But the laws of morality can be disobeyed. That's why I called them apples and oranges.
Polylogism means there are different forms of logic altogether, either you believe in different realities simultaneously existing or you are using the term logic incorrectly. If two people disagree on mathematical laws are both correct in their own reality?
Jackson LaRose:But the laws of morality can be disobeyed. That's why I called them apples and oranges.
You are conflating conversations, I haven't defended moral laws whatsoever. Human impulses are not moral laws.
Angurse:Polylogism means there are different forms of logic altogether, either you believe in different realities simultaneously existing or you are using the term logic incorrectly. If two people disagree on mathematical laws are both correct in their own reality?
You're right, and polyligism doesn't make any sense.
But it also didn't make any sense to me that there was an external logic floating around that we each had to discover.
So this is the solution.
Perfect logic (necessary for perfect decisions) would require omniscience, which nobody has, so everybody's logic is flawed (the old "garbage in, garbage out"), that's why individuals are constantly coming to different ex ante logical decisions, because their "scope of consideration" varies from person to person.
I'm pretty sure you are confusing thinking/thought with logic.
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
I think you've gone with option B. Logic is only externally floating about like mathematics is, you don't need perfect information to get it, people engaging in logical fallacies isn't due to a flaw in their logic, but a flaw in their application.
nirgrahamUK: I'm pretty sure you are confusing thinking/thought with logic.
I'm saying that our concept (thought) of logic is limited due to our inability to become instantly omniscient when making a logical choice. Hence, we cannot know, with certainty, what will truly be the right choice
Angurse: I think you've gone with option B. Logic is only externally floating about like mathematics is, you don't need perfect information to get it, people engaging in logical fallacies isn't due to a flaw in their logic, but a flaw in their application.
How do you qualify that assertion?
of course not when the question is the results of action not yet enacted. but of course we can if we are inquiring into something purely formal.
if you must 'choose' in the purely formal sense an integer between 1.1 and 2.9 what do you 'choose'? I for one am certain what my choice would be.
demosthenes: Rights exist subjectively. It just so happens that most people on Earth adhere to the NAP instinctively. But there is no objective way to go about protecting and enforcing these so-called rights. Also, breaking objective laws, like those of physics and economics, have consequences. If I drop a rock, gravity will force it to the ground, and if I inflate the currency, it will destroy savings over time. But if I kill somebody, I can get away with it, and there are no consequences. There is nothing objectively telling me that I broke any laws. Would you rob a house if you were starving? Would you initiate violence in order to protect your children? How can these morals be objective when they are violated with such impunity? The bottom line is that most things in life are subjective and arbitrary, beneficial when facilitated by voluntary interaction, and detrimental when forced by the state.
Rights exist subjectively. It just so happens that most people on Earth adhere to the NAP instinctively. But there is no objective way to go about protecting and enforcing these so-called rights. Also, breaking objective laws, like those of physics and economics, have consequences. If I drop a rock, gravity will force it to the ground, and if I inflate the currency, it will destroy savings over time. But if I kill somebody, I can get away with it, and there are no consequences. There is nothing objectively telling me that I broke any laws.
Would you rob a house if you were starving? Would you initiate violence in order to protect your children? How can these morals be objective when they are violated with such impunity?
The bottom line is that most things in life are subjective and arbitrary, beneficial when facilitated by voluntary interaction, and detrimental when forced by the state.
I wasn't arguing your subjectivism. I pointed out your inconsistency. What you wrote originally was neither here nor there. You can't be a subjectivist jet "subscribe to the bare basics of property rights".
nirgrahamUK:if you must 'choose' in the purely formal sense an integer between 1.1 and 2.9 what do you 'choose'? I for one am certain what my choice would be.
But the answer is already defined. I can say "a triangle has three sides" another might say "a triangle has four sides" well, the definition of a triangle is a construct, a grouping of words who's meaning has been attached to a specific shape. If you create the rules, you can easily win the game.
If I say "a shape has three sides" and another says "a shape has four sides", we are both correct, but incompletely.
it is circular reasoning to use logic to come to a conclusion based upon what is merely a construct of a thought process.
Jackson LaRose: Doesn't this create a disputed claim of ownership between Jim and Bill, since both seem to have legitimate claims on said chair.
Doesn't this create a disputed claim of ownership between Jim and Bill, since both seem to have legitimate claims on said chair.
I explained this. Only what is unowned can be homesteaded. Jim sat on an unowned chair, Bill sat on an owned chair. Only one is homesteading.
Jackson LaRose:But the answer is already defined.
Jackson LaRose:I can say "a triangle has three sides" another might say "a triangle has four sides" well, the definition of a triangle is a construct, a grouping of words who's meaning has been attached to a specific shape.
Jackson LaRose:If I say "a shape has three sides" and another says "a shape has four sides", we are both correct, but incompletely.
Jackson LaRose:it is circular reasoning to use logic to come to a conclusion based upon what is merely a construct of a thought process.
does ownership continue forever?
nirgrahamUK:if this is your way of saying its apriori then i agree with you.
OK, what is the apriori definition for ethics?
nirgrahamUK:you are confusing the issue with semantics. a peron might label all 3 sided shapes squares and all 4 sided shapes of equal length sides as triangles, this does not change the formal properties of this concepts, it just relabels them.
Our understanding of the object must've reached a certain point to begin to define said object. Even then, things like numbers are static. The sheer complexity, and temporal aspect of human interaction is a pretty tall order to claim to be able to analyze perfectly to come to absolute conclusions.
nirgrahamUK: Jackson LaRose:it is circular reasoning to use logic to come to a conclusion based upon what is merely a construct of a thought process. huh?
This is like physics. Relativistic physics follows certain "laws" perfectly, until the Planck scale is reached. After which, there is a whole new set of "laws" to govern the same material. This means that our understanding of the properties of matter is incomplete, not that matter is "wrong". The problems I have with claiming understanding of ethics is much the same, that is, I think we would have to have an impossible understanding (due to our perceptual limitations) to conceive objective rules of action.
As inferences can be rigorously shown to be valid or invalid. If you disagree, then how is mathematics little more than guessing?
Angurse:how is mathematics little more than guessing?
Because the framework in which mathematics exists is already defined by the mathematician. You decide the rules you choose to follow when specifically dealing with math.
it is clear that the nihilism and subjectivism you have been exposed to has put the objective and purely formal completely beyond your understanding in all contexts, not simply ethics. you say polylogism makes no sense, but that monologism makes no sense. Well I've understood what you said and I don't see how you are not a polylogician.
How do you propose we argue and discuss any topic? with threats of physical violence? on a purely emotionally level? or on the scale of me using word magic to trick your mind into thinking how i want it to think? you surely reject the possibility of referring to objective truth and logic to help you weed out poor arguments you have and to recognise valid deductions I would make...
Jackson LaRose: does ownership continue forever?
Unless abandoned.
Jackson LaRose:Because the framework in which mathematics exists is already defined by the mathematician. You decide the rules you choose to follow when specifically dealing with math.
Yet mathematics is used (effectively) in the real world, my house doesn't collapse because the structural engineer just decided to follow different rules. Unless you are saying god is a mathematician, you seem to be espousing polymathematics now, so go and try putting it into action.
nirgrahamUK:it is clear that the nihilism and subjectivism you have been exposed to has put the objective and purely formal completely beyond your understanding in all contexts, not simply ethics.
Jeez, be a little more patronizing and condescending. The violence I was exposed to watching Predator and playing Grand Theft Auto 4 didn't turn me into a murderer automatically.
I am skeptical. I constantly expose what I take in to criticism. Everything I (or you, or anybody) thinks is a product of our perception of reality (if that even exists), not of some external "fact", because nobody knows definitively that the external world is even there! Prove it! Go ahead! You can't. You believe it's there, you have faith that it exists. That's all. I am comfortable in admitting that, because in the end, it is of no real consequence. I will experience whatever this is.
nirgrahamUK:How do you propose we argue and discuss any topic? with threats of physical violence? on a purely emotionally level? or on the scale of me using word magic to trick your mind into thinking how i want it to think? you surely reject the possibility of referring to objective truth and logic to help you weed out poor arguments you have and to recognise valid deductions I would make...
As I typed in an earlier post, ideologues (slaves to fixed ideas) see the world in black and white, right and wrong. If you are so small-minded and such a zealot for your set of beliefs, I don't really understand why you would want to even bother discussing anything with anyone (besides fellow brothers of the faith) but there was the giveaway:
nirgrahamUK:you surely reject the possibility of referring to objective truth and logic to help you weed out poor arguments you have and to recognise valid deductions I would make...
Ah, you either:
Want converts to help validate your faith when occasional doubt might come creeping into your (swollen) head, causing some actual soul-searching,
Are a bully who likes to attempt to embarrass those who you believe are mentally inferior. (Makes sense, I don't see you tangling with Lilburne or Knott very often)
Either way, when trapped by the crappy position you so desperately cling to, instead of saying "I guess there really is no way to prove an objective anything", or "OK, well agree to disagree", you throw a petulant shit-fit, and start insulting me! That is really quite pathetic that you can't even have some respect for others who don't fall in line with your assumptions about the world.
Keep your damn equations and (huge) sense of self-satisfaction for doing so. I'll keep my freedom.
Angurse: Jackson LaRose:Because the framework in which mathematics exists is already defined by the mathematician. You decide the rules you choose to follow when specifically dealing with math. Yet mathematics is used (effectively) in the real world, my house doesn't collapse because the structural engineer just decided to follow different rules. Unless you are saying god is a mathematician, you seem to be espousing polymathematics now, so go and try putting it into action.
What real world? Show it to me.
Jackson LaRose:What real world? Show it to me.
Are mathematics used or not?
Jackson LaRose:I'll keep my freedom.
Jackson LaRose:Are a bully who likes to attempt to embarrass those who you believe are mentally inferior. (Makes sense, I don't see you tangling with Lilburne or Knott very often)
Jackson LaRose:Want converts to help validate your faith when occasional doubt might come creeping into your (swollen) head, causing some actual soul-searching,
Jackson LaRose: I'll keep my freedom.
Jackson LaRose: Everything I (or you, or anybody) thinks is a product of our perception of reality (if that even exists), not of some external "fact", because nobody knows definitively that the external world is even there!
Angurse: Jackson LaRose:What real world? Show it to me. Are mathematics used or not?
That's your opinion...
Such arrogance.. There are things I can't know, and can't explain.
nirgrahamUK: Jackson LaRose: I'll keep my freedom. is that the freedom to think free from bias or the freedom to think free from logic?
It's freedom from the pretension that I have to take a side.
nirgrahamUK:A is A is certain, or do you doubt it?
It sounds reasonable, but I'm in no position to command people to believe it. If it's good for you, isn't that good enough?
What of quantum physics? Many occurrences at the smallest, fastest level of the physical world work against "logic", but it happens. There is an uncertainty in everything, it's a fact (if that's what it takes to get you to consider something). Now, if all the constituents of the universe are at their very core uncertain, how can you divine certainty?
If we want to reduce everything to pedantic denial and quibbling your complaints about "freedom" are simply laughable. Just imagine that you are "free" and viola!
Reject the world completely or accept it, you cannot have it both ways.
Jackson LaRose:Such arrogance..
Jackson LaRose:I'm in no position to command people to believe it. 'commanding' people to believe it is not the issue. demanding they believe it if they are to be taken seriously as people worth talking to is eminently sensible. For oneself, to consistently recognize its objective truth is simply to remain sane. My hope in engaging the 'supreme' skeptic is to put others on watch for the absurdities inherent in the position. if this leaves you cold and faithfully committed to your dogged skepticism, so be it.
Jackson LaRose:I'm in no position to command people to believe it.
Angurse:Reject the world completely or accept it, you cannot have it both ways.
Why not?
Angurse:Just imagine that you are "free" and viola!
That would be pretty awesome, huh?
I don't know what the obsession about "universal this" or "absolute that" is all about anyways. Isn't it good enough to just take things at face value?
Before you go crazy spouting math and science, remember the distinction about laws that are deniable yet undefiable, and ones that are both deniable and defiable.
It helps to figure out the ones you can't defy, so you can get around them toward your aim (the whole impulse surgery, flight to overcome gravity, etc.)
What does figuring out the pointless ones accomplish? Peace of mind? A pretense for violence? No matter what, the result is only your self-satisfaction. Why bother with converts?
nirgrahamUK:'commanding' people to believe it is not the issue. demanding they believe it if they are to be taken seriously as people worth talking to is eminently sensible.
Hoo boy, I can hear the showers and the ovens starting up now.
Do you have a problem with the state? Or is the problem that you aren't the final authority of "right" and "wrong".
How is that not arrogant, by the way?
This is from Webster's:
"arrogance - exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance often by an overbearing manner"
Who are you to decide "sane" and "insane"?
And you still haven't explained how you know that your perception of reality is coherent with actual reality. All I'm saying is that each proposition is equally absurd.
Jackson LaRose:Why not?
Idiocy.
Jackson LaRose:I don't know what the obsession about "universal this" or "absolute that" is all about anyways. Isn't it good enough to just take things at face value?
Face value? Only someone who accepts reality would accept things at face value, not us extreme nihilists.
Jackson LaRose: Before you go crazy spouting math and science, remember the distinction about laws that are deniable yet undefiable, and ones that are both deniable and defiable.
If its defiable it isn't a law, please try and "remember the distinction."
Jackson LaRose:It helps to figure out the ones you can't defy, so you can get around them toward your aim (the whole impulse surgery, flight to overcome gravity, etc.)
Whatever do you mean? It is merely an opinion that there are laws at all! There is nothing to get around, as its only an opinion, doing so would be an admission of reality.
(And flight does not overcome gravity at all... at all!)
Jackson LaRose:What does figuring out the pointless ones accomplish? Peace of mind? A pretense for violence? No matter what, the result is only your self-satisfaction. Why bother with converts?
Because its fun; reading "converts" backtrack, equivocate and just squirm is just too amusing to pass up.
Jackson LaRose:Hoo boy, I can hear the showers and the ovens starting up now.
Jackson LaRose:Do you have a problem with the state?
Jackson LaRose:Or is the problem that you aren't the final authority of "right" and "wrong".
Jackson LaRose:"arrogance - exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance often by an overbearing manner"
Jackson LaRose: All I'm saying is that each proposition is equally absurd.
nirgrahamUK: Jackson LaRose:Hoo boy, I can hear the showers and the ovens starting up now. I don't understand this bizarre allusion. Are you appealing to the notion that might makes right and that because my relatives, Jews were butchered, and lacked the power to prosper then, 'move along theres nothing to see here'?
I'm saying that once you have become so married to a concept that you begin to view fellow human beings as inferior for not sharing it, ugly things can happen.
nirgrahamUK:A is not A because I am the authority on its truth. it is just true.
How do you know? Still haven't answered that one (is he afraid?)
nirgrahamUK:might assess the danger/inanity of the path they tread.
What exactly is the danger of critical thinking (will he have an answer? Tee hee, I'm so much smarter than this schmuck, maybe I'll boot him off the forum because he doesn't agree with me)
Well you must be exaggerating something, your implication that I wasn't worth talking to earlier would've made you stop by now if that wasn't an exaggeration. Maybe that isn't true. You tell me, Padre.
nirgrahamUK:no; A is A is not absurd whereas A is not A is absurd.
How do you know (Still no answer! Oh, I am a cheeky little monkey, aren't I?)
Marko: Jackson LaRose: does ownership continue forever? Unless abandoned.
Does this law only apply to humans?
You are asking to prove A=A?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Jackson LaRose:I'm saying that once you have become so married to a concept that you begin to view fellow human beings as inferior for not sharing it, ugly things can happen.
Jackson LaRose: nirgrahamUK:A is not A because I am the authority on its truth. it is just true. How do you know? Still haven't answered that one (is he afraid?)
look. just be honest that you are arguing in bad faith. you don't believe that there is the possibility in even being right. yet you argue, and claim to be arguing with me. you laugh at the thought of objectivity, 'logic' 'truth', that i might be 'correct' about.... well... anything. hence you have no grounds for declaring me wrong, the word 'wrong' is meaningless unless you want to steal a concept of objective right and wrong. You are left to declaring me 'wrong' on whatever topic we discuss simply as an article of your subjective faith in the uncritical dogma of scepticism. how can you assert you are critically thinking when you would deny the possibility of 'critical thinking' which must depend on logic and truth. you make a mockery of your own positions and affirm the truth of mine with every post. and you haven't yet even noticed that!
Jackson LaRose: nirgrahamUK:no; A is A is not absurd whereas A is not A is absurd.How do you know (Still no answer! Oh, I am a cheeky little monkey, aren't I?)
The denial of the law of identity is SELF REFUTING.
this is your best trick. the self refuting man.
nirgrahamUK:look. just be honest that you are arguing in bad faith. you don't believe that there is the possibility in even being right. yet you argue, and claim to be arguing with me. you laugh at the thought of objectivity, 'logic' 'truth', that i might be 'correct' about.... well... anything. hence you have no grounds for declaring me wrong, the word 'wrong' is meaningless unless you want to steal a concept of objective right and wrong. You are left to declaring me 'wrong' on whatever topic we discuss simply as an article of your subjective faith in the uncritical dogma of scepticism.
Please quote me were I have called you "wrong"
Your missing an important distinction. As you say, I agree with almost everything you are saying. It makes a lot of sense. But to say that anything is an absolute, doesn't make any sense to me. I don't understand how you could prove it, and you still have no explanation.
I don't think we know enough (we may never know enough) to claim anything as absolute. I'm sure there were guys like you 50, 100, 500, 1000 years ago, who had it all figured out. Do you think they did, by modern standards?
Jackson LaRose:Your missing an important distinction. As you say, I agree with almost everything you are saying. It makes a lot of sense. But to say that anything is an absolute, doesn't make any sense to me. I don't understand how you could prove it, and you still have no explanation.
Well praxeological laws are apoditic and absolute...so does praxeology not make sense to you?
Jackson LaRose:Please quote me were I have called you "wrong"
Jackson LaRose:But to say that anything is an absolute, doesn't make any sense to me. I don't understand how you could prove it, and you still have no explanation.
Jackson LaRose:I don't think we know enough (we may never know enough) to claim anything as absolute.
Jackson LaRose:I don't think we know enough (we may never know enough) to claim anything as absolute. I'm sure there were guys like you 50, 100, 500, 1000 years ago, who had it all figured out. Do you think they did, by modern standards?
Sure they make sense, and I'd be willing to say "more than likely" or "almost surely" they will turn out as you expect, but it has proven scientifically that A will equal A almost every time, but if given enough attempts and time, A will not equal A every once and a while.