P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

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

User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6214
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 9:30 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 9:18 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 9:02 am
Strawman again!

I am very well aware and agree totally with the Law of Non-Contradiction which is;
  • In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "p is the case" and "p is not the case" are mutually exclusive.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction
You aren't fooling anyone by arranging it so that X and Y don't entail each other's false status.
But again, the important thing here is that you knew you did need to resolve the contradiction for your example to make sense.
You agree with me because everyone in the world agrees with the point I have made here, because it is so basic and obvious.

What I have done is to project p = not-p but in different sense.
I have been doing that all the time.

Your problem is you are too stuck in one paradigm and unable to shift that is why you always see my points as contradictory.
No you haven't. You removed the entailment. To say we can see through walls with x-rays is not "not-p" when p was we can't see through walls with our eyes.

Remember the thing I wrote that you were supposed to be arguiong against was...
You have no right to use the logical construct that if X says Y is false, and if Y says X is false, one or both of X an Y must be false.
In your treatment of what is a fact, X and Y are both TRUE.


You didn't argue against that point. You created an example where X and Y say different things, but don't entail each other being untrue.

the problem with that approach is that "it is wrong to drown kittens in a sack" and "nothing you do to animals has moral outcomes" are two statements that cannot be true if the other is true. And you are trying to get away with arguing that they are both true simultaneously.
I am trying my best to get what is your point by translating them to empirical matters.
If I cannot get what you intended, that is not my fault but rather your communication.

If you want me to see your point, suggest you give me more real empirical examples instead of X, Y or Z symbols.
What is hard to get about this? If X is a proposition "All B are C" and Y is a proposition "All B are Not C" then X and Y have a logically contradictory relationship such that if X is a fact then Y is not a fact.

All your stuff about facts being "facts" simply by virtue of there being anyone in the world who says they are, runs foul of this.

Your seeing through wooden walls example doesn't work FOR YOU because to put it together you had to remove the part where one entails the other being untrue. You made them non-contradictory.


"It's too dark to see" and "I can see fine" stop being contradictions if you create circumstances where one participant in the conversation is a murderer burying the other person alive.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 9:43 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 9:30 am I am trying my best to get what is your point by translating them to empirical matters.
If I cannot get what you intended, that is not my fault but rather your communication.

If you want me to see your point, suggest you give me more real empirical examples instead of X, Y or Z symbols.
What is hard to get about this? If X is a proposition "All B are C" and Y is a proposition "All B are Not C" then X and Y have a logically contradictory relationship such that if X is a fact then Y is not a fact.

All your stuff about facts being "facts" simply by virtue of there being anyone in the world who says they are, runs foul of this.

Your seeing through wooden walls example doesn't work FOR YOU because to put it together you had to remove the part where one entails the other being untrue. You made them non-contradictory.


"It's too dark to see" and "I can see fine" stop being contradictions if you create circumstances where one participant in the conversation is a murderer burying the other person alive.
If X is a proposition "All B are C" but it can be,
X is a proposition "All B are C" but it can be, in sense A and time T1
X is a proposition "All B are not C" but it can be, in sense B and time T1

Thus "ALL B are C" and "ALL B are not C" at the same time but in different senses.
The above look absurd but can be true.

It is the same with,
If Y is a proposition "All B are not C" but it can be,
Y is a proposition "All B are C" but it can be, in sense A and time T1
Y is a proposition "All B are not C" but it can be, in sense B and time T1

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

but you don't seem to click with 'same sense,' 'different sense' and same time.

I believe Wittgenstein pointed this out re the Duck-Rabbit example,
the image below is both a Rabbit and Duck at the SAME Time but not in the same sense if one shift perspective [sense].

Image
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6214
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 10:15 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 9:43 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 9:30 am I am trying my best to get what is your point by translating them to empirical matters.
If I cannot get what you intended, that is not my fault but rather your communication.

If you want me to see your point, suggest you give me more real empirical examples instead of X, Y or Z symbols.
What is hard to get about this? If X is a proposition "All B are C" and Y is a proposition "All B are Not C" then X and Y have a logically contradictory relationship such that if X is a fact then Y is not a fact.

All your stuff about facts being "facts" simply by virtue of there being anyone in the world who says they are, runs foul of this.

