Zizek to talk with Peterson, billed as "debate"

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

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Zizek to talk with Peterson, billed as "debate"

Postby Guide » Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:45 pm

So reason is an outdated practice, founded in ideas that no longer hold.


A particular interpretation of what we have long been in the habit of calling reason no longer appeals to reason. It’s different. You’re failing to explain, in simple terms, what reason names. So that we know what we are doing and talking about. What we are thoughtlessly taking for granted, or seizing upon in order to interpret, or approaching in order to let it call to us so that we can become its respondents.

In the tradition, which is still with us as the contemporary, there is, here and there, a high point which spills down on all the other points. From there, reason is meant to stand above and outside experience, and when undeceived by eristics it comes to the absolute truth. Now listen: this absolute truth, the wild and fabulous phrase, is synonymous with the calm and average talk about “objective reality”. This requires one to think. There are a great many points like this one, unthought in the usual rigmarole of grad students, academics, and persons on intellectual shows appealing to the state trained popular multitude. They are all the time abstractedly wondering about in old language, and that means old thoughts, not genuinely understood by themselves.

It is not at all clear what reason names. Even in the simplest sense. We have a discussion, a discussion surely is not only reasonable. It is called in Plato “dialectic”, in Aristotle logic and dialectic are synonyms. With the Romans dialectic is named, but in the medievals there is talk of something like disputation, and there all manner of informal logic develops, in a special circumstance of communal research towards the truth amidst fellow Catholics, in our own time logic names mathematics, symbolic logic, it is just rules (free of “metaphysics”, thus infinitely valuable to the academic who can be sure it is right, it is right, for it is right bey definition, like rules of a foolish game to waste the time). There is syllogism, and rules of drawing inference, at times this is called reason. Man’s essence, what differentiates him from all things that exist, is said to be reason (ratio). Is the intellect identical to reason, reason in what sense? In a simple sense, for example, one can say that drawing inference is something that belongs to all human minds, so long as there is no deception in the data of experience. And yet, if that is all reason is, why would we have so much trouble with disputations, with contest in speech? why would not each person, sharing reason alike, be as a matching punch card, and say the same as each other?

These kinds of question man has often answered, though they are difficult to sort out, they all do find answers with certain authorities. These authorities are not mere authorities, but thoughts in the tradition. A history, empirical data of what humans have thought. Of what we still think in transformed form. We are the past of thought. If we are serious we can not go about assuming to know all these things in a popular appeal to a mere word already set down for us in a dictionary. Our knowing is a somnambulist inside us, acting us out. Assumed, superficially in the popular mind, to carry the valence of the unqualified good.
Guide
 
Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:20 am

Re: Zizek to talk with Peterson, billed as "debate"

Postby Silhouette » Thu Mar 21, 2019 9:56 pm

Guide wrote:You’re failing to explain, in simple terms, what reason names. So that we know what we are doing and talking about.

Reason is the name of the set of ways in which descriptions of reality concord with themselves and the apparent consistencies of reality.

I'm sure you're familiar with the notions of soundness and validity, as distinct from one another. There are relative consistencies to reality that can be described in consistent terms with a certain degree of soundness. And given these semantic definitions of the terms, the syntactic use of them in relation to another can be done validly or invalidly.

You don't have to "follow the rules" of using terms to be descriptive of reality to a sufficient extent, nor do you have to "follow the rules" of using terms to be internally consistent with one another to a necessary extent, but in doing so you are either not describing reality or not making sense in doing so. I leave it to you to follow or not follow these rules - freedom from them is your prerogative.

Now, whilst there is necessarily a gulf between words as signifiers and the signified things that they are intended to describe with more or less precision, validity can be far more clearly correct or incorrect in a binary manner. However, the reliance of validity on soundness lends a relativity to the transitive truth of statements about the world: only given the acceptance of the definitions being used can absolutely true statements be claimed. Intransitive truth is tautologous and may only be expanded, allowing meaning to be extracted from it, by changing it into fragments/discrete concepts: I am not one to claim objective reality as anything more than "itself as it is" - that which is being described, not any description of it. The words and thoughts used to describe reality are "of" reality in the genitive sense as sights, sounds, feelings etc. but they are necessarily different in type to that which they denote in order for any association (meaning) to emerge. Meaning is of reality, but consistency in the use of the signifier is not a guarantee of the consistency of the signified in truth. The attempt to reduce this gulf is the aim - and either intentional or unintentional attempts that widen it are relatively less credible.

