VA's Contradictions?

[Atla]

To be charged with claims that are contradictory is a serious charge.
I won't leave this unchallenged.
Those who think I have present contradictions, show me precisely where?

I am not perfect thus it is possible I may have presented a contradictions and if true I will correct it. There is no way I will insist on it.

We are dealing with issues with a lot of nuances.
It is very likely the charge of contradiction against me is due to the other's ignorance and misinterpretations rather than my oversight.

In this last week you put out positions that contradict your own positions at least as much as those of others, but you don't notice this.
You don't notice that when you respond to people, most of the time, much of your response is a re-assertion of your position.

In this case, it is most likely IWP was ignorant and misunderstood my point.
I am waiting for the details of his charge against me.

So, those who think I have presented contradictions, show me precisely where?

Holding a 100% unknowable noumenon philosophy while claiming not to be a solipsist for literally ALL intents and purposes?

[iambiguous]

To be charged with claims that are contradictory is a serious charge.
I won't leave this unchallenged.
Those who think I have present contradictions, show me precisely where?

I am not perfect thus it is possible I may have presented a contradictions and if true I will correct it. There is no way I will insist on it.

We are dealing with issues with a lot of nuances.
It is very likely the charge of contradiction against me is due to the other's ignorance and misinterpretations rather than my oversight.

In this last week you put out positions that contradict your own positions at least as much as those of others, but you don't notice this.
You don't notice that when you respond to people, most of the time, much of your response is a re-assertion of your position.

In this case, it is most likely IWP was ignorant and misunderstood my point.
I am waiting for the details of his charge against me.

So, those who think I have presented contradictions, show me precisely where?

We'll need a context, of course.

Let's take these theoretical conjectures over to the Applied Ethics board and, given a moral conflagration of note, explore just what it means "for all practical purposes" to be or not to be contradictory in regard to actual conflicting goods.

[Atla]

To be charged with claims that are contradictory is a serious charge.
I won't leave this unchallenged.
Those who think I have present contradictions, show me precisely where?

I am not perfect thus it is possible I may have presented a contradictions and if true I will correct it. There is no way I will insist on it.

We are dealing with issues with a lot of nuances.
It is very likely the charge of contradiction against me is due to the other's ignorance and misinterpretations rather than my oversight.

In this last week you put out positions that contradict your own positions at least as much as those of others, but you don't notice this.
You don't notice that when you respond to people, most of the time, much of your response is a re-assertion of your position.

In this case, it is most likely IWP was ignorant and misunderstood my point.
I am waiting for the details of his charge against me.

So, those who think I have presented contradictions, show me precisely where?

We'll need a context, of course.

Let's take these theoretical conjectures over to the Applied Ethics board and, given a moral conflagration of note, explore just what it means "for all practical purposes" to be or not to be contradictory in regard to actual conflicting goods.

Why, can't you think about such issues in a general manner?

[iambiguous]

To be charged with claims that are contradictory is a serious charge.
I won't leave this unchallenged.
Those who think I have present contradictions, show me precisely where?

I am not perfect thus it is possible I may have presented a contradictions and if true I will correct it. There is no way I will insist on it.

We are dealing with issues with a lot of nuances.
It is very likely the charge of contradiction against me is due to the other's ignorance and misinterpretations rather than my oversight.


In this case, it is most likely IWP was ignorant and misunderstood my point.
I am waiting for the details of his charge against me.

So, those who think I have presented contradictions, show me precisely where?

We'll need a context, of course.

Let's take these theoretical conjectures over to the Applied Ethics board and, given a moral conflagration of note, explore just what it means "for all practical purposes" to be or not to be contradictory in regard to actual conflicting goods.

Why, can't you think about such issues in a general manner?

Sure. But now I'm inviting those who do think about human morality theoretically to take their "general description philosophical assessments" down out of the didactic, technical clouds and note their applicability in regard to actual human interactions that do come into conflict over value judgments.



Or, perhaps, as Iwannabeplato might suggest, I'm "hijacking" the thread.

[Atla]

We'll need a context, of course.

Let's take these theoretical conjectures over to the Applied Ethics board and, given a moral conflagration of note, explore just what it means "for all practical purposes" to be or not to be contradictory in regard to actual conflicting goods.

Why, can't you think about such issues in a general manner?

Sure. But now I'm inviting those who do think about human morality theoretically to take their "general description philosophical assessments" down out of the didactic, technical clouds and note their applicability in regard to actual human interactions that do come into conflict over value judgments.



Or, perhaps, as Iwannabeplato might suggest, I'm "hijacking" the thread.

What do most of VA's contradictions have to do with morality? And your technical clouds seem to be floating just above the ground, you sure you're not in a hole? How are contradictions useful in either the technical fog or in your hole?

[iambiguous]

What do most of VA's contradictions have to do with morality?

More to the point [mine] what on Earth do his points [contradictory or otherwise] have to do with the conflicting goods that we confront day after day "in the news"?

Not much if you are one of Will Durant's "epistemologists".

And your technical clouds seem to be floating just above the ground, you sure you're not in a hole? How are contradictions useful in either the technical fog or in your hole?

Not sure what your point is here. Yes, theoretically and for all practical purposes, I have dug myself down into a truly caustic hole. I have thought myself into believing that given a No God world [which is no more than an assumption] my own existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless. At least until I tumble over into the abyss that is oblivion.

So, sure, if others who are not down in that hole themselves can propose arguments that might convince me that being in the hole is irrational...?

I can only try to persuade them to bring their theoretical assumptions over to the Applied Ethics board and examine their applicability given a particular set of circumstances revolving around existing social, political and economic interactions.

They either will or they won't.

[Atla]

What do most of VA's contradictions have to do with morality?

More to the point [mine] what on Earth do his points [contradictory or otherwise] have to do with the conflicting goods that we confront day after day "in the news"?

Not much if you are one of Will Durant's "epistemologists".

Why should everything be about these banal "conflicting goods" even on a philosophy forum?

[iambiguous]

What do most of VA's contradictions have to do with morality?

More to the point [mine] what on Earth do his points [contradictory or otherwise] have to do with the conflicting goods that we confront day after day "in the news"?

Not much if you are one of Will Durant's "epistemologists".

Why should everything be about these banal "conflicting goods" even on a philosophy forum?

Banal conflicting goods?!!!

Tell that to the folks in Gaza and Ukraine. Tell that to the folks in Alabama who are murdering embryonic children. Tell that to those on both sides of the gun control debate. Tell that to anyone on one side or the other regarding all of the many other moral conflicts that beset us.

Besides, I'm not arguing that everything should be about conflicting goods...only that, eventually, well, what's the point of exchanging dueling definitions and deductions if they are almost never pertinent to the world we actually live in?

I'm merely inviting ethical theorists here to walk the talk. In other words, given actual circumstances pertaining to moral and political conflicts of note. In particular the moral objectivists. And the moral realists. If, as they insist, there are "mind-independent moral facts in the universe" let them note them given a particular set of circumstances.

[Atla]

More to the point [mine] what on Earth do his points [contradictory or otherwise] have to do with the conflicting goods that we confront day after day "in the news"?

Not much if you are one of Will Durant's "epistemologists".

Why should everything be about these banal "conflicting goods" even on a philosophy forum?

Banal conflicting goods?!!!

Tell that to the folks in Gaza and Ukraine. Tell that to the folks in Alabama who are murdering embryonic children. Tell that to those on both sides of the gun control debate. Tell that to anyone on one side or the other regarding all of the many other moral conflicts that beset us.

Besides, I'm not arguing that everything should be about conflicting goods...only that, eventually, well, what's the point of exchanging dueling definitions and deductions if they are almost never pertinent to the world we actually live in?

I'm merely inviting ethical theorists here to walk the talk. In other words, given actual circumstances pertaining to moral and political conflicts of note. In particular the moral objectivists. And the moral realists. If, as they insist, there are "mind-independent moral facts in the universe" let them note them given a particular set of circumstances.

Yes banal. I guess you are perplexed by such topics because you can't read people very well. But most people are fairly simple and easy to understand to some, so are their values and behaviours. Personally I only marginally consider this stuff to be philosophy at all, though it may be viewed as such.

[iambiguous]

Why should everything be about these banal "conflicting goods" even on a philosophy forum?

Banal conflicting goods?!!!

Tell that to the folks in Gaza and Ukraine. Tell that to the folks in Alabama who are murdering embryonic children. Tell that to those on both sides of the gun control debate. Tell that to anyone on one side or the other regarding all of the many other moral conflicts that beset us.

Besides, I'm not arguing that everything should be about conflicting goods...only that, eventually, well, what's the point of exchanging dueling definitions and deductions if they are almost never pertinent to the world we actually live in?

I'm merely inviting ethical theorists here to walk the talk. In other words, given actual circumstances pertaining to moral and political conflicts of note. In particular the moral objectivists. And the moral realists. If, as they insist, there are "mind-independent moral facts in the universe" let them note them given a particular set of circumstances.

Yes banal. I guess you are perplexed by such topics because you can't read people very well. But most people are fairly simple and easy to understand to some, so are their values and behaviours. Personally I only marginally consider this stuff to be philosophy at all, though it may be viewed as such.

Anyone else?

Seriously, though, how about you and I exploring your own theoretical assumptions about "reading people well"" in regard to a particular moral conflict that is of importance to you.

Or does that miss the whole point about philosophy for those here who take it seriously?

[Atla]

Banal conflicting goods?!!!