Your seeing through wooden walls example doesn't work FOR YOU because to put it together you had to remove the part where one entails the other being untrue. You made them non-contradictory.


"It's too dark to see" and "I can see fine" stop being contradictions if you create circumstances where one participant in the conversation is a murderer burying the other person alive.
If X is a proposition "All B are C" but it can be,
X is a proposition "All B are C" but it can be, in sense A and time T1
X is a proposition "All B are not C" but it can be, in sense B and time T1

Thus "ALL B are C" and "ALL B are not C" at the same time but in different senses.
The above look absurd but can be true.

It is the same with,
If Y is a proposition "All B are not C" but it can be,
Y is a proposition "All B are C" but it can be, in sense A and time T1
Y is a proposition "All B are not C" but it can be, in sense B and time T1

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

but you don't seem to click with 'same sense,' 'different sense' and same time.

I believe Wittgenstein pointed this out re the Duck-Rabbit example,
the image below is both a Rabbit and Duck at the SAME Time but not in the same sense if one shift perspective [sense].

Image
I'm worried you don't understand what entailment means.
All you are doing there is the same stuff again. Just adding extras to remove contradictions by changing the setting such that P no longer ENTAILS not-P

But.... You can't do that if X is the proposition "it is wrong to drown kittens in a sack" and Y is "nothing you do to animals has moral outcomes".
Neither of those two statements that can be true if the other is true. And you are trying to get away with arguing that they are both true simultaneously.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 10:25 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 10:15 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 9:43 am
What is hard to get about this? If X is a proposition "All B are C" and Y is a proposition "All B are Not C" then X and Y have a logically contradictory relationship such that if X is a fact then Y is not a fact.

All your stuff about facts being "facts" simply by virtue of there being anyone in the world who says they are, runs foul of this.

Your seeing through wooden walls example doesn't work FOR YOU because to put it together you had to remove the part where one entails the other being untrue. You made them non-contradictory.


"It's too dark to see" and "I can see fine" stop being contradictions if you create circumstances where one participant in the conversation is a murderer burying the other person alive.
If X is a proposition "All B are C" but it can be,
X is a proposition "All B are C" but it can be, in sense A and time T1
X is a proposition "All B are not C" but it can be, in sense B and time T1

Thus "ALL B are C" and "ALL B are not C" at the same time but in different senses.
The above look absurd but can be true.

It is the same with,
If Y is a proposition "All B are not C" but it can be,
Y is a proposition "All B are C" but it can be, in sense A and time T1
Y is a proposition "All B are not C" but it can be, in sense B and time T1

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

but you don't seem to click with 'same sense,' 'different sense' and same time.

I believe Wittgenstein pointed this out re the Duck-Rabbit example,
the image below is both a Rabbit and Duck at the SAME Time but not in the same sense if one shift perspective [sense].

Image
I'm worried you don't understand what entailment means.
All you are doing there is the same stuff again. Just adding extras to remove contradictions by changing the setting such that P no longer ENTAILS not-P

But.... You can't do that if
1. X is the proposition "it is wrong to drown kittens in a sack" and
2. Y is "nothing you do to animals has moral outcomes".
3. Neither of those two statements that can be true if the other is true.
4. And you are trying to get away with arguing that they are both true simultaneously.
First of all, I do not agree with your X.
I can agree with Y, i.e. morality per se has no relevance with non-human living things.
But both must be subjected to their respective FSK.
Thus 3 and 4 do not follow for me.

Start with something where I can agree both with X and Y, plus you need to consider 'sense' and 'time'.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6214
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 10:40 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 10:25 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 10:15 am
If X is a proposition "All B are C" but it can be,
X is a proposition "All B are C" but it can be, in sense A and time T1
X is a proposition "All B are not C" but it can be, in sense B and time T1

Thus "ALL B are C" and "ALL B are not C" at the same time but in different senses.
The above look absurd but can be true.

It is the same with,
If Y is a proposition "All B are not C" but it can be,
Y is a proposition "All B are C" but it can be, in sense A and time T1
Y is a proposition "All B are not C" but it can be, in sense B and time T1

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

but you don't seem to click with 'same sense,' 'different sense' and same time.

I believe Wittgenstein pointed this out re the Duck-Rabbit example,
the image below is both a Rabbit and Duck at the SAME Time but not in the same sense if one shift perspective [sense].

Image
I'm worried you don't understand what entailment means.
All you are doing there is the same stuff again. Just adding extras to remove contradictions by changing the setting such that P no longer ENTAILS not-P

But.... You can't do that if
1. X is the proposition "it is wrong to drown kittens in a sack" and
2. Y is "nothing you do to animals has moral outcomes".
3. Neither of those two statements that can be true if the other is true.
4. And you are trying to get away with arguing that they are both true simultaneously.
First of all, I do not agree with your X.
I can agree with Y, i.e. morality per se has no relevance with non-human living things.
But both must be subjected to their respective FSK.
Thus 3 and 4 do not follow for me.

Start with something where I can agree both with X and Y, plus you need to consider 'sense' and 'time'.
We only need to consider sense and time if you are planning to say that there is a right time for rape or some sense in which murder isn't wrong.

You don't agree with this Christian moral FSK thing, right? But you have described it as a 10/100 source of fact. Or some other random integer.

So if the Christian moral FSK thing says anything that you disagree with with, while your own moral FSK thing says something directly contradictory that you do agree with, then you are saying that there is fact on both sides of a disagreement that does entail one fact not being a fact.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 9:43 am What is hard to get about this? If X is a proposition "All B are C" and Y is a proposition "All B are Not C" then X and Y have a logically contradictory relationship such that if X is a fact then Y is not a fact.
What's hard to get is the semantics of the logical system you are peddling as normative.

There are logics/semantics in which the propositions are contradictory.
There are logics/semantics in which the propositions are not contradictory.

All B are C: All people in my house are sleeping.
All B are not C: All people in my house are not sleeping.

They woke up!

It's the difference between a logic-system treating state as ontological, and a system treating change as ontological.

What's contradictory about it? Plato pointed out that contradictions are incoherent concepts in dynamic systems. Did you forget or are you choosing not to remember?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 6:10 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 10:10 am If what you mean is that there's no such thing as absolute truth, ......
I agree, "there's no such thing as absolute truth, ..."

If there is no absolute truth [or fact] then there is only conditional truth or fact.
What you failed here is you stop short of what are these conditional truths or facts conditioned upon?
This is why you have been cowardly avoiding despite my many requests that you state what your conditional truths or facts are conditioned upon.

All you could to was to throw dictionary definitions of 'what is fact' at me.
If that is the best you can do, then you have to accept what is fact as conditional fact is conditioned upon the specific dictionary you quoted or the specific FSK of that dictionary or dictionary in general.

But we know the purpose of etymology [dictionaries] is merely to represent what is the common usage of a word at present and over time, its intention is not to represent reality at all.

So far, you have cowardly avoided to explain what your conditional facts or truths are conditioned upon. If you cannot do so, then such facts or truths are baseless, groundless and delusional.
"there is only conditional truth or fact" is an absolute truth as conditionality contains only itself, ie other conditions, therefore referencing nothing.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 11:14 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 10:40 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 10:25 am
I'm worried you don't understand what entailment means.
All you are doing there is the same stuff again. Just adding extras to remove contradictions by changing the setting such that P no longer ENTAILS not-P

But.... You can't do that if
1. X is the proposition "it is wrong to drown kittens in a sack" and
2. Y is "nothing you do to animals has moral outcomes".
3. Neither of those two statements that can be true if the other is true.
4. And you are trying to get away with arguing that they are both true simultaneously.
First of all, I do not agree with your X.
I can agree with Y, i.e. morality per se has no relevance with non-human living things.
But both must be subjected to their respective FSK.
Thus 3 and 4 do not follow for me.

Start with something where I can agree both with X and Y, plus you need to consider 'sense' and 'time'.
We only need to consider sense and time if you are planning to say that there is a right time for rape or some sense in which murder isn't wrong.

You don't agree with this Christian moral FSK thing, right? But you have described it as a 10/100 source of fact. Or some other random integer.

So if the Christian moral FSK thing says anything that you disagree with with, while your own moral FSK thing says something directly contradictory that you do agree with, then you are saying that there is fact on both sides of a disagreement that does entail one fact not being a fact.
You are too rigid with the meaning of "what is fact". Do you have an idea what you are so dogmatic on this?
Your problem is you are putting too much emphasis on 'words' which analytic philosophy is so concern with [note Russell logical atomism which is out of favor, then Wittgenstein's critique re language games'.]

