Brainpolice:And I think that's an unjustifiable relativism.
I don't think there really is an objective definition of a healthy, flourishing and sustainable free society, sorry.
Laughing Man:Ah but you said that saying 'All bacholers are unmarried' IS the defintion of bacholers.
Do you understand the difference between a priori and what you were doing? If so, please stop this childish nonsense. If not, read more of this site, or a dictionary.
Laughing Man:This is the strawman part:
Angurse:Calling all racists violent is an a posteriori
Yeah, funny thing that came after your remark so kind of...wrong. And it still isn't a strawman. Saying racists are inclined toward violence but due to free will they are not all violent at all times isn't an a priori, its still an a posteriori. You simply cannot just know such information, specifically because of the free will of the individuals in question.
Laughing Man:As I have told you numerous upon numerous time. I said racists are inclined to violence but due to free will they are not all violent at all times.
Again, you have yet to even prove they are all inclined towards violence at any time, ever. Not an a priori - collectivism.
Laughing Man:Actually I can logically deduce that if a racist actually shows hatred towards a select race then they are more likely to mistreat that race and show violence towards it.
No you cannot, you keep saying people have free will but then contradict yourself around and say you can logically predict what they will or are more likely to do. Either free will exists or not. Such predictions can only come through a posteriori knowledge. Its impossible to know independently of experience what a racist, is more likely to be violent.
Laughing Man:Stopped short of where? That was my statement and you said 'No disagreement there.' That must infer that somewhere in the statement I presented, you agreed with something I said. What is it?
I agreed with that statement, you left out many that I disagreed with though. Hence the "there." I've already pointed out some of the disagreements, you failed to include them in that passage is all.
Angurse: Brainpolice:And I think that's an unjustifiable relativism. I don't think there really is an objective definition of a healthy, flourishing and sustainable free society, sorry.
In that case, libertarianism risks collapsing in on itself.
Angurse: wilderness:You know you can learn by contemplating too. You don't have to read only. You can think for yourself as well. For me, I find the former and latter to have to occur anyways, even if I do read, if I'm going to really digest and take in what I've read. just so you know.... Certainly. Reading seems to help speed up the thought process from my experience though.
wilderness:You know you can learn by contemplating too. You don't have to read only. You can think for yourself as well. For me, I find the former and latter to have to occur anyways, even if I do read, if I'm going to really digest and take in what I've read. just so you know....
Certainly. Reading seems to help speed up the thought process from my experience though.
and speeding up the thought process that "thought process" is called contemplation or realization and such...
Angurse:I don't think there really is an objective definition of a healthy, flourishing and sustainable free society
This ^^^
Brainpolice: Angurse: Brainpolice:And I think that's an unjustifiable relativism. I don't think there really is an objective definition of a healthy, flourishing and sustainable free society, sorry. In that case, libertarianism risks collapsing in on itself.
well, there clearly is an objective definition of a healthy , flourishing and sustainable free society,a society above reproach on matters of justice and capable of enjoying a free market economy.
i.e. 'thin libertarianism'
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
i think of it as libertarianism. its other people that want to call my libertarianism 'thin' . complain to them maybe ?
Juan:There's no such thing as 'thin libertarianism'.
No, there is. Nobody lives by it, because it isn't a complete system. It is just a canvas to arrange your preferences on. But a lot of people reduce libertarianism to voluntarism (you protest this loudly often). I don't think voluntarism is reasonable as a complete definition, because we all have preferences, and so define flourishing for ourselves.
So in that regard, libertarianism is thick for everyone. But it is subjective flourishing, not objective flourishing unless we again, want to use the thinnest possible definition of voluntarism as flourishing.
Juan:Indeed, there are people who hold a position that sometimes is described as 'thin libertarianism' - but think it is not so much libertarianism as some sort of theoretical panarchy which includes all kinds of 'voluntary' governments - governments which are hardly in line with the spirit of individual freedom - for instance, theocracy.
You're hung up on this caricature of libertarians which at best are a very small group amongst libertarian anarchists. Among libertarian statists, it is going to be a mixed bag, and I don't think many of us consider them to truly be libertarian because they aren't even thin, let alone thick.
