VA's Contradictions?

[Veritas Aequitas]

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?

Using science, which has the refutation of your 100% unknowable noumenon philosophy, as the main pillar of your philosophy?

Didn't ChatGpt advise you the noumenon is 100% unknowable.
To attempt to 'know' the 'unknowable' is an oxymoron.
That is your contradiction, at the same time in the same sense.

If you think there is a contradiction in my views,
Can you present the contradiction in this format?

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.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Age is here. Finally, a true intellectual match for VA. I think we should all grab a bag of popcorn and watch the great minds hash it out.

You think I am that stupid. I read him long ago.
I wonder it took how long you realized Age's shebang.

[Atla]

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.

Obviously

And while some benefit from the policies that sustain the fossil fuel industry and the military industrial complex, others do not.

Obviously

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

Since we're serious here: they're simply wrong.

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.

And again, this is obviously wrong as you aren't considering a third major factor, individual psychology which predisposes people towards certain values. And makes many people resistant to change.

[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 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?

Using science, which has the refutation of your 100% unknowable noumenon philosophy, as the main pillar of your philosophy?

Didn't ChatGpt advise you the noumenon is 100% unknowable.
To attempt to 'know' the 'unknowable' is an oxymoron.
That is your contradiction, at the same time in the same sense.

If you think there is a contradiction in my views,
Can you present the contradiction in this format?

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.

I just did: Using science, which has the refutation of your 100% unknowable noumenon philosophy, as the main pillar of your philosophy.

Do you speak English?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Using science, which has the refutation of your 100% unknowable noumenon philosophy, as the main pillar of your philosophy?

Didn't ChatGpt advise you the noumenon is 100% unknowable.
To attempt to 'know' the 'unknowable' is an oxymoron.
That is your contradiction, at the same time in the same sense.

If you think there is a contradiction in my views,
Can you present the contradiction in this format?

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.

I just did: Using science, which has the refutation of your 100% unknowable noumenon philosophy, as the main pillar of your philosophy.

Do you speak English?

"No, I don't speak English."

[Atla]

Didn't ChatGpt advise you the noumenon is 100% unknowable.
To attempt to 'know' the 'unknowable' is an oxymoron.
That is your contradiction, at the same time in the same sense.

If you think there is a contradiction in my views,
Can you present the contradiction in this format?

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.

I just did: Using science, which has the refutation of your 100% unknowable noumenon philosophy, as the main pillar of your philosophy.

Do you speak English?

"No, I don't speak English."

Can you at least comprehend that if the CPR was only about things we really 100% possibly can't know anything about, the noumenon-X, then the CPR would have been 1-2 lines long? What do you think the rest is for?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I just did: Using science, which has the refutation of your 100% unknowable noumenon philosophy, as the main pillar of your philosophy.

Do you speak English?

"No, I don't speak English."

Can you at least comprehend that if the CPR was only about things we really 100% possibly can't know anything about, the noumenon-X, then the CPR would have been 1-2 lines long? What do you think the rest is for?

Since I started to now I would have read the whole of CPR at least 50x and more with specific chapters.
You can insist I am ignorant of it.

Kant's CPR is divided into 4 main sections;
1. Transcendental Aesthetic - sensibility
2. Transcendental Analytic - Intellect, conceptual, Noumenon
3. Transcendental Idealistic -Illusory thing-in-itself beyond experience
4. Doctrine and Method.

By the point Kant introduced the noumenon he is already half-way into his CPR and he has other more critical projects which the illusory thing-in-itself is a critical idea.

After establishing the noumenon as a limit to what can or possible to be experienced, Kant explained how the idea of the noumenon is transposed as a thing-in-itself to the idea of a soul, whole-world and God which are common beliefs by theists. Kant demonstrated that these ideas of the thing-in-itself are merely illusory but do have useful utilities, i.e. therapeutic, to guide science to move forward and most off as a useful illusion for his project on morality.
Using the idea of the illusory thing-in-itself, Kant went on to write 3 books on morality.

So to justify the strength of his moral theories, Kant has to trace it back to the thing-in-itself, to the noumenon and to objective reality that is empirically verifiable.

Where you and your like fit in is related to the therapeutic factor, i.e. clinging onto to a knowable-noumenon [actually an illusion] to soothe your cognitive dissonance just like the theists using the illusory thing-in-itself as their God.

[Atla]

"No, I don't speak English."

Can you at least comprehend that if the CPR was only about things we really 100% possibly can't know anything about, the noumenon-X, then the CPR would have been 1-2 lines long? What do you think the rest is for?

Since I started to now I would have read the whole of CPR at least 50x and more with specific chapters.
You can insist I am ignorant of it.

Kant's CPR is divided into 4 main sections;
1. Transcendental Aesthetic - sensibility
2. Transcendental Analytic - Intellect, conceptual, Noumenon
3. Transcendental Idealistic -Illusory thing-in-itself beyond experience
4. Doctrine and Method.

By the point Kant introduced the noumenon he is already half-way into his CPR and he has other more critical projects which the illusory thing-in-itself is a critical idea.

After establishing the noumenon as a limit to what can or possible to be experienced, Kant explained how the idea of the noumenon is transposed as a thing-in-itself to the idea of a soul, whole-world and God which are common beliefs by theists. Kant demonstrated that these ideas of the thing-in-itself are merely illusory but do have useful utilities, i.e. therapeutic, to guide science to move forward and most off as a useful illusion for his project on morality.
Using the idea of the illusory thing-in-itself, Kant went on to write 3 books on morality.

So to justify the strength of his moral theories, Kant has to trace it back to the thing-in-itself, to the noumenon and to objective reality that is empirically verifiable.

Where you and your like fit in is related to the therapeutic factor, i.e. clinging onto to a knowable-noumenon [actually an illusion] to soothe your cognitive dissonance just like the theists using the illusory thing-in-itself as their God.

And according to science the noumenon is partially knowable and Kant is wrong. Now read it again:

"Using science, which has the refutation of your 100% unknowable noumenon philosophy, as the main pillar of your philosophy."

[Flannel Jesus]

Age is here. Finally, a true intellectual match for VA. I think we should all grab a bag of popcorn and watch the great minds hash it out.

You think I am that stupid.

Yes, I think you are neighbours in iq-space. Your nonsense threads insisting you get to tell other people what they believe are some real low iq shit. Your communication of your ideas around realism are consistently terrible - I'm not even saying the ideas are bad, I'm saying I have no idea if they're bad or not because you can't present a picture coherent enough to even judge. Everything you say is just ad-hoc slapped together for your immediate satisfaction, but meaningless to everyone else. It's like you don't have an editor in your brain.

Please be aware that I don't think these things of you just because you're an anti realist - not all anti realists rant about how they get to decide what other people believe, not all anti realists are completely incapable of presenting a coherent picture of their world view, etc. I don't think these things of people just because they happen to disagree with me about some issues, I only think it after repeat interactions where they show themselves impervious to even the most straight forward types of reason. You seem impervious to reason.

[Iwannaplato]

You think I am that stupid.

In some ways utterly untrained and unwilling to consider this is the case.
Missing fundamental training and experience with justification.
To the degree that you cannot evaluate incoming critiques or your own 'arguments', which are generally haphazard assertions.
To the degree that you think restating your positions in new words is responding to points made by others.

We probably will not be able to 'prove this to you' for precisely the same reasons.
But somewhere in all this time, with very similar critiques coming from a variety of people with different philosophical positions, one would hope you would consider that there is something going on you simply lack the skills to evaluate and seemingly also lack either the interest or the kind of bravery that is necessary to go into cognitive dissonance.

[Flannel Jesus]

To the degree that you think restating your positions in new words is responding to points made by others.

We probably will not be able to 'prove this to you' for precisely the same reasons.

"Ow! Why did you hit me on the head?!"