Yes both are fact [as defined and qualified] but they differ in different sense and degree of credibility.
Show me where I am wrong in the above in terms of reality? [not in terms of your fixed meaning of what is fact].

A fixed meaning for a word is only expedient within a specific paradigm or FSK.

However to get into the finer truths, we may have to use a word across different FSKs and this is more tedious as one has to define its meaning all the time and qualify to ensure its right usage.

This is what happen with the term 'fact' when I used it across different FSKs and to be accurate I have to define and qualify its usage which is tedious but necessary for truth sake.

Meanwhile you insist the term 'fact' has an absolute meaning [ridiculous] and do not not admit that it is only applicable to your specific FSK i.e. the linguistic and ordinary language FSK.

Point is here we are digging into more depths of truth and thus you must qualify your usage of the term 'fact' [note language game]. You cannot insist it has an absolute meaning because "we English Speakers said so! .."
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 12:11 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 6:10 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 10:10 am If what you mean is that there's no such thing as absolute truth, ......
I agree, "there's no such thing as absolute truth, ..."

If there is no absolute truth [or fact] then there is only conditional truth or fact.
What you failed here is you stop short of what are these conditional truths or facts conditioned upon?
This is why you have been cowardly avoiding despite my many requests that you state what your conditional truths or facts are conditioned upon.

All you could to was to throw dictionary definitions of 'what is fact' at me.
If that is the best you can do, then you have to accept what is fact as conditional fact is conditioned upon the specific dictionary you quoted or the specific FSK of that dictionary or dictionary in general.

But we know the purpose of etymology [dictionaries] is merely to represent what is the common usage of a word at present and over time, its intention is not to represent reality at all.

So far, you have cowardly avoided to explain what your conditional facts or truths are conditioned upon. If you cannot do so, then such facts or truths are baseless, groundless and delusional.
"there is only conditional truth or fact" is an absolute truth as conditionality contains only itself, ie other conditions, therefore referencing nothing.
I did not claim it is an absolute truth, "there is only conditional truth or fact" has to be entangled with humanity [how else?], thus it is a conditional truth.

Therefore it reference nothing, i.e. nothing absolute, so there are only conditional truth or fact.

Btw, you need to note there is absolutely-absolute [God] and conditional-absolute [absolute temperature, monarchy, etc.]
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6214
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 5:45 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 11:14 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 10:40 am
First of all, I do not agree with your X.
I can agree with Y, i.e. morality per se has no relevance with non-human living things.
But both must be subjected to their respective FSK.
Thus 3 and 4 do not follow for me.

Start with something where I can agree both with X and Y, plus you need to consider 'sense' and 'time'.
We only need to consider sense and time if you are planning to say that there is a right time for rape or some sense in which murder isn't wrong.

You don't agree with this Christian moral FSK thing, right? But you have described it as a 10/100 source of fact. Or some other random integer.

So if the Christian moral FSK thing says anything that you disagree with with, while your own moral FSK thing says something directly contradictory that you do agree with, then you are saying that there is fact on both sides of a disagreement that does entail one fact not being a fact.
You are too rigid with the meaning of "what is fact". Do you have an idea what you are so dogmatic on this?
Your problem is you are putting too much emphasis on 'words' which analytic philosophy is so concern with [note Russell logical atomism which is out of favor, then Wittgenstein's critique re language games'.]
I am treating this as the language game of fact assertion. Within the rules of that game contradictory facts are not legitimate. It's quite absurd that you keep trying to claim Wittgenstein as an ally.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 5:45 am Yes both are fact [as defined and qualified] but they differ in different sense and degree of credibility.
Show me where I am wrong in the above in terms of reality? [not in terms of your fixed meaning of what is fact].
Yesterday I gave you these two contradictory facts:
But.... You can't do that if X is the proposition "it is wrong to drown kittens in a sack" and Y is "nothing you do to animals has moral outcomes".
Neither of those two statements that can be true if the other is true. And you are trying to get away with arguing that they are both true simultaneously.