The sophists and incompetents are the ones that relatively widen the gulf: irrational, and the philosophers and competents are the ones that relatively reduce it: rational.

Now are you clear on what the rational aka reason names?

The widening and reduction of the gulf is the origin of contestation in speech. The ability to form, hold and adapt the signifiers plays a part, just as much as the intention to reduce the gulf. The authority is only whether or not what you say is true to reality. One need not intend to reduce the gulf in the reliable assumption that others may lack both or either willingness or ability therewith: a persuasive attempt to widen the gulf may take on perceived authority merely by the fact that it is somewhat reliably true to reality, even if an attempt that is truer to reality has been less persuasive - given the lack of willingness/ability to understand its higher truth.

Dictionaries and other authorities are reliable guides to maximal truth - given contemporary willingness and ability to maximise it. But beyond them is the ultimate test of prediction, but not only sufficient prediction in the short-term.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3699
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Zizek to talk with Peterson, billed as "debate"

Postby Guide » Thu Mar 21, 2019 11:53 pm

“Reason is the name of the set of ways in which descriptions of reality concord with themselves and the apparent consistencies of reality.”


This is a very abstract definition. Does it mean a distinction between observation and analysing the data of observation is made? And the latter is the sphere of reason?

“Reality” would seem to refer back to “observation.” Then everything hangs about the particular form of rigor of different disciplines, labs, cohorts etc. Specialization and micro expertise. No proper philosophic content: rather: working hypothesis and methods.

“I'm sure you're familiar with the notions of soundness and validity, as distinct from one another. There are relative consistencies to reality that can be described in consistent terms with a certain degree of soundness. And given these semantic definitions of the terms, the syntactic use of them in relation to another can be done validly or invalidly.”


This is all very fine if we are grad students. It can be interesting to watch people such as “Kane B” (on Youtube) make their development in this respect. But, at bottom, it is wholly uninteresting for serious people. It is academic (academics, may, here and there, provide some useful and worthy contributions to human life). The only thing worth considering in so-called “logic” (syllogistics) is how we come to a sound premise. No rules can guide us there. It belongs to the human being and our judgment. For instance: What is Justice? Does Justice exist? What is knowledge? Is there knowledge?

So far as we speak of rules of drawing inference it may be that all normal humans, I make a concession and don’t go into the premise “normal range” and so on, can do that reliably. If that is what reason means, then, no problem. However, then we have a second issue, intuition or immediate experience. E.g., the place from where the premises arise.

Reason names, for two thousand four hundred years, prior to the year 1900 or so, something quite different. Serious discussion, e.g., the dialogues (dialectic/logos) of Plato, or, the treating of disputional objections in the medieval theological texts. These still concern human beings. They aren't simply props for the vert frei, value free, mathematical physics: which is devoid of reason: reason there becomes instrumental reason. A machine (as in one of the lone worthy products of the American so-called philosophy, Searle’s chinese Room metaphor. Understanding is excluded. Ergo, what we call science is not a science in any serious sense. Heidegger says here, quite rightly: “science doesn’t think”.



“Now, whilst there is necessarily a gulf between words as signifiers and the signified things that they are intended to describe with more or less precision, validity can be far more clearly correct or incorrect in a binary manner.”


Of course, one is always proud to have acquired some knowledge. And yet, we should not be dismayed to learn how little it avails, and how much we should wreck ourselves, it is painful, and learn something more. One must learn, most of all, perseverance in the face of one's failure to reach the heights.

Supposing I say, there is an argument going on. And there is an ambiguity about whether argument is being used to signal a gathering of reasons to support a claim in the attempt to influence the human mind, or, on the other hand, whether what is in question is a fight where one side attempts to defeat the other at any cost without respect to whether the other side benefits or not. So far as “argument” is simply linked to a definition nothing can happen. Either under the sentence we have a "Chinese" system pointing to the right “argument” definition, or we don’t. This is not the way to do philosophy. One must include the human being. That is the way to build a machine. Wittgenstein made this development away from Russell on these grounds, or similar as it were, and that is worth following or thinking through.

"
Now are you clear on what the rational aka reason names?"