Tell that to the folks in Gaza and Ukraine. Tell that to the folks in Alabama who are murdering embryonic children. Tell that to those on both sides of the gun control debate. Tell that to anyone on one side or the other regarding all of the many other moral conflicts that beset us.

Besides, I'm not arguing that everything should be about conflicting goods...only that, eventually, well, what's the point of exchanging dueling definitions and deductions if they are almost never pertinent to the world we actually live in?

I'm merely inviting ethical theorists here to walk the talk. In other words, given actual circumstances pertaining to moral and political conflicts of note. In particular the moral objectivists. And the moral realists. If, as they insist, there are "mind-independent moral facts in the universe" let them note them given a particular set of circumstances.

Yes banal. I guess you are perplexed by such topics because you can't read people very well. But most people are fairly simple and easy to understand to some, so are their values and behaviours. Personally I only marginally consider this stuff to be philosophy at all, though it may be viewed as such.

Anyone else?

Seriously, though, how about you and I exploring your own theoretical assumptions about "reading people well"" in regard to a particular moral conflict that is of importance to you.

Or does that miss the whole point about philosophy for those here who take it seriously?

You want me to be serious? Okay: my morality broke after realizing that humans almost certainly will destroy themselves in this century. Probably already by 2060.

[iambiguous]

Yes banal. I guess you are perplexed by such topics because you can't read people very well. But most people are fairly simple and easy to understand to some, so are their values and behaviours. Personally I only marginally consider this stuff to be philosophy at all, though it may be viewed as such.

Anyone else?

Seriously, though, how about you and I exploring your own theoretical assumptions about "reading people well"" in regard to a particular moral conflict that is of importance to you.

Or does that miss the whole point about philosophy for those here who take it seriously?

You want me to be serious? Okay: my morality broke after realizing that humans almost certainly will destroy themselves in this century. Probably already by 2060.

Well, my own frame of mind here revolves around the assumption that in a No God world it is not inherently/necessarily moral that the human race survives at all. And while some benefit from the policies that sustain the fossil fuel industry and the military industrial complex, others do not.

Thus, just as you think as you do about all this, others think the opposite.

Then this part...

There are two ways in which we can come to a point of view pertaining to value judgments. On the one hand, we can spend hours and hours and hours actually thinking about the pros and the cons of the behaviors we derive from our particular value judgments. We can then try to have as many different experiences as possible relating to those behaviors; and we can discuss them with as many different people as possible in order to get diverse points of view; and we can try to acquire as much knowledge and information about these behaviors/value judgments in order to be fully informed on it.

On the other hand, based on my own experience, most folks don't do this it all. Instead, they live in a particular time and place, acquire a particular set of experiences, accumulate a particular set of relationships and acquire particular sources of knowledge and information -- which then comes [fortuitously] over the years to predispose them to particular subjective points of view that might well have changed over and again throughout the years. And, indeed, may well change many times more.

Mine certainly did.

[Iwannaplato]

We'll need a context, of course.

The OP gives a context. VA is asking people who think he has contradicted him to point out the contradictions and argue that they are in fact contradictions.

That's the context you fucking narcisist. Your post has nothing to do with the context and you post what you often post as if someone addressed something to you on one of your pet issues.

And then you advertise for one of your threads.

Let's take these theoretical conjectures over to the Applied Ethics board and, given a moral conflagration of note, explore just what it means "for all practical purposes" to be or not to be contradictory in regard to actual conflicting goods.

What the fuck is wrong with you?
You're supposed to be a nihilist.
But you write We need a context, when in fact this post is just about what you want.
You universalize your wants, but we're supposed to buy you're a nihilist moral antirealist.

And then you pretend that somehow what you want has something to do with this thread.
I end up just hoping you're a moron. It's the most charitable explanation.

[iambiguous]

I knew this was coming!!!

We'll need a context, of course.

The OP gives a context. VA is asking people who think he has contradicted him to point out the contradictions and argue that they are in fact contradictions.

Right, like that's the sort of context I mean.

That's the context you fucking narcisist. Your post has nothing to do with the context and you post what you often post as if someone addressed something to you on one of your pet issues.

I admitted that, basically. I posted in order to entice those here who might be interested in exploring contradictions pertaining to the sort of contexts -- actual moral conflicts -- that I am interested in. Doesn't interest you? Okay, by me.

My pet issue here revolves instead around attempts to nudge those preoccupied with human morality theoretically, into bringing that assessment down out of the didactic clouds.

Let's take these theoretical conjectures over to the Applied Ethics board and, given a moral conflagration of note, explore just what it means "for all practical purposes" to be or not to be contradictory in regard to actual conflicting goods.

What the fuck is wrong with you?
You're supposed to be a nihilist.
But you write We need a context, when in fact this post is just about what you want.