You tried to squirm out of it by saying that you don't agree with one of them. But by your argument BOTH ARE FACTS AT THE SAME TIME, unless you are saying that moral fact is a temporary status.

This is a problem because each of them requires the other to be false. It doesn't help you with the language games thing to just try and make some facts less truthy than other facts.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 5:45 am A fixed meaning for a word is only expedient within a specific paradigm or FSK.

However to get into the finer truths, we may have to use a word across different FSKs and this is more tedious as one has to define its meaning all the time and qualify to ensure its right usage.

This is what happen with the term 'fact' when I used it across different FSKs and to be accurate I have to define and qualify its usage which is tedious but necessary for truth sake.
Yeah, but we've covered that years ago as well. Your special word "fact" on your special "FSK" that only has one participant is a private language abuse. Just as your FSK isn't really about morality beacuse it cannot discuss what is right or wrong, it isn't a framework of knowledge at all, because it requires a fake alternative meaning for fact.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 5:45 am Meanwhile you insist the term 'fact' has an absolute meaning [ridiculous] and do not not admit that it is only applicable to your specific FSK i.e. the linguistic and ordinary language FSK.

Point is here we are digging into more depths of truth and thus you must qualify your usage of the term 'fact' [note language game]. You cannot insist it has an absolute meaning because "we English Speakers said so! .."
I really don't insist on any such thing. but Itold you that you were making a mistake by analysing the concept only on the basis of componentry. The concept of fact has work to do and you are defining it in such a way that it clearly cannot do its job.

Now if you want to be honest, and openly base your crusade of moral fact on a redefined concept of fact, all you have to do is stop trying to tell us we don't understand the concept that we use every fucking day of our lives you utter moron. I'm susprised you haven't called it fact-proper yet.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 8:40 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 5:45 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 11:14 am
We only need to consider sense and time if you are planning to say that there is a right time for rape or some sense in which murder isn't wrong.

You don't agree with this Christian moral FSK thing, right? But you have described it as a 10/100 source of fact. Or some other random integer.

So if the Christian moral FSK thing says anything that you disagree with with, while your own moral FSK thing says something directly contradictory that you do agree with, then you are saying that there is fact on both sides of a disagreement that does entail one fact not being a fact.
You are too rigid with the meaning of "what is fact". Do you have an idea what you are so dogmatic on this?
Your problem is you are putting too much emphasis on 'words' which analytic philosophy is so concern with [note Russell logical atomism which is out of favor, then Wittgenstein's critique re language games'.]
I am treating this as the language game of fact assertion. Within the rules of that game contradictory facts are not legitimate. It's quite absurd that you keep trying to claim Wittgenstein as an ally.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 5:45 am Yes both are fact [as defined and qualified] but they differ in different sense and degree of credibility.
Show me where I am wrong in the above in terms of reality? [not in terms of your fixed meaning of what is fact].
Yesterday I gave you these two contradictory facts:
But.... You can't do that if
X is the proposition "it is wrong to drown kittens in a sack" and
Y is "nothing you do to animals has moral outcomes".
Neither of those two statements that can be true if the other is true. And you are trying to get away with arguing that they are both true simultaneously.

You tried to squirm out of it by saying that you don't agree with one of them. But by your argument BOTH ARE FACTS AT THE SAME TIME, unless you are saying that moral fact is a temporary status.

This is a problem because each of them requires the other to be false. It doesn't help you with the language games thing to just try and make some facts less truthy than other facts.
Why don't you stick to facts that more empirical and clearer that is contradictory, e.g.
Water is both hard and soft, or
A diamond gem is both hard and soft,
which is the contradiction is clear and reconciliable.

What you provided are too inconsistent, but even if you insist I can show you why you example is a mess...

X is the proposition "it is wrong to drown kittens in a sack"
but above depend on the FSK conditioned upon,
re my basis of moral FSK, it is not wrong [morally] to drown kittens in a sack, albeit this should not be condoned.
those who are leveraging more on animal rights would insist,
"it is wrong to drown kittens in a sack"
In this case, I can claim both are true facts but mine is more credible [with full justification - not provided here] at 80/100 while I claim the other only has a credibility of 20/100.

Y is "nothing you do to animals has moral outcomes"
I will agree to this as a fact with high credibility.
Those who leverage fight for animal rights will disagree with Y.

