James is wrong

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Affect - James is still wrong

Postby Ecmandu » Tue May 08, 2018 2:29 pm

Mithus wrote:You had this discussion with James before. At that time you stated that you never saw evidence of platonic forms, that every concept you can think of can only co-exist with the material.

This is what James answered:
I believe that there is a singular reason for existence. That singular reason is a "divine being" in the same sense that a perfect circle is a "Platonic form". It is not supposed to be a physical being, but a conceptual being; a logic, a reason, a because.
That reason "exists" (as a reason, a divine being) in all places, omnipresent. That reason cannot be thwarted or resisted by anything, thus is omnipotent. That reason accounts for all things, thus is omniscient.


And from another thread:
In RM:AO, I chose, for convenience, to merely allow for a "conceptual realm of existence" and a "physical realm of existence". The conceptual realm was for the Platonic entities - concepts, independent of physical existence. Plato and others declared in their ontology, that such entities have "always existed". I don't really care if you choose to say that they have "always existed" or not. If a concept is not being physically represented, it is having no affect. It can be thought of as a "potential existence void of opportunity".

The conceptual realm is actually the special case of the physical realm wherein the essence of something (its concept) has been reduced to zero physical presence, yet the concept still "exists". The conceptual realm is the extreme pole of reduced physicality.


Yup, that's what I used to argue.

Did you see this recent post of mine?

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194004

Perfect logic.

The Buddhists have a saying called "dependent arising". Which is more akin to your former quote from James about affect, except, platonic forms don't need us to exist, they don't need observers.

Could it be that James is simply replacing platonic forms with a supreme deity ? I wonder what James would say to my disproof of those 3 omnistates.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7362
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: James is wrong

Postby Meno_ » Tue May 08, 2018 6:38 pm

[quote="Meno_"]Just because ' the always' leaves the - not always, or, seldom, does not exclude it.


There for, Your change of mind is understandable because James need not. He is beyond change, because of the above argument.(Also beyond material manifestation.)

Your argument is nominal , but James' is potentially implicit .The question about how he can distinguish is mute, because its not because he can't. but wills not to-do so.

The question is reduced to zero, as a condition for such will.

So James might be wrong if he looses his will.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3655
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: James is wrong

Postby Ecmandu » Tue May 08, 2018 7:10 pm

Meno_ wrote:
Meno_ wrote:Just because ' the always' leaves the - not always, or, seldom, does not exclude it.


There for, Your change of mind is understandable because James need not. He is beyond change, because of the above argument.(Also beyond material manifestation.)

Your argument is nominal , but James' is potentially implicit .The question about how he can distinguish is mute, because its not because he can't. but wills not to-do so.

The question is reduced to zero, as a condition for such will.


I'm pretty good at making sense of posts, and this one isn't processing well in me.

The idea here is that platonic forms can be proven, and they can be proven to exist regardless of consciousness existing. They are a category of not being affected.

Clearly, a supreme being is defined as conscious.

Let's understand further what knowledge is: a particular state of knowing.

Like I linked to prior, knowing that you DON'T know something is a state of knowledge, very common in fact. If a being doesn't have this common knowledge about everything it knows, than it can be said to not possess all knowledge. To be everywhere, lacks the knowledge of what it's like to not be everywhere, and you require presence for potence.

James is wrong on two things here:

Affectence
The Omni states he declared

I've seen a lot of knowledge and power in my life, and it takes a lesser person to interpret it like James ...

The facts don't support it... but ass kissing does
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7362
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: James is wrong

Postby Meno_ » Tue May 08, 2018 7:46 pm

A Supreme being and/or Platonic forms as defined, what is meant by a nominal form of understanding. Whixjndoes not mean minimal in this context, bit reduced toward absurdity.

