Thread Graveyard

Re: Against Rights-Skepticism

liberty student — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 21:10:16 GMT

nirgrahamUK:

maybe you two should split this thread and discuss the utility and feasibility of speculation elsewhere

Thread split, discussion over.

Re: Against Rights-Skepticism

wilderness — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 21:00:33 GMT

liberty student:

wilderness:
i didn't say "I know" (you did). I said "I think".

I wasn't aware that one could know without thinking. Learn something new every day.

your from Canada what can I say. it's common vernacular where I live to distinguish between what I think and what I know. of course I can think what i know but that doesn't mean what I think is of full knowledge and as I explained to you but you are unwilling to accept is that full knowledge of what I thought relies upon what you have to say too.

i'm dropping this seeing that you're in a particular mood not to honestly dialogue at the moment

nir was right I shouldn't hold my breath

Re: Against Rights-Skepticism

wilderness — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:56:31 GMT

liberty student:

wilderness:
This is why I asked if you are 'absolutely honest about what you said', but for some unknown reason to me you didn't answer it.

I thought you rephrased it as was I being skeptical, and I tried to answer that. If you were just being a smartass when I asked for clarification, then that seems to be a problem of your own making...

lol I wasn't rephrasing it. I was asking if 'your not understanding what I said' is called what being skeptical is.

liberty student:

wilderness:
Kant:

"Absolute scepticism declares that everything is semblance. It distinguishes, then, semblance from truth, and must therefore possess some mark of the distinction. Consequently it must suppose a knowledge of truth, and thereby it contradicts itself."

Quoting some egghead is meaningless to me. If you can't convey the message within that quote in your own words, then you might want to reconsider deferring to it.

I wanted you to know that I was asking with intent and not simply bumbling along with words. I gave thought to what I was saying.

liberty student:

wilderness:

Kant goes on to discuss sceptism (NOT absolute sceptism - sceptism alone) is good for a critical processing of knowledge as long as the process "gives hope of attaining to certainty".

So I ask again and I'll even put in other words, are you absolutely honest or simply being honest about what you are saying? And you were saying you are a skeptic - so - are you absolutely being skeptical or simply skeptical according to what I've quoted from Kant here.

I was simply asking a question to understand what you mean. calm down.

The rest is just more of the typical wordiness and headaches. Can I just get a simple question, without the assumption of guilt (for god knows what) or some attempt to trap me?

I'm not trying to trap you. If you have a headache from words I can't help that.

liberty student:

Can you just ask, in plain english, that everyone here, can easily understand, what it is you need to know?

I'm willing to answer most questions publicly (1) if the questions are posted in good faith, and (2) if I can understand them.

they are posted in good faith and if you can't understand them then I'll move on. I can't discuss with somebody that doesn't understand it would naturally go nowhere productive.

Re: Against Rights-Skepticism

nirgrahamUK — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:49:20 GMT

maybe you two should split this thread and discuss the utility and feasibility of speculation elsewhere

Re: Against Rights-Skepticism

liberty student — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:47:51 GMT

wilderness:
i didn't say "I know" (you did). I said "I think".

I wasn't aware that one could know without thinking. Learn something new every day.

Re: Against Rights-Skepticism

liberty student — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:44:28 GMT

wilderness:
This is why I asked if you are 'absolutely honest about what you said', but for some unknown reason to me you didn't answer it.

I thought you rephrased it as was I being skeptical, and I tried to answer that. If you were just being a smartass when I asked for clarification, then that seems to be a problem of your own making...

wilderness:
Kant:

"Absolute scepticism declares that everything is semblance. It distinguishes, then, semblance from truth, and must therefore possess some mark of the distinction. Consequently it must suppose a knowledge of truth, and thereby it contradicts itself."

Quoting some egghead is meaningless to me. If you can't convey the message within that quote in your own words, then you might want to reconsider deferring to it.

wilderness:

Kant goes on to discuss sceptism (NOT absolute sceptism - sceptism alone) is good for a critical processing of knowledge as long as the process "gives hope of attaining to certainty".

So I ask again and I'll even put in other words, are you absolutely honest or simply being honest about what you are saying? And you were saying you are a skeptic - so - are you absolutely being skeptical or simply skeptical according to what I've quoted from Kant here.

I was simply asking a question to understand what you mean. calm down.

The rest is just more of the typical wordiness and headaches. Can I just get a simple question, without the assumption of guilt (for god knows what) or some attempt to trap me? Can you just ask, in plain english, that everyone here, can easily understand, what it is you need to know?

I'm willing to answer most questions publicly (1) if the questions are posted in good faith, and (2) if I can understand them.

Re: Against Rights-Skepticism

wilderness — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:40:59 GMT

i didn't say "I know" (you did). I said "I think". I reserved my opinion to be affirmed by yours. relax dude.

Re: Against Rights-Skepticism

wilderness — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:39:42 GMT

good for you.

This is why I asked if you are 'absolutely honest about what you said', but for some unknown reason to me you didn't answer it.

Kant:

"Absolute scepticism declares that everything is semblance. It distinguishes, then, semblance from truth, and must therefore possess some mark of the distinction. Consequently it must suppose a knowledge of truth, and thereby it contradicts itself."

Kant goes on to discuss sceptism (NOT absolute sceptism - sceptism alone) is good for a critical processing of knowledge as long as the process "gives hope of attaining to certainty".

So I ask again and I'll even put in other words, are you absolutely honest or simply being honest about what you are saying? And you were saying you are a skeptic - so - are you absolutely being skeptical or simply skeptical according to what I've quoted from Kant here.

I was simply asking a question to understand what you mean. calm down.

Re: Against Rights-Skepticism

liberty student — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:31:52 GMT

wilderness:
You just figured it out - I think.

Less thinking about what you cannot know please.

Re: Against Rights-Skepticism

liberty student — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:30:33 GMT

wilderness:
Are you merely being skeptical now?

I always try to be skeptical, and hopefully not too cynical. Cynicism is the easy way out.

Re: Against Rights-Skepticism

wilderness — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:10:35 GMT

liberty student:

wilderness:
Are you being absolutely honest about what you are saying?

I don't understand the question.

Are you merely being skeptical now?

Re: Against Rights-Skepticism

liberty student — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:07:19 GMT

wilderness:
Are you being absolutely honest about what you are saying?

I don't understand the question.

Re: Against Rights-Skepticism

wilderness — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 19:40:32 GMT

Are you being absolutely honest about what you are saying?

Re: Against Rights-Skepticism

liberty student — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 19:35:58 GMT

wilderness:
A skeptics whole approach and intention is to find a way around it to affirm that skepticism is 'the real deal' that it has a place.

A skeptic (IMO) is someone who is trying to be honest about epistemology.

Attributing intention is just hand waving.

Re: Against Rights-Skepticism

nirgrahamUK — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 19:17:16 GMT

wilderness:
I'm all ears.

dont hold your breath ;-)

but i think it shows that my statement about rational argument was not trivial....