As you can see your contention is too messy which I don't think you deeply comprehend.
If would be easier to rely on contradictory statement that has an empirical basis.
Now if you want to be honest, and openly base your crusade of moral fact on a redefined concept of fact, all you have to do is stop trying to tell us we don't understand the concept that we use every fucking day of our lives you utter moron. I'm susprised you haven't called it fact-proper yet.
Btw, you are so incompetent, ignorant and stupid-proper that you are an emperor with no clothes not knowing you are the real fucking moron.

The problem is you don't have any grounds at all to argue from, thus getting more and more delusional. I don't believe this is curable.

Since I first read of your postings, I have not come across any solid rational philosophical views except condescending noises. If you insist, show me one thread that is philosophically solid that you have raised?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6214
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 10:11 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 8:40 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 5:45 am
You are too rigid with the meaning of "what is fact". Do you have an idea what you are so dogmatic on this?
Your problem is you are putting too much emphasis on 'words' which analytic philosophy is so concern with [note Russell logical atomism which is out of favor, then Wittgenstein's critique re language games'.]
I am treating this as the language game of fact assertion. Within the rules of that game contradictory facts are not legitimate. It's quite absurd that you keep trying to claim Wittgenstein as an ally.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 5:45 am Yes both are fact [as defined and qualified] but they differ in different sense and degree of credibility.
Show me where I am wrong in the above in terms of reality? [not in terms of your fixed meaning of what is fact].
Yesterday I gave you these two contradictory facts:
But.... You can't do that if
X is the proposition "it is wrong to drown kittens in a sack" and
Y is "nothing you do to animals has moral outcomes".
Neither of those two statements that can be true if the other is true. And you are trying to get away with arguing that they are both true simultaneously.

You tried to squirm out of it by saying that you don't agree with one of them. But by your argument BOTH ARE FACTS AT THE SAME TIME, unless you are saying that moral fact is a temporary status.

This is a problem because each of them requires the other to be false. It doesn't help you with the language games thing to just try and make some facts less truthy than other facts.
Why don't you stick to facts that more empirical and clearer that is contradictory, e.g.
Water is both hard and soft, or
A diamond gem is both hard and soft,
which is the contradiction is clear and reconciliable.
Because this is the ethical theory sub.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 10:11 am What you provided are too inconsistent, but even if you insist I can show you why you example is a mess...

X is the proposition "it is wrong to drown kittens in a sack"
but above depend on the FSK conditioned upon,
re my basis of moral FSK, it is not wrong [morally] to drown kittens in a sack, albeit this should not be condoned.
those who are leveraging more on animal rights would insist,
"it is wrong to drown kittens in a sack"
In this case, I can claim both are true facts but mine is more credible [with full justification - not provided here] at 80/100 while I claim the other only has a credibility of 20/100.
You are putting yourself itno a liar's paradox.
The satement "nothing you do to animals has moral outcomes" ENTAILS that "it is wrong to drown kittens in a sack" is FALSE.
It doesn't ENTAIL that it is only 20% credible.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 10:11 am Y is "nothing you do to animals has moral outcomes"
I will agree to this as a fact with high credibility.
Those who leverage fight for animal rights will disagree with Y.

As you can see your contention is too messy which I don't think you deeply comprehend.
If would be easier to rely on contradictory statement that has an empirical basis.
Like the stuff that comes out of your "morality FSK" that is all "verified empirically and philosophically"?????
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 10:11 am
Now if you want to be honest, and openly base your crusade of moral fact on a redefined concept of fact, all you have to do is stop trying to tell us we don't understand the concept that we use every fucking day of our lives you utter moron. I'm susprised you haven't called it fact-proper yet.
Btw, you are so incompetent, ignorant and stupid-proper that you are an emperor with no clothes not knowing you are the real fucking moron.

The problem is you don't have any grounds at all to argue from, thus getting more and more delusional. I don't believe this is curable.

Since I first read of your postings, I have not come across any solid rational philosophical views except condescending noises. If you insist, show me one thread that is philosophically solid that you have raised?
Just argue the arguments, you won't get anywhere arguing the man.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 11:31 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 10:11 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 8:40 am
I am treating this as the language game of fact assertion. Within the rules of that game contradictory facts are not legitimate. It's quite absurd that you keep trying to claim Wittgenstein as an ally.


