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

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
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 11:42 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 11:36 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 11:31 am
Because this is the ethical theory sub.


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?
Your example is not effective.

Do you what is a liger?

With our current technology it is not impossible to cross a lemon with an orange to get a lemorange.

If someone insist a square-circle exists as fact, I would instantly rate that as a fact or truth-claim with 0/100 credibility in contrast to the most credible scientific fact as say 85/100.
Sound weird but any normal rational person will be able to accept that upon clear qualifications.

It is same with theists claiming the fact and truth that God exists as real - they really make such claims. Just ask IC.
Based on my argument presented I would rate that as a 0/100 truth or fact.
Sound atypical but it can be understood by any rational person.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
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 11:53 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 11:42 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 11:36 am
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?
Your example is not effective.

Do you what is a liger?

With our current technology it is not impossible to cross a lemon with an orange to get a lemorange.
this is a discussion about the logical relationship between propositions, why are you getting sidetracked with infantile nonsense?

as a matter of extremely fucking simple logic, each of those statements ENTAILS that the other is untrue.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 11:53 am If someone insist a square-circle exists as fact, I would instantly rate that as a fact or truth-claim with 0/100 credibility in contrast to the most credible scientific fact as say 85/100.
Sound weird but any normal rational person will be able to accept that upon clear qualifications.
Well for that you deserve some of Skepdick's totally useful information about non-Euclidian geometry.

I'm more interested in the obvious bulllshit numbers you are using.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 11:53 am It is same with theists claiming the fact and truth that God exists as real - they really make such claims. Just ask IC.
Based on my argument presented I would rate that as a 0/100 truth or fact.
Sound atypical but it can be understood by any rational person.
Seriously, is the concept of entailment too difficult for you to get?
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 11:42 am How can this simple shit be so hard to get into your head?
Because he refuses to subjucate himself to the normative semantics of your logical system. You are peddling a normative standard for reasoning and speech in the same breath that you are rejecting normative standards for behavior.

How can this simple shit be so hard to get into your head?
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 12:10 pm as a matter of extremely fucking simple logic, each of those statements ENTAILS that the other is untrue.
That is not the case in all logics. It may be the case in the "extremely fucking simple logic" you are peddling as normative.

Maybe your logic is too simple for such a complex domain?
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 12:10 pm Seriously, is the concept of entailment too difficult for you to get?
Since it's pretty obvious and factual that you don't get entailment either.

Does the ironic fact of you failing to get entailment further entail that entailment is more dificult to get than you claim?
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 11:42 am Because fact and fiction are these polar opposites.
Shame. The conflicted, dichotomous mind. If fact and fiction were polar opposites, then how is it that science fiction becomes fact?
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Advocate »

The closest to absolute truth we can ever get is measured consensus experience, ie Reality. Each individual instance of truth is a perspective in time, space, and scale, all of which are physical limitations.

Then there's the limitations of cognitive understanding/complexity itself. The universe is infinite, and our brains not so much. The process of knowledge is to find a way to cram the relevant accessible parts of infinite into our tiny brains. There is no Ultimate anything available to us.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
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 12:10 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 11:53 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 11:42 am
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?
Your example is not effective.

Do you what is a liger?

With our current technology it is not impossible to cross a lemon with an orange to get a lemorange.
this is a discussion about the logical relationship between propositions, why are you getting sidetracked with infantile nonsense?

as a matter of extremely fucking simple logic, each of those statements ENTAILS that the other is untrue.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 11:53 am If someone insist a square-circle exists as fact, I would instantly rate that as a fact or truth-claim with 0/100 credibility in contrast to the most credible scientific fact as say 85/100.
Sound weird but any normal rational person will be able to accept that upon clear qualifications.
Well for that you deserve some of Skepdick's totally useful information about non-Euclidian geometry.

I'm more interested in the obvious bulllshit numbers you are using.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 11:53 am It is same with theists claiming the fact and truth that God exists as real - they really make such claims. Just ask IC.
Based on my argument presented I would rate that as a 0/100 truth or fact.
Sound atypical but it can be understood by any rational person.
Seriously, is the concept of entailment too difficult for you to get?
What is so problematic with 'entailment'?
Logical consequence (also entailment) is a fundamental concept in logic, which describes the relationship between statements that hold true when one statement logically follows from one or more statements.
A valid logical argument is one in which the conclusion is entailed by the premises, because the conclusion is the consequence of the premises. The philosophical analysis of logical consequence involves the questions: In what sense does a conclusion follow from its premises? and What does it mean for a conclusion to be a consequence of premises?[1] All of philosophical logic is meant to provide accounts of the nature of logical consequence and the nature of logical truth.
-WIKI
If your first premise is vulnerable to be ambiguous how can your syllogism entail any solid conclusion?