That it's not to say such reduction is absurd, but that it approach, again , nominally toward absolute(zero)

Ecmandu, such conflation need an act of will, as to be able to exert a will, at the risk of being misunderstood.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3655
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: James is wrong

Postby Ecmandu » Tue May 08, 2018 7:53 pm

Meno_ wrote:A Supreme being and/or Platonic forms as defined, what is meant by a nominal form of understanding. Whixjndoes not mean minimal in this context, bit reduced toward absurdity.

That it's not to say such reduction is absurd, but that it approach, again , nominally toward absolute(zero)

Ecmandu, such conflation need an act of will, as to be able to exert a will, at the risk of being misunderstood.


Platonic forms have proof strength evidence, and are not nominal in that sense.

No act of will can bring about or destroy a platonic form.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7362
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: James is wrong

Postby Meno_ » Tue May 08, 2018 8:47 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
Meno_ wrote:A Supreme being and/or Platonic forms as defined, what is meant by a nominal form of understanding. Whixjndoes not mean minimal in this context, bit reduced toward absurdity.

That it's not to say such reduction is absurd, but that it approach, again , nominally toward absolute(zero)

Ecmandu, such conflation need an act of will, as to be able to exert a will, at the risk of being misunderstood.


Platonic forms have proof strength evidence, and are not nominal in that sense.

No act of will can bring about or destroy a platonic form.


The will is not necessarily in the innate sense of will to power, but in as described by You, in the sense of the Buddha , of letting go. That does not need to have a destructive mode, only quiet resignation toward a de-differentiated state of mind.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3655
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: James is wrong

Postby Ecmandu » Tue May 08, 2018 9:55 pm

Umm... yeah, for the last three posts, you haven't been talking to my content, but someone else entirely, not sure who though. I will comment on a phrase you used... de-differentiated state of mind. There is no such thing. I also argued that platonic forms refute the doctrine of dependent arising, and have no interest in a resignation of morality.

I am neither theist or Buddhist ...
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7362
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: James is wrong

Postby surreptitious75 » Wed May 09, 2018 5:25 am

Ecmandu wrote:
Platonic forms have proof strength evidence and are not nominal in that sense

No act of will can bring about or destroy a platonic form

Platonic forms only exist as concepts so are actually nominal

Because they are outside the realm of physical experience
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: James is wrong

Postby Meno_ » Wed May 09, 2018 7:35 am

surreptitious75 wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:
Platonic forms have proof strength evidence and are not nominal in that sense

No act of will can bring about or destroy a platonic form

Platonic forms only exist as concepts so are actually nominal

Because they are outside the realm of physical experience[/quote

Of they are outside the realms of physical experience how can they exist , do concepts habe existence ?
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3655
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: James is wrong

Postby surreptitious75 » Wed May 09, 2018 7:58 am

Meno wrote:
they are outside the realms of physical experience how can they exist do concepts have existence

Concepts are formulated by minds which can imagine many things that do not actually exist in reality

The human mind came up with the concept of Platonic forms which were not known to exist before then

So were there no human minds to perceive of them then Platonic forms could not exist as human concepts
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: James is wrong

Postby Meno_ » Wed May 09, 2018 8:14 am

surreptitious75 wrote:
Meno wrote:
they are outside the realms of physical experience how can they exist do concepts have existence

Concepts are formulated by minds which can imagine many things that do not actually exist in reality

The human mind came up with the concept of Platonic forms which were not known to exist before then

So were there no human minds to perceive of them then Platonic forms could not exist as human concepts



Why do they have to be human minds? Perhaps some extraterrestrial minds or even cyborg or other minds create forms




forms:


Maybe forms are like the world, its unsure who or what created them, for surely the minds of men did not create the world , even as now interpreted as being composed of pure energy. Are things energy? If not, then how can energy be said to exist, in the a scholastic sense , when matter as energy was not yet conceived?