Yesterday I gave you these two contradictory facts:
But.... You can't do that if
X is the proposition "it is wrong to drown kittens in a sack" and
Y is "nothing you do to animals has moral outcomes".
Neither of those two statements that can be true if the other is true. And you are trying to get away with arguing that they are both true simultaneously.

You tried to squirm out of it by saying that you don't agree with one of them. But by your argument BOTH ARE FACTS AT THE SAME TIME, unless you are saying that moral fact is a temporary status.

This is a problem because each of them requires the other to be false. It doesn't help you with the language games thing to just try and make some facts less truthy than other facts.
Why don't you stick to facts that more empirical and clearer that is contradictory, e.g.
Water is both hard and soft, or
A diamond gem is both hard and soft,
which is the contradiction is clear and reconciliable.
Because this is the ethical theory sub.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 10:11 am What you provided are too inconsistent, but even if you insist I can show you why you example is a mess...

X is the proposition "it is wrong to drown kittens in a sack"
but above depend on the FSK conditioned upon,
re my basis of moral FSK, it is not wrong [morally] to drown kittens in a sack, albeit this should not be condoned.
those who are leveraging more on animal rights would insist,
"it is wrong to drown kittens in a sack"
In this case, I can claim both are true facts but mine is more credible [with full justification - not provided here] at 80/100 while I claim the other only has a credibility of 20/100.
You are putting yourself itno a liar's paradox.
The satement "nothing you do to animals has moral outcomes" ENTAILS that "it is wrong to drown kittens in a sack" is FALSE.
It doesn't ENTAIL that it is only 20% credible.
Definitely to you from your bias view, it is not acceptable.
Why not, it is the similar rating to what I give to a moral divine FSK in contrast to the scientific FSK.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 11:31 am You are putting yourself itno a liar's paradox.
The satement "nothing you do to animals has moral outcomes" ENTAILS that "it is wrong to drown kittens in a sack" is FALSE.
No it doesn't, dickhead. Are you ever going to learn anything about logic?

https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/implication
Entailment is a preorder on propositions within a given context in a given logic.
GIVEN context.
GIVEN logic.

Are you ever going to give your context and logic or are you going to keep peddling a normative that you refuse to communicate to us?
Last edited by Skepdick on Fri May 06, 2022 11:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6214
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 11:36 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 11:31 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 10:11 am
Why don't you stick to facts that more empirical and clearer that is contradictory, e.g.
Water is both hard and soft, or
A diamond gem is both hard and soft,
which is the contradiction is clear and reconciliable.
Because this is the ethical theory sub.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 10:11 am What you provided are too inconsistent, but even if you insist I can show you why you example is a mess...

X is the proposition "it is wrong to drown kittens in a sack"
but above depend on the FSK conditioned upon,
re my basis of moral FSK, it is not wrong [morally] to drown kittens in a sack, albeit this should not be condoned.
those who are leveraging more on animal rights would insist,
"it is wrong to drown kittens in a sack"
In this case, I can claim both are true facts but mine is more credible [with full justification - not provided here] at 80/100 while I claim the other only has a credibility of 20/100.
You are putting yourself itno a liar's paradox.
The satement "nothing you do to animals has moral outcomes" ENTAILS that "it is wrong to drown kittens in a sack" is FALSE.
It doesn't ENTAIL that it is only 20% credible.
Definitely to you from your bias view, it is not acceptable.
Why not, it is the similar rating to what I give to a moral divine FSK in contrast to the scientific FSK.
Proposition P "there can be no such thing as an orange lemon"
Prop Q "my lemon tree grows orange lemons"
Prop Q entails that Prop P is untrue.
Prop P entails that Prop Q is untrue.

If the lemon tree is inspected and found empirically to deliver orange lemons, then Prop P is entirely untrue. It doesn't become 93.561266% false.
It is deemed fictive.
Because fact and fiction are these polar opposites.

If there can be no moral ourcomes to any human interraction with animals...
Then any statement that it is morally wrong to interract with any animal in any specific way must be false, otherwise the above prop must be false.
False means not fact. It doesn't mean only 2% fact because we are mot discussing milk.


How can this simple shit be so hard to get into your head?
Post Reply