The spirit of individual liberty is subjective. Unless you plan to violently enforce it on people, you will have to accept that the world isn't going to see things through your prism exclusively.
Brainpolice:In that case, libertarianism risks collapsing in on itself.
Liberty is the goal, not safety. (Nothing against safety though) Really, it could be argued that allowing religious freedom could possibly threaten libertarianism or the broader social philosophy, or that strict adherence to the NAP itself could risk collapse. There are always going to be risks, but I don't necessarily care about growth for the sake of growth.
But do you really think there is an objective definition of a healthy, flourishing and sustainable free society?
wilderness:and speeding up the thought process that "thought process" is called contemplation or realization and such...
Reading outside ideas can really introduce new ideas or help clarify things or help put them into perspective or challenge them or strengthen them. In my opinion moreso than just contemplation alone.
liberty student:No, there is. Nobody lives by it, because it isn't a complete system. It is just a canvas to arrange your preferences on. But a lot of people reduce libertarianism to voluntarism (you protest this loudly often). I don't think voluntarism is reasonable as a complete definition, because we all have preferences, and so define flourishing for ourselves.
I agree with Juan, there isn't such a thing a "thin" libertarianism, there are just libertarians who speak of their personal preferences more "loudly" than others. Really I don't see a difference between libertarianism and voluntaryism in this light, neither one are suitable as complete definitions in my opinion. Just as two libertarians can disagree on almost anything so can two voluntaryists. Of course with respect to Juan, he defines libertarianism differently than I, so we may actually disagree.
Angurse: wilderness:and speeding up the thought process that "thought process" is called contemplation or realization and such... Reading outside ideas can really introduce new ideas or help clarify things or help put them into perspective or challenge them or strengthen them. In my opinion moreso than just contemplation alone.
yes, I'm not arguing against reading - hope you didn't think I was, obviously I read. I'm merely making a factual statement about even when you read outside ideas you are contemplating, in other words, while reading the mind moves.
wilderness:yes, I'm not arguing against reading - hope you didn't think I was, obviously I read. I'm merely making a factual statement about even when you read outside ideas you are contemplating, in other words, while reading the mind moves.
I never disagreed. If I didn't already say so, in my opinion, reading makes the mind move faster.
Juan:No State Project. Free your mind.
Yeah, there is no state. There never was a state. It's just a bunch of criminals pretending to have any legitimacy.
Voting, campaigning, protesting, following the law, its all arbitrary. The criminals will stop preying on us when we stop acting like they have any authority or legitimacy, and not before. As long as we say MR. President, or THE HONOURABLE MEMBER FROM TEXAS then we're locked into their paradigm, dancing on their strings.
Free your mind.
Angurse:I agree with Juan
Oh please don't do that. You're just encouraging him. He is really insufferable when he thinks he has allies in an argument.
Angurse: wilderness:yes, I'm not arguing against reading - hope you didn't think I was, obviously I read. I'm merely making a factual statement about even when you read outside ideas you are contemplating, in other words, while reading the mind moves. I never disagreed. If I didn't already say so, in my opinion, reading makes the mind move faster.
yeah... I was simply bullshitting - shooting the breeze... good chattin' with ya.
liberty student:Oh please don't do that. You're just encouraging him. He is really insufferable when he thinks he has allies in an argument.
He would already know that we are estranged-allies at best. He's right though...maybe.
wilderness:yeah... I was simply bullshitting - shooting the breeze... good chattin' with ya.
Of all the people I'm constantly disagreeing with you are easily my favorite to chat with.
Angurse: wilderness:yeah... I was simply bullshitting - shooting the breeze... good chattin' with ya. Of all the people I'm constantly disagreeing with you are easily my favorite to chat with.
i think we talk past each other... must be if what we each are saying is true.
Angurse:Do you understand the difference between a priori and what you were doing? If so, please stop this childish nonsense. If not, read more of this site, or a dictionary.
What I am doing is apriori...
Angurse:Saying racists are inclined toward violence but due to free will they are not all violent at all times isn't an a priori, its still an a posteriori.
Actually it isn't because I haven't meet every racist in the entire world.
Angurse:You simply cannot just know such information, specifically because of the free will of the individuals in question.