Btw, as I had quoted Kant,
"the advantage of logic is merely due to its limitations"
"Kant in CPR" wrote:That Logic should have been thus successful is an advantage which it owes entirely to its Limitations, whereby it is justified in abstracting indeed, it is under obligation to do so from all Objects of Knowledge and their differences, leaving the Understanding nothing to deal with save itself and its Form.

But for Reason to enter on the sure path of Science is, of course, much more difficult, since it has to deal not with itself alone but also with Objects.

Logic, therefore, as a propaedeutic, forms, as it were, only the vestibule of the sciences; and when we are concerned with specific Modes of Knowledge, while Logic is indeed presupposed in any critical estimate of them, yet for the actual acquiring of them {knowledge} we have to look to the sciences properly so called, that is, to the Objective Sciences.
CPR -Bix
Thus no matter how solid is the logical argument it is fundamentally limited.

You deny above or is logic your 'God'?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 5:36 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 12:10 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 11:53 am
Your example is not effective.

Do you what is a liger?

With our current technology it is not impossible to cross a lemon with an orange to get a lemorange.
this is a discussion about the logical relationship between propositions, why are you getting sidetracked with infantile nonsense?

as a matter of extremely fucking simple logic, each of those statements ENTAILS that the other is untrue.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 11:53 am If someone insist a square-circle exists as fact, I would instantly rate that as a fact or truth-claim with 0/100 credibility in contrast to the most credible scientific fact as say 85/100.
Sound weird but any normal rational person will be able to accept that upon clear qualifications.
Well for that you deserve some of Skepdick's totally useful information about non-Euclidian geometry.

I'm more interested in the obvious bulllshit numbers you are using.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 11:53 am It is same with theists claiming the fact and truth that God exists as real - they really make such claims. Just ask IC.
Based on my argument presented I would rate that as a 0/100 truth or fact.
Sound atypical but it can be understood by any rational person.
Seriously, is the concept of entailment too difficult for you to get?
What is so problematic with 'entailment'?
There shouldn't be much of an issue, but you don't seem to understand it.

An entailment is something that must be the case if X is the case.
so if X is the case, and X is "there are no moral outcomes to interactions between man and animal", then IT MUST BE THE CASE BECAUSE ENTAILMENT THAT: "drowning puppies in the toilet is not morally wrong". Do you understand entialment?

So because of that entailment, it must be the case that "drowning puppies for pleasure or profit is horrible and wrong" is an incorrect statement if X was correct.

Therefore you cannot have a true situation in which there is truth to both...
X: "there are no moral outcomes to interactions between man and animal"
And Y: "getting your dig to lick peanut butter off your nutsack is an abominable activity"

This is a matter of absolutes. There cannot be 20% truth that dog fellatio is naughty.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 5:36 am
Logical consequence (also entailment) is a fundamental concept in logic, which describes the relationship between statements that hold true when one statement logically follows from one or more statements.
A valid logical argument is one in which the conclusion is entailed by the premises, because the conclusion is the consequence of the premises. The philosophical analysis of logical consequence involves the questions: In what sense does a conclusion follow from its premises? and What does it mean for a conclusion to be a consequence of premises?[1] All of philosophical logic is meant to provide accounts of the nature of logical consequence and the nature of logical truth.
-WIKI
If your first premise is vulnerable to be ambiguous how can your syllogism entail any solid conclusion?
Which first premise is ambiguous?
Have I presented any syllogisms in this thread?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 5:36 am Btw, as I had quoted Kant,
"the advantage of logic is merely due to its limitations"
"Kant in CPR" wrote:That Logic should have been thus successful is an advantage which it owes entirely to its Limitations, whereby it is justified in abstracting indeed, it is under obligation to do so from all Objects of Knowledge and their differences, leaving the Understanding nothing to deal with save itself and its Form.

But for Reason to enter on the sure path of Science is, of course, much more difficult, since it has to deal not with itself alone but also with Objects.

Logic, therefore, as a propaedeutic, forms, as it were, only the vestibule of the sciences; and when we are concerned with specific Modes of Knowledge, while Logic is indeed presupposed in any critical estimate of them, yet for the actual acquiring of them {knowledge} we have to look to the sciences properly so called, that is, to the Objective Sciences.
CPR -Bix
Thus no matter how solid is the logical argument it is fundamentally limited.

You deny above or is logic your 'God'?
Lol. sort out your basic logic before trying stunts like that on me.

You don't want to end up like Skepdick desperately arguing that he doesn't need to agree with himself to be right do you?
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 5:57 am Lol. sort out your basic logic before trying stunts like that on me.
Translation: FlashDangerpants is dogmatic about his arbitrarily-chosen logic and will never abandon his faith.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 5:57 am You don't want to end up like Skepdick
So we should end up like you instead?
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 5:57 am desperately arguing that he doesn't need to agree with himself to be right
Desperately pretending that it's others who disagree with themselves and not him.

All while claimimg that different vocabularies (languages) which clearly exist before his eyes are "mutually exclusive".

Perspective A says all lemons are orange.
Perspective B says all lemons are yellow.

I am really hoping (but I very much doubt) you will tell us all about your conflict-resolution strategy. Since there are no privileged descriptions - how have you determined right from wrong?

There is no such thing as "mutual exclusivity" of descriptions!
There is only mutual exclusivity on access. Two people can't take the same lemon at the same time!
Last edited by Skepdick on Sat May 07, 2022 8:33 am, edited 6 times in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 5:57 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 5:36 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 12:10 pm
this is a discussion about the logical relationship between propositions, why are you getting sidetracked with infantile nonsense?

as a matter of extremely fucking simple logic, each of those statements ENTAILS that the other is untrue.



Well for that you deserve some of Skepdick's totally useful information about non-Euclidian geometry.

I'm more interested in the obvious bulllshit numbers you are using.


Seriously, is the concept of entailment too difficult for you to get?
What is so problematic with 'entailment'?
There shouldn't be much of an issue, but you don't seem to understand it.

An entailment is something that must be the case if X is the case.
so if X is the case, and X is "there are no moral outcomes to interactions between man and animal", then IT MUST BE THE CASE BECAUSE ENTAILMENT THAT: "drowning puppies in the toilet is not morally wrong". Do you understand entialment?

So because of that entailment, it must be the case that "drowning puppies for pleasure or profit is horrible and wrong" is an incorrect statement if X was correct.

Therefore you cannot have a true situation in which there is truth to both...
X: "there are no moral outcomes to interactions between man and animal"
And Y: "getting your dig to lick peanut butter off your nutsack is an abominable activity"

This is a matter of absolutes. There cannot be 20% truth that dog fellatio is naughty.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 5:36 am
Logical consequence (also entailment) is a fundamental concept in logic, which describes the relationship between statements that hold true when one statement logically follows from one or more statements.
A valid logical argument is one in which the conclusion is entailed by the premises, because the conclusion is the consequence of the premises. The philosophical analysis of logical consequence involves the questions: In what sense does a conclusion follow from its premises? and What does it mean for a conclusion to be a consequence of premises?[1] All of philosophical logic is meant to provide accounts of the nature of logical consequence and the nature of logical truth.
-WIKI
If your first premise is vulnerable to be ambiguous how can your syllogism entail any solid conclusion?
Which first premise is ambiguous?
Have I presented any syllogisms in this thread?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 5:36 am Btw, as I had quoted Kant,
"the advantage of logic is merely due to its limitations"
"Kant in CPR" wrote:That Logic should have been thus successful is an advantage which it owes entirely to its Limitations, whereby it is justified in abstracting indeed, it is under obligation to do so from all Objects of Knowledge and their differences, leaving the Understanding nothing to deal with save itself and its Form.

But for Reason to enter on the sure path of Science is, of course, much more difficult, since it has to deal not with itself alone but also with Objects.

Logic, therefore, as a propaedeutic, forms, as it were, only the vestibule of the sciences; and when we are concerned with specific Modes of Knowledge, while Logic is indeed presupposed in any critical estimate of them, yet for the actual acquiring of them {knowledge} we have to look to the sciences properly so called, that is, to the Objective Sciences.
CPR -Bix
Thus no matter how solid is the logical argument it is fundamentally limited.

You deny above or is logic your 'God'?
Lol. sort out your basic logic before trying stunts like that on me.

You don't want to end up like Skepdick desperately arguing that he doesn't need to agree with himself to be right do you?
Note my point;

Logic is based on Half-Truths
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34777
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by FlashDangerpants »

I see you trying to create a new thread to avoid the problems you have in this one and I don't care.
Respond if you can to what was already written.