What can be said of energy minimally is , that it is uncertain to qualify as any thing. That it is some thing. when ' thing ' is redefined as a 'quantum particle" , that it is unseen, then it follows that its a probable entity.
Last edited by Meno_ on Wed May 09, 2018 4:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3655
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: James is wrong

Postby surreptitious75 » Wed May 09, 2018 9:11 am

Meno wrote:
Why do they have to be human minds

Perhaps some extraterrestrial minds or even cyborg or other minds to create forms

They do not have to be human minds but they are the only ones known to actually exist that can conceive of such forms

But if other minds of at least equal intelligence exist elsewhere in the Universe then they have the ability to do likewise
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: James is wrong

Postby Meno_ » Wed May 09, 2018 3:10 pm

They do not even have to be minds, they could be virtual structural building building blocks.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3655
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: James is wrong

Postby Ecmandu » Wed May 09, 2018 3:36 pm

I recently discussed how the statement:

Morality is fake

Proves that morality is objective - even if every being agreed that morality was fake, they'd all be incorrect (that's what makes it objective. The reason being; they thought it good to offer the statement.

Platonic forms work the same way, uncaused, eternal. Perception requires platonic forms, platonic forms do not require perception. Platonic forms are not subjected to being affected by perception beings.

This is why James is wrong.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7362
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: James is wrong

Postby surreptitious75 » Wed May 09, 2018 6:56 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
Perception requires platonic forms platonic forms do not require perception

Platonic forms are not subjected to being affected by perception beings

This is true but it is also equally true that platonic forms may not actually exist outside of human perception

There is no way of knowing because they are non falsifiable by definition
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: James is wrong

Postby Ecmandu » Wed May 09, 2018 7:07 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:
Perception requires platonic forms platonic forms do not require perception

Platonic forms are not subjected to being affected by perception beings

This is true but it is also equally true that platonic forms may not actually exist outside of human perception

There is no way of knowing because they are non falsifiable by definition


They certainly aren't non falsifiable, and definitely by definition.

It's easy to prove a platonic form, as there being no other option!!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ud3Mdz1dTqg

https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=414s&v=7QShMZxBa_E

These need to be rewound.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7362
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: James is wrong

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed May 09, 2018 8:54 pm

Ecmandu wrote:I recently discussed how the statement:

Morality is fake

Proves that morality is objective - even if every being agreed that morality was fake, they'd all be incorrect (that's what makes it objective. The reason being; they thought it good to offer the statement.
Or they simply like saying what they think is true and/or find it unpleasant when something they consider false is said and not countered with what they consider the truth. IOW they can see it in terms of desire, preferences, personal ones that is and not that it is good.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1049
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: James is wrong

Postby Ecmandu » Wed May 09, 2018 8:59 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:I recently discussed how the statement:

Morality is fake

Proves that morality is objective - even if every being agreed that morality was fake, they'd all be incorrect (that's what makes it objective. The reason being; they thought it good to offer the statement.
Or they simply like saying what they think is true and/or find it unpleasant when something they consider false is said and not countered with what they consider the truth. IOW they can see it in terms of desire, preferences, personal ones that is and not that it is good.


I define morality based on desire, -- being able to have any experience you want without hurting anyone (but yourself if you so desire)
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7362
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: James is wrong

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed May 09, 2018 9:06 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:I recently discussed how the statement:

Morality is fake

Proves that morality is objective - even if every being agreed that morality was fake, they'd all be incorrect (that's what makes it objective. The reason being; they thought it good to offer the statement.
Or they simply like saying what they think is true and/or find it unpleasant when something they consider false is said and not countered with what they consider the truth. IOW they can see it in terms of desire, preferences, personal ones that is and not that it is good.


I define morality based on desire, -- being able to have any experience you want without hurting anyone (but yourself if you so desire)
That's your morality. But that doesn't mean that someone who follows their desires, for example in saying what they think is true, also thinks that it is objectively moral to say it.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1049
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: James is wrong

Postby Ecmandu » Wed May 09, 2018 9:25 pm

People don't offer statements unless they think it is good to do so. Think of all the things you can say at any moment that you censor. You censor it because you think it bad... even people who misbehave do it for the attention, they still think it's good.