What? Now you are turning into a nihilist?
Angurse:Again, you have yet to even prove they are all inclined towards violence at any time, ever. Not an a priori - collectivism.
Actually I have already stated that if one sees a race as sub-human then they are less likely to respect their rights and treat them with value. Are you of the mind that if I hold extreme hatred for a race then I would be more likely to treat them in a positive fashion?
Angurse:No you cannot, you keep saying people have free will but then contradict yourself around and say you can logically predict what they will or are more likely to do.
I can make a prediction. Whether they carry it out is apart of their free will. I believe that my predictions will be correct more the incorrect.
Angurse:Either free will exists or not. Such predictions can only come through a posteriori knowledge.
Explain why it can only be a posteriori.
Angurse: Its impossible to know independently of experience what a racist, is more likely to be violent
Now you are the one lacking in what is a priorism. Apriorism is not devoid of all experience for we need to conceptualize our predictions in order to make them.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Laughing Man:What I am doing is apriori...
Because...? It doesn't fit the definition in any way.
Laughing Man:Actually it isn't because I haven't meet every racist in the entire world.
Isn't a priori, yes.
Laughing Man:What? Now you are turning into a nihilist?
Just someone who knows the difference between a priori ans a posteriori
Laughing Man:Actually I have already stated that if one sees a race as sub-human then they are less likely to respect their rights and treat them with value.
Yes, you stated it, thats all you did. You really did prove anything though.
Laughing Man:Are you of the mind that if I hold extreme hatred for a race then I would be more likely to treat them in a positive fashion?
Nope.
Laughing Man:Explain why it can only be a posteriori.
Because such predictions can only come through empirical evidence, they are not know independently of experience, and since its not in the definition, it isn't.
Laughing Man:Now you are the one lacking in what is a priorism. Apriorism is not devoid of all experience for we need to conceptualize our predictions in order to make them.
Wrong. It is completely independent of inexperience. It can make reference to though.
This is getting stupid, just look up the terms.
Angurse:Because...? It doesn't fit the definition in any way.
Angurse:Just someone who knows the difference between a priori ans a posteriori
Angurse:Because such predictions can only come through empirical evidence, they are not know independently of experience, and since its not in the definition, it isn't.
Angurse:Wrong. It is completely independent of inexperience. It can make reference to though.
You shall be educated on the matter.
http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/MU2005/mu05-Long3.mp3
Laughing Man:You shall be educated on the matter.
???
Did Long help you understand how you have been completely wrong for a page or so now?
Angurse: Did Long help you understand how you have been completely wrong for a page or so now?
Really? Must I actually quote the section that he says the general definition of apriorism is not that it lacks experience? How are we to conceptualize racism if we don't actually experience it first? We wouldn't even know what the hell it is in the first place. If I like ice cream, must I not actually taste ice cream first? I could try vanilla and say 'Wow, I like ice cream' and that would be an apriori statement for there are various flavors of ice cream. I don't need to try moose tracks, chocolate, strawberry etc and then say 'Wow, I like ice cream' [ an a posteriori statement ]
Its already been conceptualized though, hence the definition, which does not include your addition of being prone toward violence. Not a priori.
Further, your example isn't apt, as you are merely stating a preference (Subjective). To do it correctly, you would say "ice cream is frozen," experience isn't necessary to justify that statement as ice cream, by definition, is frozen. Experience may be necessary for you to discover the existence of ice cream, but that changes nothing in the greater field of knowledge, as you not knowing what ice cream is doesn't change the fact that it is frozen, as it is, again, independent of experience. Just like bachelors are, by definition, unmarried (also, men) which contrasts, oh, say... racists, which aren't, by definition, prone toward violence.I never once said that it lacks experience, it just doesn't require your experience.
How you can conflate "I like ice cream" as being along the same lines as "racists are inclined to violence but due to free will they are not all violent at all times" is just astoundingly nonsensical.
Angurse:Its already been conceptualized though, hence the definition, which does not include your addition of being prone toward violence. Not a priori.