My impression of the nail.

[iambiguous]

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.

And again, this is obviously wrong as you aren't considering a third major factor, individual psychology which predisposes people towards certain values. And makes many people resistant to change.

Human psychology will always be tricky here. Why? Because, well, you tell me: when, in regard to it, do genes give way to memes? When does nature give way to nurture? When do so-called "biological imperatives" give way to ever evolving and changing human interactions given human history to date?

And the word "predisposed" is also rather ambiguous. Where, out in a particular world understood in a particular way, does one draw the line between 1] being predisposed existentially to embrace one or another moral and political philosophy, and 2] being certain that one's own moral and political convictions are the optimal frame of mind?

And once philosophers do acknowledge [given your take or my take here] that people are resistant to change, what do they propose as a way in which to entice them over to something in the way of a deontological moral and political agenda?

Is VA willing to explore those alleged "contradictions" with me over at the Applied Ethics board?

Given a context of his choice?

[Atla]

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.

And again, this is obviously wrong as you aren't considering a third major factor, individual psychology which predisposes people towards certain values. And makes many people resistant to change.

Human psychology will always be tricky here. Why? Because, well, you tell me: when, in regard to it, do genes give way to memes? When does nature give way to nurture? When do so-called "biological imperatives" give way to ever evolving and changing human interactions given human history to date?

And the word "predisposed" is also rather ambiguous. Where, out in a particular world understood in a particular way, does one draw the line between 1] being predisposed existentially to embrace one or another moral and political philosophy, and 2] being certain that one's own moral and political convictions are the optimal frame of mind?

And once philosophers do acknowledge [given your take or my take here] that people are resistant to change, what do they propose as a way in which to entice them over to something in the way of a deontological moral and political agenda?

Is VA willing to explore those alleged "contradictions" with me over at the Applied Ethics board?

Given a context of his choice?

People have different personality types, let's say there are thousands of personality types that can be categorized in many ways. They come with different preferences for different values. (I for example can think of roughly 1000-100000 personality type combinations before even considering the zeitgeist, the social and philosophical environment, the personal upbringing, life events and world events etc. so the "external" factors.) My assumption is that you don't see this part very well as you've lived your entire life as an unaware and undiagnosed autistic, or something similar, or you're just roleplaying one, so you kinda see people as blank slates basically just shaped by the environment. Which would be a major factor on how you personally form your values, a factor that's non-existent for most people.

So overall we have to consider like say 20-50 different factors at the same time when it comes to understanding how people end up with their values. We can try to investigate them one by one but they also tend to be interrelated. The topic is imo too complex to investigate it with too much success, and it's mostly pointless to focus on things like free will/determinism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You think I am that stupid.

In some ways utterly untrained and unwilling to consider this is the case.
Missing fundamental training and experience with justification.
To the degree that you cannot evaluate incoming critiques or your own 'arguments', which are generally haphazard assertions.
To the degree that you think restating your positions in new words is responding to points made by others.

We probably will not be able to 'prove this to you' for precisely the same reasons.
But somewhere in all this time, with very similar critiques coming from a variety of people with different philosophical positions, one would hope you would consider that there is something going on you simply lack the skills to evaluate and seemingly also lack either the interest or the kind of bravery that is necessary to go into cognitive dissonance.

Look into the mirror first.

I believe the issues between me and the majority is due to the difference between paradigm, i.e. p-realism vs ANTI-p-realism.
also see this: Rise & Fall of Analytic Philosophy
viewtopic.php?t=41868
P-realists are like theists who will "never" understand the justifications I gave for why God is an impossibility to be real and is illusory.
This serves my selfish interests, otherwise if everyone agree with me then there is nothing for me to seek justifications to counter them.

[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?

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.

Oh yeah:
1. Building intersubjective consensus with other subjects.
2. Denying the existence of the noumenon where these other subjects would be located.

Or:
1. Extending the phenomenal world to include the other subjects.
2. Denying the possibility of extending the phenomenal world.