My moral code as the bar of morality is inarguable, unless you just want attention, which I already commented on. Males are programmed with algorithms to argue blatant truths that apply to everyone for female sexuality.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7362
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: James is wrong

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed May 09, 2018 9:41 pm

Ecmandu wrote:People don't offer statements unless they think it is good to do so.

You've said this a few times, but I see no evidence for it. Yes, most people believe in objective morality and when they say what they think is true, they are likely trying to be good (or think that is what they are doing, their actual motives may be something else). But it is not necessarily the case for everyone. There are people who do not believe there are objective morals, and when they point this out they need not believe they are making things objectively better, but rather enjoy saying the truth, prefer not to let falsehoods stand. IOW it is like much of the behavior of most people: habit, preference, desire, with no layer of 'making the world objectively better' on top.


Think of all the things you can say at any moment that you censor. You censor it because you think it bad... even people who misbehave do it for the attention, they still think it's good.
I censor because of practical concerns. Sometimes out of empathy. But not because I believe it is good to censor. Or that it is objectively good not to cause pain. I am a social mammal. Social mammals manage just fine without a concept of objective moral good. They simply do what they want, avoid what they do not want.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1049
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: James is wrong

Postby Ecmandu » Thu May 10, 2018 12:40 am

You're riding a very thin line here...

Instead of calling it fake, you call it false (the bad), and truth (the good), you're trying so hard not to admit the axiom I submitted so that you can defend these hypothetical people who are amoral, and who are, because truth is GOOD to them!
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7362
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: James is wrong

Postby Ecmandu » Thu May 10, 2018 1:58 am

Ecmandu wrote:You're riding a very thin line here...

Instead of calling it fake, you call it false (the bad), and truth (the good), you're trying so hard not to admit the axiom I submitted so that you can defend these hypothetical people who are amoral, and who are, because truth is GOOD to them!


Let me clarify this in another way to address your posting.

People like different things. So perhaps there's no morality.

However, everyone strongly dislikes the same things.

We can all agree on bad.

By defining bad, we set up an axiom for good; everyone getting everything that they want.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7362
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: James is wrong

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu May 10, 2018 3:45 am

Ecmandu wrote:You're riding a very thin line here...

Instead of calling it fake, you call it false (the bad), and truth (the good), you're trying so hard not to admit the axiom I submitted so that you can defend these hypothetical people who are amoral, and who are, because truth is GOOD to them!

Fake, meaning not genuine
genuine truly what something is said to be; authentic.

IOW they are not objective morals, but rather, for example, a person's preferences. There could be other things different people consider them to ACTUALLY be.

And let's look at this

I recently discussed how the statement:

Morality is fake

Proves that morality is objective -
How could someone's statement prove that morality is objective. At best it might show that that person thinks morality is objective, but denies it. I don't think it remotely does that, but it certainly does not show that morality is objective. It does not provide any evidence of that, let alone prove it.

And since other people use other adjectives or simply state that objective morals do not exist, we have people not covered by that wording and any disadvantages or hypocrisy involved or not involved.

The fake/genuine dichotomy is not the same as good/bad, right/wrong, good/evil. It need not have any moral judgments. It has necessarily to do with something being presented as X, when in fact it is not X.

It is mind reading to say that everyone in fact believes in objective morality. It is a category error to say that any particular wording of that opinions proves the existence of objective morals. You might try to catch out one individual through their wording, but it is not anything like an ontological proof.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1049
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: James is wrong

Postby Ecmandu » Thu May 10, 2018 3:59 am

When someone says there are no morals, it solves the same as someone saying there's no truth.

You have to combat logic while using it, same as saying there's no logic (it's a logical statement and this refutes itself.

Morality is objective regardless of our agreement or disagreement.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7362
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ecmandu

cron