An incoherent term. In other words, as you define the meaning of it makes it so. Whereas my own interest revolves around the extent to which you can intertwine the definition of the term itself in a set of circumstances in which some claim that particular facts relating to actual human interactions relating to the buying and selling of firearms are objective, universal truths. Others go further and insist that their value judgments relating to the 2nd amendment here in America are in turn the embodiment of objective, universal truths.
Fine, That’s one man’s opinion.
But I keep offering you the opportunity to take your definition of universal truth and personal opinion – as terms – out into the world and through an examination of an issue like gun ownership, engage me in a discussion such that you make all the more clear how and why I am “dishonest—intellectually and otherwise.”
Unless of course “flip seven red” is the agreed upon code words used in some clandestine transaction.
Again, in regard to a discussion/debate on the right to bear arms, what would this mean? What particular arguments from either side might be examined in regard to what you mean by “indisputably synthetic”?
And I am always the first to acknowledge that my own assessment of the relationship between God and morality is just another existential contraption. In other words, it is not predicated on or rooted in an argument [philosophical or otherwise] that I am able to demonstrate. It is based on the assumptions I make regarding any particular individual’s assessment of this relationship as rooted in the manner in which I assess the existential – lived – relationship between identity, value judgments and political power in my signature threads.
You will either take accusations of this sort out into the world of conflicting goods related to issues like gun control or you will continue to insist the above is true based solely on how you define each term.
Okay, note particular facts that exist in regard to gun ownership around the globe. You can Google it and accumulate all sorts of statistics that both sides of the political debate will accept.
Take the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Is the existence of this Amendment itself an objective truth? Would it be true in turn for all rational, intelligent creatures throughout the universe?
Well, that depends in part on the extent which determinism is a universal truth throughout the universe. But how on earth could that be other than one man’s/woman’s opinion?
And then the part where we probe the relationship between what you insist is “impossible” and “nonsensical” and all that would need to be known about the existence of existence itself.
Right?
Or is pointing out things like this just another example of why it is impossible and/or nonsensical to have a discussion with me here.
At least after you have defined the meaning of all the terms.
What knowledge regarding what things or relationships in what context? I picked gun control above. But by all means pick something else. Something in which distinctions might be made between facts able to be demonstrated as true for all of us on earth [and possibly across the universe] and opinions that are rooted more in subjective/subjunctive personal accounts.
And how does that change my suggestion that we take the arguments and the definitions down out of the scholastic clouds and introduce them to the world of extant human interactions. Make those critical “for all practical purposes” distinctions between things and relationships clearly more in sync with, among other things, the laws of matter.
Note to others:
How is this not but one more example of a “general description” “intellectual contraption” in which his aim is to reconfigure the points I make above into an attack on me personally. Let him bring his “defined terms” down to earth and engage them in a substantive discussion of gun ownership. Which actual arguments from either side reflect only “plain dishonest” “binary formulations” and “willful ignorance”?
Or, instead, is his aim to engage with other serious philosophers willing to eschew human interactions altogether and focus instead on whose defined terms come closest to being technically correct.
Look, there is room for both discussions among philosophers. But I always make it clear that my own interests here revolve around how definitions deemed to be technically correct by the serious philosopher expresses any actual use value and exchange value insofar as an understanding of “universal truth” is said to be more or less coherent in a particular context.
Any “conception”? How about taking the conceptions that we form about truth and testing them empirically, materially, phenomenologically in our interactions with others? How could anything in philosophy be more important than that?
You really mean that don’t you? And, in my view, that speaks volumes about one of us.
Besides, if you really felt that way about me, why would you engage me in an actual substantive exchange like this one: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194906&p=2726844#p2726844
I have my own suspicion, of course, but I will leave it to others to make up their own minds.