You will need to work out what your position on propositions that entail other propositions is. You will not be able to get around it by trying to claim Kant thinks you are allowed to be in disagreement with yourself any more than hoping that Skepdick's endorsement helps you.

You relied on time and context shifts in order to resolve your problems with logically contradictory statements. That's fine when it works. But it doesn't work here because a moral fact is, unless you really want to bite that bullet, timeless.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 5:36 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 12:10 pm
this is a discussion about the logical relationship between propositions, why are you getting sidetracked with infantile nonsense?

as a matter of extremely fucking simple logic, each of those statements ENTAILS that the other is untrue.



Well for that you deserve some of Skepdick's totally useful information about non-Euclidian geometry.

I'm more interested in the obvious bulllshit numbers you are using.


Seriously, is the concept of entailment too difficult for you to get?
What is so problematic with 'entailment'?
There shouldn't be much of an issue, but you don't seem to understand it.

An entailment is something that must be the case if X is the case.
so if X is the case, and X is "there are no moral outcomes to interactions between man and animal", then IT MUST BE THE CASE BECAUSE ENTAILMENT THAT: "drowning puppies in the toilet is not morally wrong". Do you understand entialment?

So because of that entailment, it must be the case that "drowning puppies for pleasure or profit is horrible and wrong" is an incorrect statement if X was correct.

Therefore you cannot have a true situation in which there is truth to both...
X: "there are no moral outcomes to interactions between man and animal"
And Y: "getting your dig to lick peanut butter off your nutsack is an abominable activity"

This is a matter of absolutes. There cannot be 20% truth that dog fellatio is naughty.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 5:36 am
Logical consequence (also entailment) is a fundamental concept in logic, which describes the relationship between statements that hold true when one statement logically follows from one or more statements.
A valid logical argument is one in which the conclusion is entailed by the premises, because the conclusion is the consequence of the premises. The philosophical analysis of logical consequence involves the questions: In what sense does a conclusion follow from its premises? and What does it mean for a conclusion to be a consequence of premises?[1] All of philosophical logic is meant to provide accounts of the nature of logical consequence and the nature of logical truth.
-WIKI
If your first premise is vulnerable to be ambiguous how can your syllogism entail any solid conclusion?
Which first premise is ambiguous?
Have I presented any syllogisms in this thread?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 5:36 am Btw, as I had quoted Kant,
"the advantage of logic is merely due to its limitations"
"Kant in CPR" wrote:That Logic should have been thus successful is an advantage which it owes entirely to its Limitations, whereby it is justified in abstracting indeed, it is under obligation to do so from all Objects of Knowledge and their differences, leaving the Understanding nothing to deal with save itself and its Form.

But for Reason to enter on the sure path of Science is, of course, much more difficult, since it has to deal not with itself alone but also with Objects.

Logic, therefore, as a propaedeutic, forms, as it were, only the vestibule of the sciences; and when we are concerned with specific Modes of Knowledge, while Logic is indeed presupposed in any critical estimate of them, yet for the actual acquiring of them {knowledge} we have to look to the sciences properly so called, that is, to the Objective Sciences.
CPR -Bix
Thus no matter how solid is the logical argument it is fundamentally limited.

You deny above or is logic your 'God'?
Lol. sort out your basic logic before trying stunts like that on me.

You don't want to end up like Skepdick desperately arguing that he doesn't need to agree with himself to be right do you?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 8:22 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 5:57 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 5:36 am
What is so problematic with 'entailment'?
There shouldn't be much of an issue, but you don't seem to understand it.

An entailment is something that must be the case if X is the case.
so if X is the case, and X is "there are no moral outcomes to interactions between man and animal", then IT MUST BE THE CASE BECAUSE ENTAILMENT THAT: "drowning puppies in the toilet is not morally wrong". Do you understand entialment?

So because of that entailment, it must be the case that "drowning puppies for pleasure or profit is horrible and wrong" is an incorrect statement if X was correct.

Therefore you cannot have a true situation in which there is truth to both...
X: "there are no moral outcomes to interactions between man and animal"
And Y: "getting your dig to lick peanut butter off your nutsack is an abominable activity"

This is a matter of absolutes. There cannot be 20% truth that dog fellatio is naughty.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 5:36 am

If your first premise is vulnerable to be ambiguous how can your syllogism entail any solid conclusion?
Which first premise is ambiguous?
Have I presented any syllogisms in this thread?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 5:36 am Btw, as I had quoted Kant,
"the advantage of logic is merely due to its limitations"



Thus no matter how solid is the logical argument it is fundamentally limited.