In order to conceptualize and define racism one must actually experience it. Otherwise the individual might be under the false impression that racism is love or some other mistaken premise. Racism is a hatred for a specific race and what does hatred involve? Is it not hostility? Provocation? How is it wrong to state that the more hostile you are with an individual the more likely you are to commit violence against them? I will ask you again like I did before [ in which you agreed with but you will no doubt deny that ] If I am a racist, am I more inclined to be hostile towards the race I despise or friendly?
Angurse:Experience may be necessary for you to discover the existence of ice cream, but that changes nothing in the greater field of knowledge, as you not knowing what ice cream is doesn't change the fact that it is frozen, as it is, again, independent of experience.
Oh so now you say experience is necessary?
Strange how you think that if I don't know what racism is then racism just suddenly goes away.
Angurse:Just like bachelors are, by definition, unmarried (also, men) which contrasts, oh, say... racists, which aren't, by definition, prone toward violence.I never once said that it lacks experience, it just doesn't require your experience.
Before you stated that I need to experience every racist in order to make the assertion that racists are prone to violence. Then you said 'well you just need to experience ice cream to understand ice cream what ice cream is,' now you are saying that I don't need to experience it.
Angurse:How you can conflate "I like ice cream" as being along the same lines as "racists are inclined to violence but due to free will they are not all violent at all times" is just astoundingly nonsensical.
In the sense that they are both apriori. Saying 'I like ice cream' when I have not experienced every flavor that makes up what is ice cream is similarly asserted as 'Racists are inclined to violence' without actually experiencing every racist in the entire world.
You labor under a false delusion if you think that racists are ambivelant or show compassion to the race they hate. The KKK doesn't go around handing out sunflowers to blacks.
Laughing Man:In order to conceptualize and define racism one must actually experience it.
Incorrect. One mustn't experience every possible ism, in order for it to be defined, someone at sometime must. Not necessarily you.
Laughing Man:Otherwise the individual might be under the false impression that racism is love or some other mistaken premise.
Now you've gone and contradicted your above (false) assertion. Either there is a concrete definition or there isn't. If there is, then your experience isn't necessary, as the definition will suffice. If there isn't, then you will need empirical evidence to support the claim that "racists are prone to violence." Since you admit you do not have such research, you have just performed a big glaring contradiction.
Laughing Man:Racism is a hatred for a specific race and what does hatred involve? Is it not hostility? Provocation? How is it wrong to state that the more hostile you are with an individual the more likely you are to commit violence against them? I will ask you again like I did before [ in which you agreed with but you will no doubt deny that ] If I am a racist, am I more inclined to be hostile towards the race I despise or friendly?
Racism:
Nothing about racism imply violence, or a tendency toward violence. You've just assumed hostility and ignored indifference. You've ignored right to associate and peaceful separation and inserted violence and hostility, you have completely ignored the definition and illogically came to your own conclusion regardless of factual information.
Even if your definition was correct it still doesn't imply violence. Hatred is an intense dislike - it does not necessarily lead to provocation and violence - I hate bananas, I don't go bezerk when I am near them and violently destroy them. I hate flip-flops, I don't punch flip-flop wearers in the face, nor do I even consider such action. I just prefer to stay away from one almost bare feet.
Laughing Man:Strange how you think that if I don't know what racism is then racism just suddenly goes away.
Actually, I said the exact opposite. If you don't know what racism is (like ice cream) it still exists.
Laughing Man:Before you stated that I need to experience every racist in order to make the assertion that racists are prone to violence. Then you said 'well you just need to experience ice cream to understand ice cream what ice cream is,' now you are saying that I don't need to experience it.
Perhaps thats because the analogy was inapt. You don't need to experience ice cream to learn what ice cream is (i.e. the definition), you don't need to experience racism to learn what racism is (i.e. the definition), when you make assertions not included in the definitions, you need to have empirical research (i.e. ice cream make you fat, racists are prone to violence).
Laughing Man:In the sense that they are both apriori. Saying 'I like ice cream' when I have not experienced every flavor that makes up what is ice cream is similarly asserted as 'Racists are inclined to violence' without actually experiencing every racist in the entire world.
In the sense that one is an opinion based on taste and the other is simply a made up assertion. Not a priori.
Laughing Man:You labor under a false delusion if you think that racists are ambivelant or show compassion to the race they hate. The KKK doesn't go around handing out sunflowers to blacks.
Look, you've gotten the definition of racism wrong, and instead of admitting your error you said it was an a priori, which was also wrong, now you are throwing out ad hominems.
Angurse:Incorrect. One mustn't experience every possible ism, in order for it to be defined, someone at sometime must. Not necessarily you.
That is ridiculous. What one calls racism another may call love. Who is 'collectivizing' now?
Angurse:Either there is a concrete definition or there isn't. If there is, then your experience isn't necessary, as the definition will suffice.
In order to have such a definition, one must actually experience it. Otherwise you are merely accepting one's definition at face value which could possibly be wrong.
Angurse:If there isn't, then you will need empirical evidence to support the claim that "racists are prone to violence." Since you admit you do not have such research, you have just performed a big glaring contradiction.
I have experienced racism, therefore I can conceptualize it.
Angurse:Nothing about racism imply violence, or a tendency toward violence. You've just assumed hostility and ignored indifference. You've ignored right to associate and peaceful separation and inserted violence and hostility, you have completely ignored the definition and illogically came to your own conclusion regardless of factual information.
Again I have said, if you treat another like a baseless animal you are less likely to respect their rights. Do you think people are so easily rolled over by individuals who claim merely because they are a specific race then they are better then you?
Angurse:Hatred is an intense dislike - it does not necessarily lead to provocation and violence - I hate bananas, I don't go bezerk when I am near them and violently destroy them.
Bananas are inanimate objects. If bananas stood up and started decrying how they are much better then you and you are a pox on society and should know your place in the world, then it would be rational to defend why you have value and you will come into confrontation.
Angurse: You don't need to experience ice cream to learn what ice cream is (i.e. the definition), you don't need to experience racism to learn what racism is (i.e. the definition),
Yes you do or how else would you know it was ice cream?
Angurse:In the sense that one is an opinion based on taste and the other is simply a made up assertion. Not a priori.
It is not a matter of taste, it is a matter of experiencing ever flavor that is ice cream.
Angurse:Look, you've gotten the definition of racism wrong, and instead of admitting your error you said it was an a priori, which was also wrong, now you are throwing out ad hominems.
No you are just convoluted in your argument and thus have been saying one thing and then another. It is rather tiresome.
Laughing Man:That is ridiculous. What one calls racism another may call love. Who is 'collectivizing' now?
What are you talking about? A Bachelor is a bachelor, ice cream is ice cream and racism is racism. Its definition is independent of how one feels about it.
Laughing Man:In order to have such a definition, one must actually experience it. Otherwise you are merely accepting one's definition at face value which could possibly be wrong.
Not "ones defintion" - THE definition. "Hey, I just met a bachelor, but, funny thing, the bachelor was a woman and married! Go tell Oxford, Princeton, and Merriam-Webster they got the definition wrong."
Laughing Man:I have experienced racism, therefore I can conceptualize it.
Goodness you make no sense. How do you know you experienced it at all? If you have to actually experience it in order to define it (as you said), you would have no conception of what "it" was to begin with. You are using the definition of racism, experiencing something, and saying "now thats racism!"
Laughing Man:Again I have said, if you treat another like a baseless animal you are less likely to respect their rights. Do you think people are so easily rolled over by individuals who claim merely because they are a specific race then they are better then you?
Again, the definition of racism doesn't include the "treament of others like baseless animals" so you have no point. Now, you could create a new term like, "evil-racist" and define it "as one who treats of others like baseless animals." but currently you simply aren't using the term correctly, yet you continue to use the term.
Laughing Man:Bananas are inanimate objects. If bananas stood up and started decrying how they are much better then you and you are a pox on society and should know your place in the world, then it would be rational to defend why you have value and you will come into confrontation.
You certainly missed the....entire point. But....now you are against free speech? A person could say that without even having to worry about me using violence against them, there is nothing rational about such behaviour in my opinion.
Laughing Man:Yes you do or how else would you know it was ice cream?
Because you don't actually have to come into contact with "it" at all. I know what a zebra is purely through definition and others presentation, I don't go look at a cow and say "thats a zebra! I've experienced it!"