I would call that instrumental rationality. We can trace the steady decadence of the idea, for instance, back to Galileo and Descartes' popular tract on reason (where reason becomes: METHOD), through into Hobbes. That is one tract that shows the End of Philosophy, as it becomes mere technology or cybernetics. This has other lineages we can follow to see the destruction of science, or, put another way, the winning out of the part of philosophy, which came to power as science. Science is wholly unable to offer human guidance: e.g., it can not even answer the question should we pursue scientific knowledge? That is not a scientifically answerable question. It requires reason in the sense that prevailed from Plato to Schopenhauer.
Guide
 
Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:20 am

Re: Zizek to talk with Peterson, billed as "debate"

Postby Silhouette » Mon Mar 25, 2019 11:37 pm

Guide wrote:The only thing worth considering in so-called “logic” (syllogistics) is how we come to a sound premise. No rules can guide us there. It belongs to the human being and our judgment. For instance: What is Justice? Does Justice exist? What is knowledge? Is there knowledge?

No rules can guide us on how to come to a sound premise?

Are you sure?

May I just as legitimately claim the soundness of the premise "Circles are rectangles" as "squares are rectangles"?

What is Justice? Does Justice exist? These, as another example, are attempts to more precisely word our model of reality to how we use the term "Justice" upon its application to reality.
Is there knowledge? This pre-supposes knowledge of knowledge and the ability to know whether one answer is more knowing than another. What is knowledge? Again, precisely wording our model with how we meaningfully use the term.

Guide wrote:Heidegger says here, quite rightly: “science doesn’t think”.

This is fine, science is a structure of thinking so that its products more closely model reality - not something that does thinking. Case is important here: "thinking" is Genitive, no one is saying it is Accusative to the Nominative "science". To address an earlier point of yours, you're right that I am basing my use of the term "reality" on an analysis of observation - in a kind of dialectic sense: we observe to find relative consistencies, yet not all of these observations are consistent with one another, and we adjust our notions of reality to accomodate this. Thus observations may be illusions and we eliminate inconsistencies as our model of reality develops in this way.

Guide wrote:This is not the way to do philosophy. One must include the human being. That is the way to build a machine. Wittgenstein made this development away from Russell on these grounds, or similar as it were, and that is worth following or thinking through.
...
Science is wholly unable to offer human guidance

This makes ethics the foundation of philosophy. I am persuaded by the argument that Ontology and Epistemology either precede or coincide with ethics, seeing as value must first exist, and knowingly so. Yet existence and knowledge, as you allude to throughout your post, are valuations. So with the human being as intrinsic to philosophy, so too are such things that are independent of the human being such as existence and knowledge. "One must include the human being" and also exclude him - I would add.

Reason, critically, is the human being diminishing the inclusion of the human being, in order to moreso become the human being.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3699
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Zizek to talk with Peterson, billed as "debate"

Postby Guide » Tue Mar 26, 2019 12:12 am

Redacted, I was looking at page one. Not the most recent post.
Guide
 
Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:20 am

Re: Zizek to talk with Peterson, billed as "debate"

Postby Guide » Tue Mar 26, 2019 12:50 am

“May I just as legitimately claim the soundness of the premise "Circles are rectangles" as "squares are rectangles"?”


You’re regressing or, as Socrates would say, forgetting. We aren't speaking of circles. Rather, what is being done with the thing we call a circle. What is it for the one using it? Most people can’t define ordinary objects. Can’t say what they are to be used for. The dictionary offers a specialist’s peculiar view. How long will the gorup willing to use it that way, understand it that way, reproduce and continue its order? Our universities are quite young compared to the millions of years old fire pits of intelligent beings in China and India (I say this on the view, by the way, that Neanderthals, or the like, are basically "humans", putting aside species precision and taxonomic identification. Human is in the look, and what one finds there in ordinary dealings, thus, in reason.

So, where from the premisson? The issue is this: we will get general agreement on many issues, perhaps instituted by compulsory education, agreement or seeming agreement. But, this agreement is empirically seen to vary over the centuries, and among peoples of different climates and regions. No one did topological operations on non-euclidean circles in former times, for instance. Or, used maths at all for Galilean and modern physics. We are forced to maintain that what we now, as a group, generally grant, is the pinnacle of human thought. This is the way to use a circle, e.g., to make liquid for nuclear ICBMs work properly. To make some chemical calculations or so forth. E.g., a constant perfection is being carried out, and the West is its flaming core.

