Author Topic: The Soviets and Berlin; Things I Wish I Learned In School  (Read 2045 times)

Offline Cavebear

Re: The Soviets and Berlin; Things I Wish I Learned In School
« Reply #15 on: March 12, 2018, 01:41:30 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, a prediction of extinction will be wrong, until the day after it happens.  And redemption is a religious idea, not a secular idea.

In case you forgot, you are the one who claimed "we are irredeemable by nature".
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Offline Baruch

Re: The Soviets and Berlin; Things I Wish I Learned In School
« Reply #16 on: March 12, 2018, 01:52:10 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In case you forgot, you are the one who claimed "we are irredeemable by nature".

Well, I wouldn't say .. irredeemable by divine fiat, now would I?
שלום

Offline Cavebear

Re: The Soviets and Berlin; Things I Wish I Learned In School
« Reply #17 on: March 12, 2018, 02:37:53 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, I wouldn't say .. irredeemable by divine fiat, now would I?

I suspect with the right argument, you would.  You believe in a deity of SOME sort.  That deity makes decisions.  An enforceable decision is a fiat.  QED.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Offline Baruch

Re: The Soviets and Berlin; Things I Wish I Learned In School
« Reply #18 on: March 12, 2018, 06:58:51 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I suspect with the right argument, you would.  You believe in a deity of SOME sort.  That deity makes decisions.  An enforceable decision is a fiat.  QED.

Actually not quite.  If G-d is potentiality, then all action is thru actuality (us and nature), G-d only acts indirectly.  Natural law is action that is involuntary (rocks have no volition), ethics or not, is action that is voluntary.  Now existence only applies to actuality, so technically, G-d doesn't exist, because outside of existence (partially).  We are also partially inside and outside existence (hence the problem of Descartes mind).  In so far as we are alive, and conscious, we are a nexus of potentiality, in a way that a rock is not.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2018, 07:00:43 AM by Baruch »
שלום

Offline Cavebear

Re: The Soviets and Berlin; Things I Wish I Learned In School
« Reply #19 on: March 12, 2018, 08:19:55 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Actually not quite.  If G-d is potentiality, then all action is thru actuality (us and nature), G-d only acts indirectly.  Natural law is action that is involuntary (rocks have no volition), ethics or not, is action that is voluntary.  Now existence only applies to actuality, so technically, G-d doesn't exist, because outside of existence (partially).  We are also partially inside and outside existence (hence the problem of Descartes mind).  In so far as we are alive, and conscious, we are a nexus of potentiality, in a way that a rock is not.

So there is no god and no religious basis for morality.  We developed ethics ourselves through hard-won experience of what is good for society and what is not.

Congratulations for finally understanding our side.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Offline Baruch

Re: The Soviets and Berlin; Things I Wish I Learned In School
« Reply #20 on: March 12, 2018, 01:07:21 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So there is no god and no religious basis for morality.  We developed ethics ourselves through hard-won experience of what is good for society and what is not.

Congratulations for finally understanding our side.

There is no America, just rebels against King and Church ;-)  People have no ethics, so nothing develops, other than virtue signaling.
שלום

Offline Hakurei Reimu

Re: The Soviets and Berlin; Things I Wish I Learned In School
« Reply #21 on: March 12, 2018, 06:51:00 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Actually not quite.  If G-d is potentiality, then all action is thru actuality (us and nature), G-d only acts indirectly.  Natural law is action that is involuntary (rocks have no volition), ethics or not, is action that is voluntary.  Now existence only applies to actuality, so technically, G-d doesn't exist, because outside of existence (partially).  We are also partially inside and outside existence (hence the problem of Descartes mind).  In so far as we are alive, and conscious, we are a nexus of potentiality, in a way that a rock is not.
These terms I've underlined... I do not understand your use of them. Every potential I understand to be true is the consequence of some actual circumstances, ergo to have any potential, there must be an actual scenario that corresponds to it. Therefore, something that is only potential cannot exist in any form or sense. A god that is potentiality must have some form of actuality and therefore must exist in some sense, but the only sense I know god to exist as is an idea, a social construct, like the value of (fiat) money.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Offline Baruch

Re: The Soviets and Berlin; Things I Wish I Learned In School
« Reply #22 on: March 12, 2018, 07:32:15 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
These terms I've underlined... I do not understand your use of them. Every potential I understand to be true is the consequence of some actual circumstances, ergo to have any potential, there must be an actual scenario that corresponds to it. Therefore, something that is only potential cannot exist in any form or sense. A god that is potentiality must have some form of actuality and therefore must exist in some sense, but the only sense I know god to exist as is an idea, a social construct, like the value of (fiat) money.

If you have an argument from advanced statistics, I will listen.  But no, most English words have more than one definition, and even if only one, it is nuanced.  And then poets and philosophers put in their two bits.  Your etymological dictatorship is .. rejected.

And I understand if you don't support metaphysical ideas in general.  Logical Positivists don't (Rudolf Carnap).  But then that was a 20s-30s philosophical movement that died out decades ago ... like its predecessor Positivism (August Comte).

