! You argue with caricatures, ghosts, phantoms - I have never seen anything like it.
Needless to say, the whole thing continued in this thread, with you deciding I'm a believer in mind-independent knowledge and that mind-independent knowledge is critical for my understanding of pragmatism when I've said the exact opposite and only the exact opposite, literally exact opposite.
It's not like this was the only problem though, it's just the one with the most material. I'd be hard pressed to find the opposite though. Where you actually understood what I was saying and responded correctly, I don't think that EVER happened Logik. Can you believe that? How insane is it that such a thing could be considered?! Thousands of words of correspondence and you understood NOTHING? It's actually close to the truth though.
Even in this thread, you have taken almost everything I've said in ways which either don't make sense, aren't accurate or are even being contradicted by what I'm saying.
It has left me unsure of how to handle your harsh words to me, clearly, I know that they mean nothing because you think I am someone I'm not and you don't have any idea of who I really am but at the same time, you are calling me a mental invalid who can't debate you all while being possibly the worst debater in history. You then talk to me about your possible fandom... It's a struggle for me.
I'll forgive you if you can acknowledge your fault, I hope you will be able to do it but my expectations are very low.