“What is Justice? Does Justice exist? These, as another example, are attempts to more precisely word our model of reality to how we use the term "Justice" upon its application to reality Is there knowledge? This pre-supposes knowledge of knowledge and the ability to know whether one answer is more knowing than another. What is knowledge? Again, precisely wording our model with how we meaningfully use the term.


Describing how things are now done doesn’t tell us that they should go on being done that way. As a secondary issue, precision is generally not helpful in human matters, since it tends to abstract from the human understanding which is not precise in most matters.


“This is fine, science is a structure of thinking so that its products more closely model reality”


It’s not “fine”, which is what needs to be learned after four hundred years of propaganda to the contrary. That’s not science in any real sense. Science would improve human life. It’s a blind or abiotic outpouring of aimless techniques which are indifferent to human beings and may perhaps destroy the human being, and may have already ruined its life. Reason has already flown. One can say, surely it is not perfecting life, making it gradually better. More people, for example, are in prison per capita in the richest country in the world than in the worst periods of the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. more terrible weapons, and monitoring systems of human things are made daily. Of course, I know, one could say it is a kind of anecdata (or, wha tI really mean, it is just arguing with some possible outliers against what may be a more generally accepted improvement, as it may be, that is not clear), but I just point to the gist of the objection concerning the lack of the existence of rationality: ergo, that there is no perfection of human circumstances, but blind or random “evolution” from this “science”.


“This makes ethics the foundation of philosophy.”


Because the whole point of science/philosophy is to improve human life. Reduce the pain of the world. Human life means the same thing as ethics: e.g., mores or the character of human life.


“ "One must include the human being" and also exclude him - I would add.”


Yea, well, no one ever saw a “without the human being” running about. What was thought while reason still existed was that we are relatively indifferent to certain things. For instance mathematics. Mostly, it was reasoned, by Hobbes for instance, man has no interest in proofs of math in the way he does with legal issues. Ergo, so oft as man’s interests are not touched, he will play by the rules, and do so as others do. But, when maths start being used in a project that doesn't coincide with the interests of some, they deny 2 + 2 is 4. Just as it happens with the use of other things available to human decision and fate (to transforming common sense/cultural circumstances and ways of thinking).
Guide
 
Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:20 am

Re: Zizek to talk with Peterson, billed as "debate"

Postby surreptitious75 » Tue Mar 26, 2019 1:36 am

Guide wrote:
Science would improve human life

While it can improve human life that is not its actual purpose
Which is the study of observable phenomena and nothing else
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 798
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Zizek to talk with Peterson, billed as "debate"

Postby surreptitious75 » Tue Mar 26, 2019 2:14 am

Guide wrote:
Its a blind or abiotic outpouring of aimless techniques which are indifferent to human beings and may perhaps destroy the human being and may have already ruined
its life. One can say surely its not perfecting life making it gradually better. More people for example are in prison per capita in the richest country in the world than
in the worst periods of the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. More terrible weapons and monitoring systems of human things are made daily

People in prison are there because they have broken the law which has got absolutely nothing to do with science

Whether you are aware of it or not you are living at the best possible time right now and part of the reason for that is science
Do you have any idea what the quality of your life would be like if all of the ways you benefit from it were instantly removed ?

No hospitals / electricity / computers / fridges / television / phones / planes / radio / cars

How would you like to live in a world without any of these ? This is not by any means an exhaustive list - I simply thought of the most obvious
things that you would notice if they werent there. Also all the scientific knowledge that has ever been acquired - we would be going back to
a time before science. We would be going back to the Dark Ages
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 798
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Zizek to talk with Peterson, billed as "debate"

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Mar 26, 2019 2:17 am

surreptitious75 wrote:
Guide wrote:
Its a blind or abiotic outpouring of aimless techniques which are indifferent to human beings and may perhaps destroy the human being and may have already ruined
its life. One can say surely its not perfecting life making it gradually better. More people for example are in prison per capita in the richest country in the world than
in the worst periods of the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. More terrible weapons and monitoring systems of human things are made daily

People in prison are there because they have broken the law which has got absolutely nothing to do with science

Whether you are aware of it or not you are living at the best possible time right now and part of the reason for that is science
Do you have any idea what the quality of your life would be like if all of the ways you benefit from it were instantly removed ?

No hospitals / electricity / computers / fridges / television / phones / planes / radio / cars

How would you like to live in a world without any of these ? This is not by any means an exhaustive list - I simply thought of the most obvious
things that you would notice if they werent there. Also all the scientific knowledge that has ever been acquired - we would be going back to
a time before science. We would be going back to the Dark Ages


But that's just subjective.

How do you like that being done to you every post?

Surreptitious, serendipper, iambiguous

Sucks doesn't it!

Now you know how much of assholes you actually are to life and the world at large
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8146
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Zizek to talk with Peterson, billed as "debate"

Postby surreptitious75 » Tue Mar 26, 2019 2:24 am

Ecmandu wrote:
Now you know how much of assholes you actually are to life and the world at large

And here is something else that is subjective : your opinion of me
What you think of me does not bother me at all so now you know
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 798
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Zizek to talk with Peterson, billed as "debate"

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Mar 26, 2019 2:29 am

surreptitious75 wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:
Now you know how much of assholes you actually are to life and the world at large

And here is something else that is subjective : your opinion of me
What you think of me does not bother me at all so now you know


You're opinion doesn't matter. It's just subjective.

Surreptitious, honestly, you should be scared shitless of who you are today.

Here's what your hell is going to look like, I kid you not, no matter what anyone does to you, they're just going to smile at you, and just say, "but that's just subjective"

Try taking responsibility for your words, the denial is all suffering on earth with your glib bullshit.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8146
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Zizek to talk with Peterson, billed as "debate"

Postby surreptitious75 » Tue Mar 26, 2019 2:43 am


I do take responsibility for my words although I am not actually responsible for all suffering on Earth
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 798
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Zizek to talk with Peterson, billed as "debate"

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Mar 26, 2019 2:47 am

surreptitious75 wrote:
I do take responsibility for my words although I am not actually responsible for all suffering on Earth


But that's just subjective.

A subjectivist isn't responsible for anything.

You've been given fair warning.

Laws of nature don't fuck around.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8146
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Zizek to talk with Peterson, billed as "debate"

Postby Silhouette » Tue Mar 26, 2019 2:58 am

Guide wrote:We aren't speaking of circles. Rather, what is being done with the thing we call a circle. What is it for the one using it?

Right, so this is why I make the comment that you speak of philosophy as ethics.

Philosophy is more meta than this: understanding reasons for looking at anything, even philosophy itself, as "for" anything, or even if it is "for" anything at all - not implying it isn't, just meaning that there are all kinds of understandings.

You, are being a Utilitarian, fairly straight forward from your argument thus far...
"How long will the same sense of use last?" is your question - a good question for that particular field of questioning. I am sure this is not all you are, but this is the vein along which you are arguing so far.

As I was going to say, that surreptitious75 said first, science expands the how, not the why.
Although, with its advancements in explorations of the brain, it even appears to be answering the "how" of "why" itself...

Guide wrote:there is no perfection of human circumstances, but blind or random “evolution” from this “science”.

Yes, or for reason, which minimises values in order to more accurately map them to reality: ultimately a valuation to minimise valuation, allowing the potential for either increased subsequent valuation or otherwise. I am reminded of the Nietzschean metaphor of taking a step backward - perhaps in order to jump forward further.

Guide wrote:Yea, well, no one ever saw a “without the human being” running about.

This is where the dialectical construction of "reality" comes in: emerging from both observation and the lack of sense-making of certain observations in the context of others - that may result in such counter-observational conclusions as the human being considering the "without the human being". We all learn this, from around six years old when we learn theory of mind: that things may be running about without our seeing them running about - and it turns out that doing so models and predicts observations (taken within the context of dialectically conceived "reality") far more truly than necessarily denying a human being running about when there is no human being around to see them running about. Not saying you should do either, I'm just sticking with the clarification of what "reason" is - which is not to do with absolute, but relative consistency.

Guide wrote:Mostly, it was reasoned, by Hobbes for instance, man has no interest in proofs of math in the way he does with legal issues. Ergo, so oft as man’s interests are not touched, he will play by the rules, and do so as others do. But, when maths start being used in a project that doesn't coincide with the interests of some, they deny 2 + 2 is 4. Just as it happens with the use of other things available to human decision and fate (to transforming common sense/cultural circumstances and ways of thinking).