Huh? There are zillions of threads from those here at PN intent on exchanging moral dictums theoretically. Do you find me posting in them? Nope. I responded to this one on impulse. VA reflects everything that concerns me most about academic philosophy. And him in particular because his threads are almost always related to that which is most important to me: morality in a No God world.

"How ought one to behave morally in a world bursting at the seams with both conflicting goods and contingency, chance and change"?

That's always been my "thing" here, along with discussions of the Big Questions.

As for this...

You universalize your wants, but we're supposed to buy you're a nihilist moral antirealist.
And then you pretend that somehow what you want has something to do with this thread.
I end up just hoping you're a moron. It's the most charitable explanation.

...I always find myself coming back to the assumption that my own moral philosophy disturbs you. Concerned perhaps that you too might one day find yourself "fractured and fragmented" in regard to conflicting goods?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Embodied Realism:
Mind: Seen as fundamentally embodied, meaning it is shaped by and inseparable from the body and its interactions with the environment.
Thought: Considered as largely unconscious and grounded in embodied experiences like sensorimotor activities and emotions.
Knowledge: Arises from embodied interactions, with basic-level concepts (e.g., chair, hot) being directly linked to bodily experiences.
Metaphors: Seen as not just linguistic but also as fundamental structures of thought, shaping how we categorize, reason, and understand the world.
Here are some key points to remember:

and

Non-Conceptualization
•Definition: Direct, unmediated experience without the use of concepts or categories.
•Role of Thought: Pre-conceptual, based on immediate sensory input and emotional response.
•Source of Knowledge: Direct engagement with the world through the senses and emotions.
•Examples: Experiencing the taste of a piece of chocolate, appreciating the beauty of a sunset, feeling the connection with another person.

Do not work together, but they have been presented as representing VA and their negations as representing the people who disagree with him.

Direct, unmediated experience, the very idea of it goes directly against Embodied realism.

Embodied realism is ALL ABOUT MEDIATION. Contradiction 1

If one wants to say there are preconceptual and conceptual stages in experiences or types of experiencing the problem is (for VA) that we are dealing with a form of realism. Raw experience of X. Of something, and this is somehow unaffected by the filters and non-verbal attitudes and outlooks our bodies give us. This does not fit with antirealisms or idealisms.

Direct, unmediated experience

In dreams perhaps, but not in situations using our senses. Unless one wants to throw out the entire FSK of sensory physiology where ALL perception is mediated (literally involved a number of media and also involving all sorts of translations processes: in vision photons travelling t hrough the air, striking the retina, triggering nerve cascades, interpreted by the brain and so on. this is mediation several times over and is not in any way DIRECT. all this coming from the scientific FSK (physics/sensory physiology) the FSK that VA has said many, many times is the most reliable.) Contradiction s (though it could be argued there are several involved)

And notice this

: “We have no direct access to the world as it is in itself, independent of any conceptualization. We can only experience the world as we can conceptualize it, using our conceptual systems.”

That ought to put the nail in the coffin of mixing embodied realism and non-conceptualism. It also causes problems for claiming he isn't a realist. That is a realist formulation.

And let's put a nail in that second coffin.

“We are realists in the sense that we believe that there is a real world that exists independently of us and that we can know something about it. But we are not naive realists in the sense that we do not believe that we have direct, unmediated, or complete access to that world. We are cognitive realists in the sense that we take seriously the results of cognitive science, which show that human understanding is shaped by the body and the brain, and that all thought is embodied in some way.”

I don't want to waste my time addressing the above because it too messy and it is likely you will insist I have not address this point or that point, blah, blah, blah.

What I noted is this;
"Direct, unmediated experience, the very idea of it goes directly against Embodied realism."

I updated this;
see viewtopic.php?p=696972#p696972
Embodied Realism accepts (1) and (2), but denies that we have any access to (3).
2.The Directness Aspect: The lack of any mind-body Gap.

So Embodied Realism entails 'direct unmediated experience' so, your statement
"Direct, unmediated experience, the very idea of it goes directly against Embodied realism" is wrong.

To present any contradiction, make it simple, like;
You stated p and not-p are the same, i.e. give me the details where I claim p and not-p are the same.

Like FDP stated I claim relative objective is true, but to him is a contradiction. I have explained why it is not a contradiction.

I had claimed a realist is an antirealist at the same time. First glance it is a contradiction but I have explained why it is not a contradiction if in the different sense.
see: A Realist is also an [AntiRealist] Idealist
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32913

I am an antirealist [epistemology] but also a realist [morality] at the same time but note the different senses.

To show any real contradiction I have presented, show that
I have accepted p and not-p at the same time AND in the same sense.

Something like;

• Here is your P:
  (give details)
  
  Here is your NOT-P on the same issue:
  (give details)
  
  Then show where I have accept p and not-p at the same time AND in the same sense.

So it is critical you check, if at the same time, did I accept them in different senses.