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Heisenberg's comments on Positivism in this article are telling!

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Basically some folks first tried to apply Newtonian science to philosophy and failed.  Later some other folks tried to apply post-Newtonian science to philosophy (including Darwin) to philosophy and failed.  Of course maybe philosophy is meant to be a failure anyway ;-)
שלום

Offline Hakurei Reimu

Re: The Soviets and Berlin; Things I Wish I Learned In School
« Reply #23 on: March 12, 2018, 11:55:52 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If you have an argument from advanced statistics, I will listen.  But no, most English words have more than one definition, and even if only one, it is nuanced.  And then poets and philosophers put in their two bits.  Your etymological dictatorship is .. rejected.
I'm just asking to explain yourself, not necessarily "dictate" to you. Arguing the way you do makes you seem evasive. I hate that.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And I understand if you don't support metaphysical ideas in general.  Logical Positivists don't (Rudolf Carnap).  But then that was a 20s-30s philosophical movement that died out decades ago ... like its predecessor Positivism (August Comte).

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Heisenberg's comments on Positivism in this article are telling!

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I am not necessarily a logical positivist. I am a no-bullshit-ist. It does not seem to be possible that something without an actuality can have a potential. After all, what something can do (its potential) depends on what it is (its actual, its nature). If you want to argue that god is pure potential, fine, explain how that's a coherent idea. If you want to argue that god is of some nature, fine, explain how you know that nature.

What you spewed is just gobbledygook. It stinks of language intending more to obscure than explain.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Basically some folks first tried to apply Newtonian science to philosophy and failed.  Later some other folks tried to apply post-Newtonian science to philosophy (including Darwin) to philosophy and failed.  Of course maybe philosophy is meant to be a failure anyway ;-)
Well, it does seem that philosophers are asking questions that don't seem to have satisfactory answers for millennia. That's usually is indicative of defective questions.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Offline SGOS

Re: The Soviets and Berlin; Things I Wish I Learned In School
« Reply #24 on: March 13, 2018, 04:48:17 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Arguing the way you do makes you seem evasive. I hate that.
All theists argue that way.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I am not necessarily a logical positivist. I am a no-bullshit-ist.
It seems to me the two are the same.  Baruch just adds straw man baggage to logical positivism, so he can degrade it.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What you spewed is just gobbledygook. 

language intending more to obscure than explain.

...defective questions.

Theism

Theism

Theism

Offline Baruch

Re: The Soviets and Berlin; Things I Wish I Learned In School
« Reply #25 on: March 13, 2018, 01:06:05 PM »
Of course, Positivists or Logical Positivists ... don't get criticism of their POV (same as any other philosophy or ideology).

I happen to agree that good questions are golden ... but don't limit yourself to questions you already think you have the answer to (confirmation bias).

Science (natural philosophy) doesn't come up with answers, it comes up with better questions.  Surprisingly, unlike most philosophy, these improved questions are actually pragmatically useful.

Well, since any philosophical argument, devolves into "my word definition is right, and yours is wrong" ... we can probably end things here.  You asked, I answered.  Same as when I answered Cavebears question (responding with Judeo-Arabic studies of Medieval Spain).
שלום

Offline SGOS

Re: The Soviets and Berlin; Things I Wish I Learned In School
« Reply #26 on: March 13, 2018, 05:08:00 PM »
Actually, philosophers criticize each other all the time, and not just on matters of semantics.

Offline Baruch

Re: The Soviets and Berlin; Things I Wish I Learned In School
« Reply #27 on: March 13, 2018, 06:53:44 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Actually, philosophers criticize each other all the time, and not just on matters of semantics.

I know.  I read a blog by a prominent senior US philosopher (of law) and those academics rape each other (verbally of course).  Philosophers of science (armchair scientists) argue about that the meaning of things are that the actual scientists do.  Scientists are the natural philosophers .. philosophers of science are meta-natural-philosophers.
שלום

Offline Cavebear

Re: The Soviets and Berlin; Things I Wish I Learned In School
« Reply #28 on: March 15, 2018, 02:53:10 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Actually, philosophers criticize each other all the time, and not just on matters of semantics.

I've never seen a modern era philosopher debate that WASN'T about semantics.  They mostly seem to be arguing which end of a hard-cooked egg to peel first. I asked my Intro To Philosophy Grad Assistant if the arguments ever made more sense, and he said "no".  Which didn't surprise me.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Offline Baruch

Re: The Soviets and Berlin; Things I Wish I Learned In School
« Reply #29 on: March 15, 2018, 05:21:42 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I've never seen a modern era philosopher debate that WASN'T about semantics.  They mostly seem to be arguing which end of a hard-cooked egg to peel first. I asked my Intro To Philosophy Grad Assistant if the arguments ever made more sense, and he said "no".  Which didn't surprise me.

Blame Wittgenstein (second period).  He said there were no possible arguments, except over semantics ... because outside of language, thought and argument were impossible.  Zen denies the validity of thought and argument however.
שלום

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk