Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the human

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

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby Guide » Fri Aug 10, 2018 3:32 am

““you can have your own opinions, not your own facts”. This phrase is confused, and therefore it confuses discussion. If one is unable to say what a fact is, and how it differs from an opinion, one is bound to have trouble.

Fact is consensus of opinion ”


So says the group.

The group says: I ten people who know they are lying claim the sun is green, it is a fact? Or, do we need more than ten? And can they lie, or must they believe what they are saying?
Guide
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:20 am

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby Serendipper » Sat Aug 11, 2018 2:54 am

Guide wrote:
““you can have your own opinions, not your own facts”. This phrase is confused, and therefore it confuses discussion. If one is unable to say what a fact is, and how it differs from an opinion, one is bound to have trouble.

Fact is consensus of opinion ”


So says the group.

The group says: I ten people who know they are lying claim the sun is green, it is a fact? Or, do we need more than ten? And can they lie, or must they believe what they are saying?

Are you trying to establish fact about fact? Only a joker would lie about his opinion and that's a fact ;)

My opinion about fact is Climate Change is fact because of the consensus of opinion, but wrong.

In law, I'm pretty sure that fact is up to the jury to decide (consensus of opinion). Maybe Carleas can validate that.
Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby iambiguous » Sat Aug 11, 2018 8:41 pm

This is typical:

Guide wrote:

The truth about what? In particular, in other words. Or, for some, is it always the truth about that which serious philosophers must mean when "conceptually" they discuss the truth about anything?


The group is not sure it understands this. What does concept first mean? If we seriously ask that, are we not already philosophizing? What does it mean for Plato (the first grand self-conscious philosopher and synthesizer of what had recently come to be called philosophizing) to philosophize? People are using a word, e.g., truth, and one notices it and inquiries into it. This is analogous to walking, and noticing one walks, and then considering the features of walking. One notices various things, and most of all, that something is being generally called walking. It is found here, and then there, and again—a pattern! The concept is the awakening awareness of what is already happening (or, what seems to have already been happening through the lense of the conception of the concept). Yet, the pattern of the pattern is the only perfect pattern. Its coming to be noticed is the mystery of raising the eyes which one has long been used to calling philosophy.


I ask you to embed that which you construe to be the "conceptual" meaning of "truth" into that which unfolds when [existentially] different individuals come to conflicted understandings regarding what the truth is with respect to moral and political conflagrations out in the world that we live in. Instead, you take us straight back up into the scholastic clouds.

Same here:

Again: Demonstrate what? If we discuss animal rights, for example, there are facts that can be demonstrated regarding the actual empirical realtionship between our own species and the species we call chickens or cows or dogs and horses.


Guide wrote: The group means, that demonstration is a thing at all. In other words, presumably, squirrels have no manner of discussing it. Of saying, it is demonstrated, ergo, bow down to reason. It is only possible to quibble about what counts as demonstration because the concept is in some way available and forcible to the human being. Perhaps it is a wrong force, a useless force, a harmful instinct.

This is not obviously a matter of necessity or human freedom. The question of necessity is derivative on what comes forward by way of mythological discussion possibilities, such as the concept of cause.


My point doesn't revolve around what squirrels tell each other. It revolves around what we human beings tell each when we make that crucial distinction between hunters discussing the best way to kill animals and all the rest of us discussing whether the hunting and the killing of animals is a good thing or a bad thing.

And then the extent to which the causual chain is either the same or different when these distinct conversations unfold.

Instead, we get this...

Guide wrote: This being said, the group is perplexed that a man can not push a huge boulder over, through mythologizing it differently. And yet, he might insofar as this becomes the value of all humans, and they solve the problem how to move the boulder. And this re-valuing is demonstrable as a truth actually determinable.


What on earth does this have to do with the points I raise regarding causation in the either/or world and causation in the is/ought world? And the distinction I make between them?”


Guide wrote: Because of the issue in Dostoevsky's Devils. The freedom to interpret (the either / or) comes up against the stone, the man-god is not wholly sublime. Ergo, not wholly superior to the terrible and unpleasant forces which show him how little he is worth.


Note to others:

You tell me: How are his points here connected to mine? How respectfully should I take his points as sophisticated arguments?


Seriously, are his points here actually worth pursuing? Or should I perhaps just cross him off the list as but one more "serious philosopher" -- pedant? -- hopelessly out of sync with the manner in which I probe such things as morality and causality in human interactions.

Or, sure, is the thread just a "scam"? An exercise in irony? A way to expose just how shallow the "technical" arguments of the serious philosophers can be out in "the real world"?
Last edited by iambiguous on Mon Aug 13, 2018 2:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25949
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby Serendipper » Sun Aug 12, 2018 5:21 am

iambiguous wrote:Seriously, are his points here actually worth pursuing?

Pursue them if it's fun to pursue them. "Worth" implies some goal you're working towards and I couldn't ascertain "worth" before knowing what your goal is.
Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby Guide » Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:49 pm

Guide wrote:
““you can have your own opinions, not your own facts”. This phrase is confused, and therefore it confuses discussion. If one is unable to say what a fact is, and how it differs from an opinion, one is bound to have trouble.

Fact is consensus of opinion ”


So says the group.

The group says: I ten people who know they are lying claim the sun is green, it is a fact? Or, do we need more than ten? And can they lie, or must they believe what they are saying?

Are you trying to establish fact about fact?


We don’t know what a fact is, so all we can do is investigate. Such a presupposition, directive of the seeking, would exclude the possiblity of genuine investigation. One could say, we seek the truth about the fact, though, there too, we make a difficulty. Since we don’t know what truth is. Ergo, we enter the hermeneutic circle with as much openness as possible only guided by the subject matter of the fact itself.

Only a joker would lie about his opinion and that's a fact


So if someone is a “joker” then we can dismiss his claim about facts? In other words, the modern objection and universal cheep escape clause: “ad hominem” must be wholly set aside. How do we, however, know when we have a “joker” on our hands?


My opinion about fact is Climate Change is fact because of the consensus of opinion, but wrong.


Here there is a distinction to be made between expert opinion of scientists, and Scientific facts. The latter relies on the accuracy of quantifiable demonstration. Which, in the case of a one-time future event, can only be given ,at best, probabilistically. Strictly speaking, no scientific fact can be given here concerning future happening.


In law, I'm pretty sure that fact is up to the jury to decide (consensus of opinion). Maybe Carleas can validate that.


Fact is opposed to law there. I.e., interpretation or construal of the law. Accessory after the fact means: after the act. Act means a voluntary, ergo, a culpable deed.

What is fact? One thing or many?
Last edited by Guide on Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:10 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Guide
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:20 am

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby Guide » Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:07 pm

Guide wrote:

The truth about what? In particular, in other words. Or, for some, is it always the truth about that which serious philosophers must mean when "conceptually" they discuss the truth about anything?


The group is not sure it understands this. What does concept first mean? If we seriously ask that, are we not already philosophizing? What does it mean for Plato (the first grand self-conscious philosopher and synthesizer of what had recently come to be called philosophizing) to philosophize? People are using a word, e.g., truth, and one notices it and inquiries into it. This is analogous to walking, and noticing one walks, and then considering the features of walking. One notices various things, and most of all, that something is being generally called walking. It is found here, and then there, and again—a pattern! The concept is the awakening awareness of what is already happening (or, what seems to have already been happening through the lense of the conception of the concept). Yet, the pattern of the pattern is the only perfect pattern. Its coming to be noticed is the mystery of raising the eyes which one has long been used to calling philosophy.


I ask you to embed that which you construe to be the "conceptual" meaning of "truth" into that which unfolds when [existentially] different individuals come to conflicted understandings regarding what the truth is with respect to moral and political conflagrations out in the world that we live in. Instead, you take us straight back up into the scholastic clouds.


The group considers this answer unworthy. The group finds the group answering in empty rhetoric, unworthy of answer. This does not impress the group as an account of what was said, or what is happening in any serious sense.

If the group does not know that words mean something, it is at too low a level to discourse. The group is not paid to swaddle babies, or struggle without being paid with elements of the group who prefer idiocy to intelligence.

The group considers the depreciatory use of the word scholastic as a form of thoughtlessness. It indicates something wholly unknown is being discussed by the group, on the basis of a freighted reception of dumb stupidity derived from authority, and therefore something peculiarly unassailable and unavailable to intelligence and group discussion.


---
“My point doesn't revolve around what squirrels tell each other. It revolves around what we human beings tell each when we make that crucial distinction between hunters discussing the best way to kill animals and all the rest of us discussing whether the hunting and the killing of animals is a good thing or a bad thing.”


Can the group state the distinction being raised here? The group does not find this obvious. Squirrels make noises, humans make noises. The noise seems to do something. How does one show the difference?
Last edited by Guide on Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Guide
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:20 am

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby iambiguous » Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:09 pm

Serendipper wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Seriously, are his points here actually worth pursuing?

Pursue them if it's fun to pursue them. "Worth" implies some goal you're working towards and I couldn't ascertain "worth" before knowing what your goal is.


My goal [these days] is ever and always the same:

When someone notes things like...

Because of the issue in Dostoevsky's Devils. The freedom to interpret (the either / or) comes up against the stone, the man-god is not wholly sublime. Ergo, not wholly superior to the terrible and unpleasant forces which show him how little he is worth.

...all I am basically interested in is the extent to which this point reflects some measure of human autonomy. And, if it does, what are the existential implications germane to that which is of most interest to me: how ought one to live in a world bursting at the seams with conflicting goods?

Now, if "human freedom" here is essentially a self-delusion rooted in a mind rooted in a brain rooted in laws immutably applicable to all matter, then nothing that any of us post here was ever going to be anything other than that which it could only ever have been: what in fact it is. Period.

Then we go from there to whatever brought into existence the existence of existence itself.

But [admittedly] part of my psychology [rooted in dasein] has predisposed [driven] me to pursue polemics. And part of this is "fun" in the sense that deconstructing objectivists is "entertainment" for me.

Some of these folks have spent literally years constructing these complex and convoluted "intellectual contraptions". Things like "value ontology". Then they bump into me and I start in on tinkering with them. Maybe even take them apart.

And we all know the manner in which some of them react to that.

Then to me.

Why do I do this?

Well, there's this:

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

And [no doubt] there's the part revolving around the fact that I no longer have access myself to the "psychology of objectivism". I am no longer able to sustain the sort of "comfort and consolation" embedded in that frame of mind convinced it is in touch with the "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do".

So -- consciously? subconsciously? unconsciously? -- I have come to truly envy those who still do. And there's a part of me that goes after this.

But that's just the sort of speculation built into "I" here as an existential contraption. I can never really know for certain what makes "me" tick here. There are far too many pieces [going all the way back to my birth] hopelessly entangled in far too many contexts that are surely beyond either my complete understanding or my control.

What I do however is to suggest that this sort of thing -- the fractured and fragmented "I" -- is applicable to all of us. Some are just more aware of it than others.

Unless of course I'm wrong. But how [using the tools of philosophy] would I or others go about establishing that?

………………………………………..

On the other hand, some of the stuff that folks like Guide write here borders on gibberish to me. It's so fucking unintelligible at times I'm thinking that maybe he/she really is just putting me on. Just yanking my chain.

So, sure, the joke may well be on me.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25949
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot]