Peter Holmes, Who are Your Supporting Philosophers?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Peter Holmes, Who are Your Supporting Philosophers?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes, you keep yelping [ad nauseam] there are no moral facts and insist there are only 'states of affairs' "proposition as truth makers", "that which is the case" and the likes.

However I have not come across you providing any significant references and philosophers to support your opinions at all. What you have provided are merely your opinionated personal views from your own personal blog.

I suggest you provide the significant references and philosophers to support your opinions, so I can do further research to counter your opinions more effectively.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Peter Holmes, Who are Your Supporting Philosophers?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Noted you mentioned Hume, but that is merely following Hume blindly without understanding the depths and limitations of Hume's claim.
For that I suggest you read need to read up Hume thoroughly to grasp the limitations he faced during his time.

What are the other references you need to support your other points?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Peter Holmes, Who are Your Supporting Philosophers?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas

Evidence and valid and sound arguments are all that matter. Who produces that evidence and those arguments is completely irrelevant.

A non-moral premise or premises can't entail a moral conclusion, because a conclusion can't introduce information not present in the premise or premises. If it does, the argument is a non sequitur fallacy.

All of your premises are non-moral, and as I recall, all are factual claims, with truth-value, about features of reality. One example is 'humans must breathe or they die' - a premise that has no moral implication, unless you assume or import it from outside the argument, as follows.

Humans must breathe or they die; therefore it is morally wrong to stop humans breathing. (This is a non sequitur.)
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6215
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Peter Holmes, Who are Your Supporting Philosophers?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 6:47 am significant references and philosophers
This has been your problem from the start. You only want to deal with the epic greats of philosophy, but you never learned the basics of argument construction and it shows. None of your arguments ever has a valid premise-conclusion relationship.

You shouldn't have tried to learn philosophy with that weird thing you did of just reading Kant for 8 hours a day for years on end. You should have started with a decent intro to logic and argument.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Peter Holmes, Who are Your Supporting Philosophers?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 1:03 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 6:47 am significant references and philosophers
This has been your problem from the start. You only want to deal with the epic greats of philosophy, but you never learned the basics of argument construction and it shows. None of your arguments ever has a valid premise-conclusion relationship.

You shouldn't have tried to learn philosophy with that weird thing you did of just reading Kant for 8 hours a day for years on end. You should have started with a decent intro to logic and argument.
What is so difficult with

A is B
B is C
A is C

and its variation.

Point to remember, logic is never the most efficient representation of reality.

Btw, Kant's CPR is one logical argument itself and he focused a lot on logic but keep reminding of its limitations.

Kant stated, the advantage of logic is based on its limitations. Thus logic has its use but we must be mindful of its limitations.
He implied logic deals only with skeletons where the flesh & skin are stripped off.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Peter Holmes, Who are Your Supporting Philosophers?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 10:28 am Veritas

Evidence and valid and sound arguments are all that matter. Who produces that evidence and those arguments is completely irrelevant.

A non-moral premise or premises can't entail a moral conclusion, because a conclusion can't introduce information not present in the premise or premises. If it does, the argument is a non sequitur fallacy.

All of your premises are non-moral, and as I recall, all are factual claims, with truth-value, about features of reality. One example is 'humans must breathe or they die' - a premise that has no moral implication, unless you assume or import it from outside the argument, as follows.

Humans must breathe or they die; therefore it is morally wrong to stop humans breathing. (This is a non sequitur.)
Nah, the above is too rhetorical and avoiding my main points.

Note in the case of Scientific facts;
  • 1. Observations and evidence [IS-es] are collected and processed via the scientific FSK
    2. The Scientific FSK processed scientific facts.
    3. Processed IS-es via Scientific FSK are scientific facts.
Same with Moral Facts.
  • 1. Scientific facts and Observations & evidence [IS-es] are input into the Moral FSK
    2. The Moral FSK processed 1 to generate them as moral standards, facts and oughts.
    3. Processed IS-es via Moral FSK are moral facts.
So.
  • 1. Humans must breathe or they die [IS] is inputted into the Moral FSK
    2. The Moral FSK processed 1 to generate them as moral standards, facts and oughts.
    3. Per the Moral FSK, therefore it is morally right humans must continue to breathe and morally wrong to stop humans breathing.
Note I am not claiming the above as bare facts [as you always attempt to], what I am claiming is they are qualified-facts, i.e. moral facts.

What you are ignorant or prefer to avoid understanding is the Moral FSK is a complex Framework and System of Knowledge with its constitution, principles, organization, etc.

Note John Searle's concept of institutional facts.
From the "is" of a promise, one 'ought' to carry out that promise.
Whether one carry out the promise is a different story.
The point is, it is an institutional fact of 'oughtness' to carry of the promise.

Thus a moral fact is a sort of institutional fact conditioned upon the institutional Moral FSK that generate 'oughtness' or 'ought-not-ness' as moral potential that are represented by real neural circuits in the brain.

In a way, this moral potential is represented as a potential energy thus also physical fact!
I am confident someday Physics and Bio-Chemistry will be able to get into such moral potential and quantify the related amount of energy.

Outstanding:
Btw, you still have not given me any supporting references to what you are claiming as 'bare' unqualified facts.
You cannot escape the point that what you claimed as 'facts' are conditioned upon a certain FSK, I guess, analytic, linguistic, ordinary language, etc. which are at best very flimsy as improvised from the condemned logical-positivist FSK.

If you are still not sure of yourself, I can provide you the relevant reading list to support your claims.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6215
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Peter Holmes, Who are Your Supporting Philosophers?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 2:35 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 1:03 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 6:47 am significant references and philosophers
This has been your problem from the start. You only want to deal with the epic greats of philosophy, but you never learned the basics of argument construction and it shows. None of your arguments ever has a valid premise-conclusion relationship.

You shouldn't have tried to learn philosophy with that weird thing you did of just reading Kant for 8 hours a day for years on end. You should have started with a decent intro to logic and argument.
What is so difficult with

A is B
B is C
A is C
Years ago you wrote a terrible argument that God cannot exist. You've subsequently linked back to that arg in other posts many times.

If you have improved to become a worthwhile logician, you shouldbe able to review that old work of your own and spot at least 3 glaring logical errors it contained. If you can't do that, you are still shit.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Peter Holmes, Who are Your Supporting Philosophers?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 3:41 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 2:35 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 1:03 pm
This has been your problem from the start. You only want to deal with the epic greats of philosophy, but you never learned the basics of argument construction and it shows. None of your arguments ever has a valid premise-conclusion relationship.

You shouldn't have tried to learn philosophy with that weird thing you did of just reading Kant for 8 hours a day for years on end. You should have started with a decent intro to logic and argument.
What is so difficult with

A is B
B is C
A is C
Years ago you wrote a terrible argument that God cannot exist. You've subsequently linked back to that arg in other posts many times.

If you have improved to become a worthwhile logician, you should be able to review that old work of your own and spot at least 3 glaring logical errors it contained. If you can't do that, you are still shit.
I still insist my argument is sound.

You refer this one?
God is an Impossibility [to exist as real]
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

There is nothing wrong with the logic there.
Point is, it is not easy to convey the full meaning in a one-statement-premise.
Those who disagreed misunderstood the premises and I have provided subsequent explanation.

As far as I know, there is no outstanding issues on my part with that argument.
If so, where?
I will surely welcome critique to improve and cover any holes therein.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6215
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Peter Holmes, Who are Your Supporting Philosophers?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 3:49 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 3:41 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 2:35 am
What is so difficult with

A is B
B is C
A is C
Years ago you wrote a terrible argument that God cannot exist. You've subsequently linked back to that arg in other posts many times.

If you have improved to become a worthwhile logician, you should be able to review that old work of your own and spot at least 3 glaring logical errors it contained. If you can't do that, you are still shit.
I still insist my argument is sound.

You refer this one?
God is an Impossibility [to exist as real]
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

There is nothing wrong with the logic there.
Point is, it is not easy to convey the full meaning in a one-statement-premise.
Those who disagreed misunderstood the premises and I have provided subsequent explanation.
Yeah that's the one. It's utter shit and if you had talent you would know that. You gotta quit trying to elevate yourself to the level of Kant, it's in the most basic areas that you invariably fail. You skipped the bit where you learn the basics and you will never create a good argument if you don't address that failing.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Peter Holmes, Who are Your Supporting Philosophers?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 3:55 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 3:49 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 3:41 am
Years ago you wrote a terrible argument that God cannot exist. You've subsequently linked back to that arg in other posts many times.

If you have improved to become a worthwhile logician, you should be able to review that old work of your own and spot at least 3 glaring logical errors it contained. If you can't do that, you are still shit.
I still insist my argument is sound.

You refer this one?
God is an Impossibility [to exist as real]
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

There is nothing wrong with the logic there.
Point is, it is not easy to convey the full meaning in a one-statement-premise.
Those who disagreed misunderstood the premises and I have provided subsequent explanation.
Yeah that's the one. It's utter shit and if you had talent you would know that. You gotta quit trying to elevate yourself to the level of Kant, it's in the most basic areas that you invariably fail. You skipped the bit where you learn the basics and you will never create a good argument if you don't address that failing.
Noises as usual.
Where is the real critic to the specific points on your part?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6215
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Peter Holmes, Who are Your Supporting Philosophers?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 4:30 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 3:55 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 3:49 am
I still insist my argument is sound.

You refer this one?
God is an Impossibility [to exist as real]
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

There is nothing wrong with the logic there.
Point is, it is not easy to convey the full meaning in a one-statement-premise.
Those who disagreed misunderstood the premises and I have provided subsequent explanation.
Yeah that's the one. It's utter shit and if you had talent you would know that. You gotta quit trying to elevate yourself to the level of Kant, it's in the most basic areas that you invariably fail. You skipped the bit where you learn the basics and you will never create a good argument if you don't address that failing.
Noises as usual.
Where is the real critic to the specific points on your part?
The real point was that you should be able to evaluate that argument and find flaws in it without my assistance.
I can do the work for you, but if you are ever to be a top philosophical miond, you really ought to be able to do this unassisted.

Do you really need my help to find out that an argument which asserts natural impossibility for a supernatural entity misses the mark?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Peter Holmes, Who are Your Supporting Philosophers?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 2:34 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 4:30 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 3:55 am
Yeah that's the one. It's utter shit and if you had talent you would know that. You gotta quit trying to elevate yourself to the level of Kant, it's in the most basic areas that you invariably fail. You skipped the bit where you learn the basics and you will never create a good argument if you don't address that failing.
Noises as usual.
Where is the real critic to the specific points on your part?
The real point was that you should be able to evaluate that argument and find flaws in it without my assistance.
I can do the work for you, but if you are ever to be a top philosophical miond, you really ought to be able to do this unassisted.

Do you really need my help to find out that an argument which asserts natural impossibility for a supernatural entity misses the mark?
I am confident of my argument and that you will not be able to put any dent or discover any holes in my argument. You should consider your own limitations and ignorance as well. Btw, I have not read any impressive presentations from you at all. All you do is making noises due to the pains in your ass.

If you make any claims against my argument, then the onus is on you to provide the justification of your claim, this is typical of what is going in the philosophical and intellectual community.
It is your discretion whether to do so or not.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Peter Holmes, Who are Your Supporting Philosophers?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas

I note you haven't addressed, let alone rebutted, my earlier point about the fallacy at the heart of your argument. Here it is again.

A non-moral premise or premises can't entail a moral conclusion, because a conclusion can't introduce information not present in the premise or premises. If it does, the argument is a non sequitur fallacy.

All of your premises are non-moral, and as I recall, all are factual claims, with truth-value, about features of reality. One example is 'humans must breathe or they die' - a premise that has no moral implication, unless you assume or import it from outside the argument, as follows.

Humans must breathe or they die; therefore it is morally wrong to stop humans breathing. (This is a non sequitur.)

Perhaps one of your Supporting Philosophers has the solution to your problem.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Peter Holmes, Who are Your Supporting Philosophers?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 5:08 am Veritas

I note you haven't addressed, let alone rebutted, my earlier point about the fallacy at the heart of your argument. Here it is again.

A non-moral premise or premises can't entail a moral conclusion, because a conclusion can't introduce information not present in the premise or premises. If it does, the argument is a non sequitur fallacy.

All of your premises are non-moral, and as I recall, all are factual claims, with truth-value, about features of reality. One example is 'humans must breathe or they die' - a premise that has no moral implication, unless you assume or import it from outside the argument, as follows.

Humans must breathe or they die; therefore it is morally wrong to stop humans breathing. (This is a non sequitur.)

Perhaps one of your Supporting Philosophers has the solution to your problem.
No wonder, your reading is very slipshod.

This was what I wrote earlier,
viewtopic.php?p=569940#p569940

  • So.
    1. Humans must breathe or they die [IS] is inputted into the Moral FSK
    2. The Moral FSK processed 1 to generate them as moral standards, facts and oughts.
    3. Per the Moral FSK, therefore it is morally right humans must continue to breathe and morally wrong to stop humans breathing.
    Note I am not claiming the above as bare facts [as you always attempt to], what I am claiming is they are qualified-facts, i.e. moral facts.


Therein I requested the following;
  • Outstanding:
    Btw, you still have not given me any supporting references to what you are claiming as 'bare' unqualified facts.
    You cannot escape the point that what you claimed as 'facts' are conditioned upon a certain FSK, I guess, analytic, linguistic, ordinary language, etc. which are at best very flimsy as improvised from the condemned logical-positivist FSK.

    If you are still not sure of yourself, I can provide you the relevant reading list to support your claims.
I have been researching to the origin and history of Analytic Philosophy and its concept of what is fact, states of affairs, proposition as truth-makers, concepts, that is the case, linguistic, ordinary language, blah and blah.
All these are only valid within the Analytic Philosophy FSK agreed only by analytic philosopher and no others.
What you are trying to claim is that these ideas for the Analytic Philosophy FSK are absolute and that everyone regardless must accept them as absolute truths.

Even that nasty PantFlasher [who recommended Rorty's Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature] would not agree with the basis of your analytic FSK.

This is why when you mentioned the term 'fact' you NEVER qualify it to the specific FSK you are relying upon. This is a deception in your communication and philosophy.
When one do philosophy, there is a need for rigor rather than merely throwing out dictionary definitions.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6215
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Peter Holmes, Who are Your Supporting Philosophers?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 4:53 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 2:34 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 4:30 am
Noises as usual.
Where is the real critic to the specific points on your part?
The real point was that you should be able to evaluate that argument and find flaws in it without my assistance.
I can do the work for you, but if you are ever to be a top philosophical miond, you really ought to be able to do this unassisted.

Do you really need my help to find out that an argument which asserts natural impossibility for a supernatural entity misses the mark?
I am confident of my argument and that you will not be able to put any dent or discover any holes in my argument. You should consider your own limitations and ignorance as well. Btw, I have not read any impressive presentations from you at all. All you do is making noises due to the pains in your ass.

If you make any claims against my argument, then the onus is on you to provide the justification of your claim, this is typical of what is going in the philosophical and intellectual community.
It is your discretion whether to do so or not.
I had already told you what is fundamentally wrong with the argument in question. Saying that the creator of the universe cannot have a property because the contents of the creation cannot have it is a failure.

And that has been my point in this thread. Not that I should waste my time on that "impossibility to be true" argument, which doesn't deserve my effort. My point is that you don't need to know which great philosopher Pete is channeling, you are out of your depth with just the people on this forum. You are not in competition with the greats, you aren't taking on Hume and winning. You are just this fatuous little man who can't even work out what is wrong with that glaringly bad argument.
Post Reply