Re: Individualism vs. Collectivism
Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2020 4:16 pm
Well, don't worry about it. I've explained it as well as I could.
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
Well, don't worry about it. I've explained it as well as I could.
Well, perhaps. But you really have not explained, RC. When you wrote:RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 4:16 pmWell, don't worry about it. I've explained it as well as I could.
Surely such matters are always about negotiations and never about the claims themselves?
Actually, I can and have, in many places throughout this forum. But you're a comparatively recent arrival here, so it's understandable if you haven't been privy to all of that.
It's hardly anybody's fault that. you can't produce enough evidence, is it?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 5:52 pmActually, I can and have, in many places throughout this forum. But you're a comparatively recent arrival here, so it's understandable if you haven't been privy to all of that.
What such discussions have shown, though is that no matter how good the evidence is that one produces, an obdurate Atheist is always capable of finding an excuse not to consider it. And so long as they have closed their minds to the evidence, they always feel justified in claiming that they haven't been presented with any.
So you'll have to forgive me if I don't recycle old arguments here -- particularly those in which you are likely not to be very interested anyway. Besides, on this particular strand of discussion, it obviously would not be presently salient.
Exactly what I said.
That is not at all what you said. What you said was "What such discussions have shown, though is that no matter how good the evidence is that one produces, an obdurate Atheist is always capable of finding an excuse not to consider it."
That's a strawman. As I have just conceded - you have indeed produced evidence. So nobody (certainly not me anyway) is claiming that there is no evidence.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 6:04 pm There's enough evidence. But those who aren't interested in considering any evidence anyway will always insist there's none.
Much like your evidence falls short, so did your "demonstration".
You may say so...I expected you would.
Sure, but I was never looking for a conversation. I was only looking for an answer.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 6:37 pmYou may say so...I expected you would.
And, as fascinating, intellectually stimulating and productive as the present conversation is, I'm happy to forgo the pleasure with you on this particular occasion.
Mr Can, I don't think anyone familiar with your oeuvre would deny that you have presented a great deal of evidence. And yes, even atheists such as myself would concede that your god hypothesis may in fact be true. The problem is that you haven't presented any piece of evidence for which a 'supreme being' is the best hypothesis, let alone the only plausible hypothesis. Your sloppy argument that "Atheists" are "irrational" is dependent on your insistence that they are making the claim that god does not exist. I agree with you that no such claim can be conclusively demonstrated, but as has been pointed out to you many times, very few people who identify as atheists are making any ontological claim. It could be that god does exist, and you are free to believe it, but you do not know it in any way that you have managed to share.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 6:04 pmThere's enough evidence. But those who aren't interested in considering any evidence anyway will always insist there's none.
I made the mistake of thinking you knew how someone used their mind to learn, reason and choose. I obviously made a mistake.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 5:33 pm "Some actually are willing for others to use their own minds and come to their own beliefs," you said no more about how that worked out.
What do you mean you, "have to think." How can I know what that means when, "you said no more about how that works?" [See how stupid that argument is.] What did you use to do that thinking if it was not your mind? It was your mind and you know perfectly well how one uses it. Why pretend you don't.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 5:33 pm I can imagine why. I have to think that really, you didn't mean anything particular by it at all.
No, I did not imply anything at all. I said explicitly what I meant and any sixth grader would have understood it perfectly.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 5:33 pm You only, perhaps, meant to imply that people who don't hold to (what they personally imagine to be) "individual" beliefs (whatever those are -- you don't say) are "not using their own minds," and are not "coming to" authentic or worthwhile "beliefs."
Well, you almost have it. Whatever anyone believes, whether it's correct or not, the only faculty they have for thinking, however well or poorly they do it, is their mind.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 5:33 pm Now, obviously the assumptions here are very assailable, since it it obvious that individual thinkers can have very bad beliefs, no matter how original they are; and that all beliefs are instances of "using the mind" for something -- just as you have pointed out that knowledge of any kind is always an instance of "mind use" in the most vague, extended sense.
What claim? That people have minds? You want me to abandon the claim people have minds? Or is it,"if people think it is their minds that do that thinking," that Is the claim you want me to abandon? Or is it, "what people believe is determined by what they choose to think," the claim you want me to abandon?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 5:33 pm But perhaps my fault is that I'm dwelling too precisely on a claim you only meant to be rhetorical...
So I'm content if you now wish to abandon the claim.
Yes, that's true. You didn't consider that a person can "learn," "reason" and "choose" bad things. But as I said, I won't hold you to something you didn't mean to say.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 9:07 pmI made the mistake of thinking you knew how someone used their mind to learn, reason and choose. I obviously made a mistake.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 5:33 pm "Some actually are willing for others to use their own minds and come to their own beliefs," you said no more about how that worked out.
I "have to think" it because you can't explain it. It's the most obvious explanation when someone says they didn't mean anything by what they said.What do you mean you, "have to think."Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 5:33 pm I can imagine why. I have to think that really, you didn't mean anything particular by it at all.
A sentence that "implies nothing" means one that has no intention behind it, and no particular meaning. I'm pretty sure that's not what you're wanting to say here. But if it is, correct me.No, I did not imply anything at all.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 5:33 pm You only, perhaps, meant to imply that people who don't hold to (what they personally imagine to be) "individual" beliefs (whatever those are -- you don't say) are "not using their own minds," and are not "coming to" authentic or worthwhile "beliefs."
Yes, that's true, if rather obvious. So the mere fact of "using their minds" will not help anyone to know that their beliefs are good or true. Bad beliefs are also created by "using their minds."Whatever anyone believes, whether it's correct or not, the only faculty they have for thinking, however well or poorly they do it, is their mind.
Well, as you wish, then.If it makes you content, just forget whatever it is you think I'm claiming.
Well, you know - if this was just about amusement, fine. But in your very own words....
Your mind is a paragon for a mind that has come to very bad or foolish beliefs.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 3:15 pm For it is equally clear that other people "use" their "minds" to come to very bad or foolish beliefs.