I have no doubt that many men abandon reason as soon as it ceases to coincide with their interest - and there may very well be short term benefits, at least seemingly, for them to do so. This is no argument against the use of reason being a more successful strategy, but more of an argument affirming the irrational tendencies of some men...

Ecmandu wrote:But that's just subjective.

This sophomoric tangent is a little annoying. Suffice to say that there is no "just subjective" when all is subjective - only when there is an objective to be superior, which to a subjectivist there isn't.

So there's no connect between each side of the argument and you are each speaking past one another - pointless.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3699
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Zizek to talk with Peterson, billed as "debate"

Postby promethean75 » Tue Mar 26, 2019 3:01 am

But that's just subjective.


It's consent violation and approach escalation, too.

But c'mon, deebo, stall him out. Stop bullying the nigga.
promethean75
Thinker
 
Posts: 591
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Zizek to talk with Peterson, billed as "debate"

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Mar 26, 2019 3:33 am

Sophmorish eh?

That's silluottes last defense ?

When you have 4 people calling you a worthless price of shit because you believe:

In order for something to exist in some way, it must exist in some way.

You see where their true loyalty lies.

Crap.

The excrement that doesn't even replenish soil or mold
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8146
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Zizek to talk with Peterson, billed as "debate"

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Mar 26, 2019 4:35 am

Ecmandu wrote:Sophmorish eh?

That's silluottes last defense ?

When you have 4 people calling you a worthless price of shit because you believe:

In order for something to exist in some way, it must exist in some way.

You see where their true loyalty lies.

Crap.

The excrement that doesn't even replenish soil or mold


Replying to myself here.

The reason that you'll never win the subjectivist debate:

I believe I exist.

You're existence is only subjective, not to be taken seriously.

Do you "subjectivists" (because I know you really aren't subjectivists) want the full wrath of what you proport to be?

No.

You don't.

You drag anyone who cares about anything through hell on earth by always responding "but that's just subjective"

But when it happens to you "its just subjective", you all kick and moan and whine and scream when someone does it to you.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8146
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Zizek to talk with Peterson, billed as "debate"

Postby surreptitious75 » Tue Mar 26, 2019 5:02 am

Ecmandu wrote:
When you have 4 people calling you a worthless price of shit because you believe

Provide evidence for this or else retract the statement and then apologise for making false accusations
I dont think that anyone has actually said this but even if they did why does it matter what they think ?
What some one thinks about me is none of my business and the same should also be true for you as well
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 798
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Zizek to talk with Peterson, billed as "debate"

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Mar 26, 2019 5:07 am

surreptitious75 wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:
When you have 4 people calling you a worthless price of shit because you believe

Provide evidence for this or else retract the statement and then apologise for making false accusations
I dont think that anyone has actually said this but even if they did why does it matter what they think ?
What some one thinks about me is none of my business and the same should also be true for you as well


Names:

You, serendipper, iambiguous, silloutte

All of you have stated as proclaimed subjectivists, that the phrase "in order for something to exist in some way, something must exist in some way"

Is worthless and meaningless.

Not being a subjectivist: this is much more a serious charge against me and all of humanity itself
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8146
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Zizek to talk with Peterson, billed as "debate"

Postby surreptitious75 » Tue Mar 26, 2019 5:17 am

No evidence then for anyone calling you a worthless piece of shit as I thought because no one did
This is a philosophy forum where all ideas are taken apart so if you dont like it why are you here ?
And I dont call myself either a subjectivist or an objectivist so those descriptions dont apply to me
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 798
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Zizek to talk with Peterson, billed as "debate"

Postby surreptitious75 » Tue Mar 26, 2019 5:21 am

Ecmandu wrote:
All of you have stated as proclaimed subjectivists that the phrase in order for something to exist in some way something must exist in some way

Is worthless and meaningless

Is not worthless and meaningless but it is a tautology so it is only trivially true
But I dont actually remember saying anything like this so it doesnt apply to me
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 798
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Zizek to talk with Peterson, billed as "debate"

Postby Silhouette » Tue Mar 26, 2019 10:10 am

Ecmandu wrote:Sophmorish eh?

That's silluottes last defense ?

No it's the first I've had to say on the topic, and just an observation not a defense because there was no offense.

Ecmandu wrote:When you have 4 people calling you a worthless price of shit

You're not a worthless piece of shit, where did I call you that? If you wanna believe that about yourself then that's on you. Or perhaps you are just looking for reassurance that you aren't one, just because some people don't agree with you.

"Just subjective" is sophomoric, that's all I'm saying: because it's facile to avoid thinking through anyone else's position other than your own. All it does is show a gap in your own understanding.

Ecmandu wrote:All of you have stated as proclaimed subjectivists...

Where did I proclaim Subjectivism? My actual position is more nuanced than that. Sounds like surreptitious75 is saying the same thing - and Seren isn't even here.

Ecmandu wrote:...that the phrase "in order for something to exist in some way, something must exist in some way"

Is worthless and meaningless.

No. I've not stated this, nor do I think it's worthless and meaningless. Well, I mean repeating a statement again as a reason for the first time is tautologous so it lacks worth and meaning in that sense, but without saying it twice "something exists in some way" is perfectly compatible with both Subjectivism and Objectivism - and many other positions besides...

You would do well to come to understand why this is for positions other than your own - it would advance you as a philosopher.

Ecmandu wrote:You drag anyone who cares about anything through hell on earth by always responding "but that's just subjective"

But when it happens to you "its just subjective", you all kick and moan and whine and scream when someone does it to you.

I'm not saying "but that's *just* subjective" to anything... Things can be said to be subjective when otherwise claimed to be objective, sure, but that's not the same as saying it's trivial. Subjective isn't "just" trivial, it's of the same importance - just not independent of a subject.

This is actually relevant to a mention of Wittgenstein by Guide earlier in this thread, that "to do philosophy. One must include the human being." I actually amended this statement, but I guess you didn't read that did you?

You seem hysterical so I'd recommend calming down if you want to have a proper discussion on Subjectivism versus Objectivism - and maybe then even moving past the whole false dichotomy that you're getting so worked up about.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3699
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Zizek to talk with Peterson, billed as "debate"

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Mar 26, 2019 4:02 pm

Sillouette,

Instead of making a large post addressing all your point, which I will do if need be, I'll address one point.

You argue that my statement, "in order for something to be true in some way, that something must be true in some way"

Is merely definitional in the contexts of subjects.

My question to you, how can we formulate definitional truths without accessing objective formulas in reality, without it "just being subjective"

There is a reason for me using the word "just"

When something is objective, nobody says "well, that's just objective"

The popular nomenclature for subjectivity is actually, "well, that's just subjective"

You're redefining the nomenclature with zero effort or explanation
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8146
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Zizek to talk with Peterson, billed as "debate"

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Mar 26, 2019 5:17 pm

Ecmandu wrote:Sillouette,

Instead of making a large post addressing all your point, which I will do if need be, I'll address one point.

You argue that my statement, "in order for something to be true in some way, that something must be true in some way"

Is merely definitional in the contexts of subjects.

My question to you, how can we formulate definitional truths without accessing objective formulas in reality, without it "just being subjective"

There is a reason for me using the word "just"

When something is objective, nobody says "well, that's just objective"

The popular nomenclature for subjectivity is actually, "well, that's just subjective"

You're redefining the nomenclature with zero effort or explanation


I'm going to tell you something you'll find far fetched.

When I preside over hearings in the spirit world, and I've had this occasion many times.

The defense of the subjectivist is that it's only subjective that they exist or did anything which the proceedings are about.

And I say, well, you can be subjective in a subjective soul prison.

And the court laughs.

Funnily enough, for someone who loathes the Bible, in revelations, the greatest sin is indifference.

That is the path of the self refuting nonchalantness of the subjectivist. The Holy Spirit is actually otherwise known as the spirit of truth, and subjectivism is a slowly acting poison of spirit that rots it to nothing.

People flock to it because they have a neurotic terror of being "caught". This neurosis eventually and ironically turns then into the evil that they otherwise wouldn't have become.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8146
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Zizek to talk with Peterson, billed as "debate"

Postby promethean75 » Tue Mar 26, 2019 5:32 pm

When I preside over hearings in the spirit world,


i have a question. what do you guys do when the judge walks in and the bailiff says 'all rise'? aren't you guys already kinda floating or hovering or something? i mean you can't stand up because you've got no legs, and you can't be sitting because you don't have an ass either, right? whaddaya just float up a little when he says that?
promethean75
Thinker
 
Posts: 591
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: surreptitious75