You deny above or is logic your 'God'?
Lol. sort out your basic logic before trying stunts like that on me.

You don't want to end up like Skepdick desperately arguing that he doesn't need to agree with himself to be right do you?
Note my point;

Logic is based on Half-Truths
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34777
A logic deals with language, not reality. Other discourses and practices deal with reality, such as the natural sciences. (But any use of language requires the rules of one logic or another.)

Logical rules deal with what can be said consistently, without contradiction. And this isn't a 'limitation', pace Kant. It doesn't involve an abstraction from the objects of knowledge, any more than language does.

And the claim that language is itself an abstraction (with limitations) demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what language is and how it works - based on mentalist fantasies such as 'the objects of knowledge' (with supposedly no limitations).
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 8:45 am A logic deals with language, not reality. Other discourses and practices deal with reality, such as the natural sciences. (But any use of language requires the rules of one logic or another.)

Logical rules deal with what can be said consistently, without contradiction. And this isn't a 'limitation', pace Kant. It doesn't involve an abstraction from the objects of knowledge, any more than language does.

And the claim that language is itself an abstraction (with limitations) demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what language is and how it works - based on mentalist fantasies such as 'the objects of knowledge' (with supposedly no limitations).
There are no limitations to language/logic a priori. You can say anything you want to about whatever you want to!

Free speech absolutism would be true if there were no moral limitations on language.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 8:45 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 8:22 am Note my point;

Logic is based on Half-Truths
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34777
A logic deals with language, not reality. Other discourses and practices deal with reality, such as the natural sciences. (But any use of language requires the rules of one logic or another.)

Logical rules deal with what can be said consistently, without contradiction. And this isn't a 'limitation', pace Kant. It doesn't involve an abstraction from the objects of knowledge, any more than language does.

And the claim that language is itself an abstraction (with limitations) demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what language is and how it works - based on mentalist fantasies such as 'the objects of knowledge' (with supposedly no limitations).
The point is regardless whether it is language or logic, both are based on abstractions, thus based on half-truths.
How can you deny this truth?

Nah, note Wittgenstein critique of language with his language games.

It is the same with your definition of what is fact which is purely based on language games. As such you cannot be that arrogant with your definition of what is fact in trying to override my more realistic definition of what is fact.

I am relying heavily of the scientific FSK to support my moral FSK and moral facts.

Scientific facts [in addition to mathematical] are the most credible at present, but they are nevertheless at best merely polished conjectures.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 9:04 am I am relying heavily of the scientific FSK to support my moral FSK and moral facts.

Scientific facts [in addition to mathematical] are the most credible at present, but they are nevertheless at best merely polished conjectures.
Heavily, but pseudiferously. You are aping the look and feel of scientific method to the best of your abilities. But you are making up fake numbers for all of it, you are doing pseudoscience and magical thinking.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 9:11 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 9:04 am I am relying heavily of the scientific FSK to support my moral FSK and moral facts.

Scientific facts [in addition to mathematical] are the most credible at present, but they are nevertheless at best merely polished conjectures.
Heavily, but pseudiferously. You are aping the look and feel of scientific method to the best of your abilities. But you are making up fake numbers for all of it, you are doing pseudoscience and magical thinking.
Whatever I am going to propose I will make sure it is soundly verified and justified.
As a gnat you are ignorant and assuming I am like you.

I intend to bring in verified knowledge from various fields of knowledge [as evidence from many scientific course I had taken and intend to take] to justify and support my thesis.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 9:24 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 9:11 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 9:04 am I am relying heavily of the scientific FSK to support my moral FSK and moral facts.

Scientific facts [in addition to mathematical] are the most credible at present, but they are nevertheless at best merely polished conjectures.
Heavily, but pseudiferously. You are aping the look and feel of scientific method to the best of your abilities. But you are making up fake numbers for all of it, you are doing pseudoscience and magical thinking.
Whatever I am going to propose I will make sure it is soundly verified and justified.
As a gnat you are ignorant and assuming I am like you.

I intend to bring in verified knowledge from various fields of knowledge [as evidence from many scientific course I had taken and intend to take] to justify and support my thesis.
Please remind us that you are in no way indicating expertise in any scientific field in which you have done nothing but a 6 week intro course that offers no college credit.

You will fail to soundly verify or justify your numbers. none of the numbers you have routinely used to indicate how great you are and how insignifcant things you don't like are has ever been justified or even meaningful. What reason does anybody have to believe your new boast that some numbers you have et to share will be any better?
Post Reply