Laughing Man:It is not a matter of taste, it is a matter of experiencing ever flavor that is ice cream.
No, its a matter of taste that may or may not be an exaggeration on your part and the other was simply a made up assertion.
Laughing Man:No you are just convoluted in your argument and thus have been saying one thing and then another. It is rather tiresome.
Are you sure its not just you contradicting yourself, contradicting yourself, getting definitions wrong, getting more definitions wrong, contradicting yourself...
Yeah, thats it, thats pretty much been everything.
Angurse:What are you talking about? A Bachelor is a bachelor, ice cream is ice cream and racism is racism. Its definition is independent of how one feels about it.
Angurse:Not "ones defintion" - THE definition. "Hey, I just met a bachelor, but, funny thing, the bachelor was a woman and married! Go tell Oxford, Princeton, and Merriam-Webster they got the definition wrong."
Apriorism is not simply definitions.
Angurse:Again, the definition of racism doesn't include the "treament of others like baseless animals" so you have no point.
Oh right, you give the definition that they think they are better then everyone else [ superior ], clearly that means they treat themselves as equal to those they deem inferior.
Angurse:You certainly missed the....entire point. But....now you are against free speech? A person could say that without even having to worry about me using violence against them, there is nothing rational about such behaviour in my opinion.
Well there actually is no right to free speech. However, you are foolish to think that individuals will just be told 'Because of what you look like, that means you are weak, inferior, below me' Do you not think it likely that the individual being told this will just say 'Oh you are so right!'
Angurse:Because you don't actually have to come into contact with "it" at all. I know what a zebra is purely through definition and others presentation, I don't go look at a cow and say "thats a zebra! I've experienced it!"
Others presentation is experience. You cannot conceptualize a zebra by simply knowing the definition. You have to see a zebra in order to conceptualize it. If I were to give you a definition of a word I just invented [ let us say Xentoria ] and it was defined as: A square like building such as the Eiffel tower [ thus making an anti-concept ] then without actually seeing the Eiffel tower, you would run around calling all square like buildings xentorias. Notice without actually experiencing the Eiffel tower, a square like building then you have no understanding what is actually happening.
Laughing Man:Apriorism is not simply definitions.
Never said it was, now, do you actually have a refutation?
Laughing Man:Oh right, you give the definition that they think they are better then everyone else [ superior ], clearly that means they treat themselves as equal to those they deem inferior.
Actually, I haven't made any assumptions about their actions at all, as they are nothing more than assumptions (pointless).
Laughing Man:Well there actually is no right to free speech.
Actually I never made no mention th the "right to free speech."
Laughing Man:However, you are foolish to think that individuals will just be told 'Because of what you look like, that means you are weak, inferior, below me' Do you not think it likely that the individual being told this will just say 'Oh you are so right!'
I never even alluded to such a thing. I said violence was an irrational response. "Oh you are so right" is just you not understanding or purposful misinterpretation.
Laughing Man:Others presentation is experience.
Hmm.
Makes. no. sense.
Laughing Man:You cannot conceptualize a zebra by simply knowing the definition.You have to see a zebra in order to conceptualize it.
You've ignored my previous post. How do you know "it" is a zebra to begin with? You are completely ignoring the purpose of definitions.
Laughing Man:If I were to give you a definition of a word I just invented [ let us say Xentoria ] and it was defined as: A square like building such as the Eiffel tower [ thus making an anti-concept ] then without actually seeing the Eiffel tower, you would run around calling all square like buildings xentorias. Notice without actually experiencing the Eiffel tower, a square like building then you have no understanding what is actually happening.
"...what is actually happening" - Nothing is actuall happening, that would be nothing more than a poorly defined word, your scenario just isn't fitting.
When did you "conceptualize" a bachelor? How did it differ from the "face-value" definition? Where do you think...
This is getting absurd.
Angurse:Never said it was, now, do you actually have a refutation?
Then why do you keep on stating it is independent of experience as if the definition alone is apriori.
Angurse: Actually, I haven't made any assumptions about their actions at all, as they are nothing more than assumptions (pointless).
Actually you presented a definition in which the individual is committing the action of deeming others inferior to his/her superiority.
Angurse:Actually I never made no mention th the "right to free speech."
You made a comment about me respecting free speech. If there is no right to it why should I respect it?
Angurse:I never even alluded to such a thing. I said violence was an irrational response
Indeed you are right, violence is at most times irrational. Yet racism itself is always irrational.
Angurse:Makes. no. sense.
If someone gave you the definition of blue..and you never experience what blue is then how could you know what blue looks like? Accordingly grass could be blue to you. The same for a chair. If you are told that a chair is a object used for sitting on and were thrown into a classroom you could possibly point to a desk and say 'That is a chair' and you would be wrong. Thus merely being told the definition by someone else does not infer that you actually know what they are defining unless you have experienced the object/sensation.
Angurse:You've ignored my previous post. How do you know "it" is a zebra to begin with? You are completely ignoring the purpose of definitions.
One of two ways: One I experience the presence of a zebra and say 'What is that?" and deduce through taxonomy what it actually is. Or I can read taxonomy, experience a zebra and deduce through the process of elimination what it is.
Angurse:"...what is actually happening" - Nothing is actuall happening, that would be nothing more than a poorly defined word, your scenario just isn't fitting.
Yet how do you know it is poorly define if you never experienced the Eifel tower?
Angurse:When did you "conceptualize" a bachelor? How did it differ from the "face-value" definition? Where do you think.
To remind you, stating 'All bachelors are unmarried' is not the whole definition to bachelors. It is true that bachelors are unmarried however, that does not sufficiently limit the field to who bachelors actually are.
Laughing Man:Then why do you keep on stating it is independent of experience as if the definition alone is apriori.
Now do you actually have a refutation?
Laughing Man:Actually, I haven't made any assumptions about their actions at all, as they are nothing more than assumptions (pointless).
Uh...no, you collectivesed them by saying they were more prone to violence, are you now saying that was nothing more than you being pointless?
Laughing Man:Actually you presented a definition in which the individual is committing the action of deeming others inferior to his/her superiority.
And? That doesn't imply violence in any way.
Laughing Man:You made a comment about me respecting free speech. If there is no right to it why should I respect it?
Multiple reasons actually.
Laughing Man:Indeed you are right, violence is at most times irrational. Yet racism itself is always irrational.
As is collectivism, even when applying it to racists.
Laughing Man:If someone gave you the definition of blue..and you never experience what blue is then how could you know what blue looks like? Accordingly grass could be blue to you. The same for a chair. If you are told that a chair is a object used for sitting on and were thrown into a classroom you could possibly point to a desk and say 'That is a chair' and you would be wrong. Thus merely being told the definition by someone else does not infer that you actually know what they are defining unless you have experienced the object/sensation.
Who said definitions depend merely on "someone else," not I.
But you are still avoiding the question, how do you know you experienced it at all? If you have to actually experience it in order to define it (as you said), you would have no conception of what "it" was to begin with.
Laughing Man:Yet how do you know it is poorly define if you never experienced the Eifel tower?
Irrelevant, I haven't used the term. However, well defined words require concise explanations not vague allusions to.
Laughing Man:To remind you, stating 'All bachelors are unmarried' is not the whole definition to bachelors. It is true that bachelors are unmarried however, that does not sufficiently limit the field to who bachelors actually are.
Again, ignoring the question.
Angurse:When did you "conceptualize" a bachelor? How did it differ from the "face-value" definition? Where do you think...
Why is it true that bachelors are unmarried? You've just committed the very error you were trying to avoid.
Angurse:This is getting absurd.
Angurse:Now do you actually have a refutation?
This whole discussion we are having on definitions being validated by experience.
Angurse:Uh...no, you collectivesed them by saying they were more prone to violence, are you now saying that was nothing more than you being pointless?
You are quoting your own statement boy wonder.
Angurse:Multiple reasons actually.
Oh great then you will be able to tell me one.
Angurse:As is collectivism, even when applying it to racists.
Well I don't think you have a functional definition of what collectivism is, so I see this statement as a platitude.
Angurse:Who said definitions depend merely on "someone else," not I.
Angurse:I know what a zebra is purely through definition and others presentation, I don't go look at a cow and say "thats a zebra! I've experienced it!"
Let's try to rethink that statement.
Angurse:how do you know you experienced it at all?
How do I know I've experienced experience? Or how do I know I have experienced a zebra?
Angurse:If you have to actually experience it in order to define it (as you said), you would have no conception of what "it" was to begin with.
Again what I said before, through logical deduction. I look at a zebra [ I may not know what it is called ] but I ask what is this beast? I look at the characteristics of it and deduce the taxomony of it. Its got four legs, black and white stripes, etc.
Angurse:Irrelevant, I haven't used the term. However, well defined words require concise explanations not vague allusions to
Clearly you have yet to delve into the english language. There are numerous amounts of defined words that are by no means concise.
Angurse:Again, ignoring the question.
Its not ignoring the question. I made a statement that apriori statements are no simply a matter of definition. By stating 'All bachelors are unmarried' I do not thereby explicitly state that bachelors are men. There is a divide between that statement and the definition of bachelors. If you think there isn't and think that the statement I made above IS the very definition of bachelors itself, then you cannot deny that such a statement will be applied to women as well for women too can be unmarried. Therefore this apriori statement is not the definition of bachelors nor is it devoid of SOME necessary experience in order to validate it. What makes it an apriori statement is that I do not need to go to every individual who is unmarried and say 'Ok are you a bachelor?'
You're exactly right. I am done discussing your lackluster understanding of a simple concept.
Laughing Man:This whole discussion we are having on definitions being validated by experience.
Explain how, without experience, one can get ice cream, bachelors, and racism wrong.
Laughing Man:You are quoting your own statement boy wonder.
Wrong, you did say they were more prone to violence, multiple times now. Without using logic to come to your conclusions or by presenting one shred of evidence to boot.
Laughing Man:Oh great then you will be able to tell me one.
Cost-benefit analysis, could be a pacifist like Ghandi (who was a racist), it could be many a'reason.
Laughing Man:Well I don't think you have a functional definition of what collectivism is, so I see this statement as a platitude.
Collectivism - the subjugation of the individual to a group - saying a racist is prone to violence is, in fact, collectivism. You have taken the racist, an individual, and said he is prone to violence, lumping him in a group. Collectivism.
Laughing Man:How do I know I've experienced experience? Or how do I know I have experienced a zebra?
Both.
Laughing Man:Again what I said before, through logical deduction. I look at a zebra [ I may not know what it is called ] but I ask what is this beast? I look at the characteristics of it and deduce the taxomony of it. Its got four legs, black and white stripes, etc.
Logical deduction does not churn out "zebra." You may see a zebra then stumble upon it in a book, like, say, a dictionary, and go "by golly, that was a Zeebrah I saw that day" but you only learned it was a "zebra" by it already being defined.
Laughing Man:Clearly you have yet to delve into the english language. There are numerous amounts of defined words that are by no means concise.
Agreed. However, I wouldn't put zebra, bachelor, or racism on that list.
Laughing Man:Its not ignoring the question. I made a statement that apriori statements are no simply a matter of definition. By stating 'All bachelors are unmarried' I do not thereby explicitly state that bachelors are men. There is a divide between that statement and the definition of bachelors. If you think there isn't and think that the statement I made above IS the very definition of bachelors itself, then you cannot deny that such a statement will be applied to women as well for women too can be unmarried. Therefore this apriori statement is not the definition of bachelors nor is it devoid of SOME necessary experience in order to validate it. What makes it an apriori statement is that I do not need to go to every individual who is unmarried and say 'Ok are you a bachelor?'
A priori knowledge is gained through logical deduction. If the definition of "bachelor" is an unmarried man, then logically one can derive the statement "all bachelors are unmarried" now, that statement is still equally as true as the statement "all bachelors are unmarried men." We've already gone over this and I explained it. Since a bachelor is, by definition, an unmarried man, its self-evident that all bachelors are unmarried and its also self-evident that all bachelors are men. How is it self-evident? Because the definition of bachelor was conceived beforehand, the definition is the basis for the deduction. Everything is derived from the definition. If you want to challenge the validity or concisiveness of the definition due to ones experiences and empirical evidence thats fine, but that is a different story.