The Wrong One

[Left Coast]

But we are not things in themselves, because then we couldn't communicate. This A is not in itself. It is right now been seen by you.
"I know something" have 3 parts and not just in itself "something".

Regards
Mikkel

Every word in that paragraph requires the LNC to mean anything coherent at all.

PS I am doing phenomenology in part in case you haven't noticed.
In philosophy: the study of phenomena as distinct from that of the nature of being. We have to do ontology as some point.

I realize, but in fairness to phenomenologists, I don't think you're representing the tradition terribly well.

What you're doing is more like making a dumpster fire out of all rhetoric and philosophy and retreating back to a self-refuting kind of absurdism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Things ...

Show me a thing. A thing is a verbal rule we apply to certain experiences in time as we experience them. Of course they are separate from each other in time and place. But the problem is one of ontology and epistemology taken together. They are never in themselves. They are a part of a triad - I experience "something" and that is in time, over time and so on. You want to reduced them down to something in themselves.
Here is how I was taught it by a Buddhist. Reality is a kind of "dough" and we are the cookie cutters. You need both!

Regards
Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Every word in that paragraph requires the LNC to mean anything coherent at all.



I realize, but in fairness to phenomenologists, I don't think you're representing the tradition terribly well.

What you're doing is more like making a dumpster fire out of all rhetoric and philosophy and retreating back to a self-refuting kind of absurdism.

You believe in something in itself. I don't. I understand that differently. You cut reality into parts. I see processes and relationship in regards to experiences.
Yes, I get there are several words here, but they are nothing in themselves as such. Nor are you. You are a part of the world and you are not in yourself. That is to reductive.

We fundamentally view the word "itself" differently.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Left Coast]

Show me a thing. A thing is a verbal rule we apply to certain experiences in time as we experience them. Of course they are separate from each other in time and place. But the problem is one of ontology and epistemology taken together. They are never in themselves. They are a part of a triad - I experience "something" and that is in time, over time and so on. You want to reduced them down to something in themselves.
Here is how I was taught it by a Buddhist. Reality is a kind of "dough" and we are the cookie cutters. You need both!

Regards
Mikkel

No doubt there is an inter-relationship between things and how we perceive them. I'm not denying that. But that doesn't negate the LNC. Every word in your reply assumes the LNC to be coherent at all.

 

[Left Coast]

You believe in something in itself. I don't. I understand that differently. You cut reality into parts. I see processes and relationship in regards to experiences.

No. Wrong again. If you deny the LNC, you dont see processes or relationships or experiences. You xidg38r8fueeb 38r8dudb32 28 dry dhwv3u3.

You can't get around it.

Yes, I get there are several words here, but they are nothing in themselves as such. Nor are you. You are a part of the world and you are not in yourself. That is to reductive.

None of that undoes the LNC. On the contrary, it depends on it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. Wrong again. If you deny the LNC, you dont see processes or relationships or experiences. You xidg38r8fueeb 38r8dudb32 28 dry dhwv3u3.

You can't get around it.



None of that undoes the LNC. On the contrary, it depends on it.

Yes, I get what you are saying. We perceive based in a sense on the base logic of identity and LNC. But when you look closer, there is something funny going on. How? Because it is about positives and negatives. But just like you can't see meaning nor purpose out there in the universe, you can't see A=A. It is cognitive/mental and not physical as such.
And it sometimes take on an overdone significance as in e.g. for any one context there is one truth and I can use logic on that.
That may well be that case, but for 2 or more humans there is never just one context and logic doesn't solve the is-ought problem nor that there are several forms of "is". The dog is black is not the same as 2 plus 2 is 11.

What I am getting at is the idea of "atomic" facts, e.g. "A=A" and then it is done, because that is fundamental to the world. Well, no, it is necessary, but not sufficient. You can't only do strict logical facts and then be done.
So yes, you are right, but it is not the end of it.

Logic in practice has a limit, because everything is not a thing at one time and in one place with only one property.
Now try to make everything the same or identical for everything. You can't.
So this A is not this A, but you can do A=A, but that has a limit in regards to everything.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Left Coast]

Yes, I get what you are saying. We perceive based in a sense on the base logic of identity and LNC. But when you look closer, there is something funny going on. How? Because it is about positives and negatives. But just like you can't see meaning nor purpose out there in the universe, you can't see A=A. It is cognitive/mental and not physical as such.
And it sometimes take on an overdone significance as in e.g. for any one context there is one truth and I can use logic on that.
That may well be that case, but for 2 or more humans there is never just one context and logic doesn't solve the is-ought problem nor that there are several forms of "is". The dog is black is not the same as 2 plus 2 is 11.

What I am getting at is the idea of "atomic" facts, e.g. "A=A" and then it is done, because that is fundamental to the world. Well, no, it is necessary, but not sufficient. You can't only do strict logical facts and then be done.
So yes, you are right, but it is not the end of it.

Logic in practice has a limit, because everything is not a thing at one time and in one place with only one property.
Now try to make everything the same or identical for everything. You can't.
So this A is not this A, but you can do A=A, but that has a limit in regards to everything.

Regards
Mikkel

Your original claim was that, "it is apparently not possible to rationally justify anything." My purpose in asking the question I did was to get to the root of that. So it appears you are now conceding that the LNC, and/or the principal of identity, are true.

You are trying to hedge that admission by saying, "Logic in practice has a limit, because everything is not a thing at one time and in one place with only one property." But 1) the LNC doesn't claim that, so you're arguing a straw man, and 2) you're using logic, including the LNC, to draw that conclusion!

So unfortunately, you're stuck with logic, including the LNC, unless you are resigned to having a completely incoherent and meaningless worldview.

If you want a worldview that is not incoherent and meaningless, then you must admit things can, and should, be rationally justified.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your original claim was that, "it is apparently not possible to rationally justify anything." ...

Well, that is Agrippa the Skeptic.
So let round 2 begin.
Is it wrong or right to kill another human? Relevant to LNC, explain how it is wrong not to follow it. Only with reason and logic and not hitting these:

5-1 Diaphônia:
The mode that argues from disagreement. With respect to some matter that presents itself, there is undecided (anepikriton) conflict, both among the views of ordinary life and the views held by philosophers. Due to this, we are unable to choose or reject one thing, and must fall back on suspension.

5-2 Eis apeiron ekballonta:
Arguments that throw one into an infinite regress. That which is brought forward to make a given matter credible needs yet something else to make it credible, and so on ad infinitum. Since we thus have no starting point for our argument, suspension of judgment follows.

5-3 Pros ti:
Arguments from relativity. X only ever appears such-and-such in relation to the subject judging and to the things observed together with it. Suspension on how X really is follows.

5-4 Hypothesis:
Someone makes an assumption without providing argument. A dogmatist, if thrown back into an infinite regress of arguments, just assumes something as a starting-point, without providing an argument (anapodeiktôs). We suspend over mere hypotheses—they could be false, opposite hypotheses could be formulated, and so on.

5-5 Ton diallêlon:
Arguments that disclose a circularity. This mode is used when that which ought to confirm a given investigated matter requires confirmation (pistis—credibility) from that matter. We are unable to assume either in order to establish the other. We suspend judgment on both.

Note, you can technically justify a tautology, but it is empty for the rest of reality. A=A makes sense, but tells you nothing else. So a cat is a cat, therefore a cat is a cat.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Left Coast]

Well, that is Agrippa the Skeptic.
So let round 2 begin.
Is it wrong or right to kill another human?

Whoa whoa whoa. We are not ready to talk ethics yet. I'm way back trying to explain the most basic concepts of logic to you.

So to be clear, are you ready to concede that certain principles are rationally self-evident, and those principles are necessary to have a coherent worldview?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Whoa whoa whoa. We are not ready to talk ethics yet. I'm way back trying to explain the most basic concepts of logic to you.

So to be clear, are you ready to concede that certain principles are rationally self-evident, and those principles are necessary to have a coherent worldview?

I don't believe in a coherent worldview.
All strong self-evident concepts are tautologies and otherwise empty for the rest of world.

So we end with Agrippa since you claim you can have a coherent worldview and I claim it is not possible.

You have won round one, A=A. We are now on round 2, a coherent world view.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Left Coast]

I don't believe in a coherent worldview.
All strong self-evident concepts are tautologies and otherwise empty for the rest of world.

So we end with Agrippa since you claim you can have a coherent worldview and I claim it is not possible.

You have won round one, A=A. We are now on round 2, a coherent world view.

Regards
Mikkel

If you dont think it's possible to have a coherent worldview, then the conversation can't really go anywhere. You have embraced a contradictory, self-defeating absurdism. F74geod7eb3 IP f77r 39rufb29e7db2 38d8fu2beveur8 $766×^34;#(#*+; !

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you dont think it's possible to have a coherent worldview, then the conversation can't really go anywhere. You have embraced a contradictory, self-defeating absurdism. F74geod7eb3 IP f77r 39rufb29e7db2 38d8fu2beveur8 $766×^34;#(#*+; !

Of course, the conversation will continue. Now I will show how it is possible in practice not to have a coherent worldview.
We need 2 humans, you and I. We abstract away and go formal.
Now for the world as such, you hold A, B AND non-C and I hold A, B AND C. All are cases of facts about the world, but a fact can be and not be. So one of us holds an incoherent worldview.
So let us make C concrete. You hold e.g. that in unknowable if there is a creator god and e.g. I hold that it is knowable. One of us holds an incoherent worldview, because it can't both be knowable and not knowable if there is a creator god.

See that wasn't that hard. There are humans which hold incoherent worldviews.
You hold that it is possible to have a coherent worldview and I hold it is not possible to have a coherent worldview. One of us don't have a coherent worldview. Now I have shown that there is at least one human without a coherent worldview and I have explained it to you, so you can understand it.

Next part later. About how it is not possible to have a coherent worldview as such.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Left Coast]

Of course, the conversation will continue. Now I will show how it is possible in practice not to have a coherent worldview.
We need 2 humans, you and I. We abstract away and go formal.
Now for the world as such, you hold A, B AND non-C and I hold A, B AND C. All are cases of facts about the world, but a fact can be and not be. So one of us holds an incoherent worldview.
So let us make C concrete. You hold e.g. that in unknowable if there is a creator god and e.g. I hold that it is knowable. One of us holds an incoherent worldview, because it can't both be knowable and not knowable if there is a creator god.

See that wasn't that hard. There are humans which hold incoherent worldviews.

You're conflating coherence with accuracy. A worldview can be internally coherent, but ultimately inaccurate.

I of course recognize that people believe things that are untrue, and even believe things that don't make sense or are incoherent (like you, for example). That's not the dispute. Your claim was that it's impossible to have a coherent worldview.

Yet you're using a coherent worldview (the view that one uses language - in your case, English - to communicate thoughts that can be understood by others, and even that it can be used to convince others that you have a more accurate understanding of reality) to express your view that no view can be coherent. So as I said, your view is contradictory and self-refuting.

C82v38r7r 39r7f72b3v 29r8d2v2je 3irudb2.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You're conflating coherence with accuracy. A worldview can be internally coherent, but ultimately inaccurate.

I of course recognize that people believe things that are untrue, and even believe things that don't make sense or are incoherent (like you, for example). That's not the dispute. Your claim was that it's impossible to have a coherent worldview.

Yet you're using a coherent worldview (the view that one uses language - in your case, English - to communicate thoughts that can be understood by others, and even that it can be used to convince others that you have a more accurate understanding of reality) to express your view that no view can be coherent. So as I said, your view is contradictory and self-refuting.

C82v38r7r 39r7f72b3v 29r8d2v2je 3irudb2.

So now I have to show that it is not possible to hold a coherent worldview as such.

Part one. To be coherent at all it must include a strong logical AND? Correct?

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Left Coast]

So now I have to show that it is not possible to hold a coherent worldview as such.

Part one. To be coherent at all it must include a strong logical AND? Correct?

Regards
Mikkel

No. You're using a coherent worldview to try to show that worldviews can't be coherent. That's the self-refuting issue you need to overcome. And to do that, you'd need to not use English (or any language) to communicate your ideas. I look forward to that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. You're using a coherent worldview to try to show that worldviews can't be coherent. That's the self-refuting issue you need to overcome. And to do that, you'd need to not use English (or any language) to communicate your ideas. I look forward to that.

Okay, explain coherent. Is it that we can understand each other? Is that it?

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Left Coast]

Okay, explain coherent. Is it that we can understand each other? Is that it?

Regards
Mikkel

Coherence means that something logically follows, no parts contradict. Language, to be useful as a tool, has to be coherent. It follows certain consistent, coherent rules and patterns in order to communicate ideas. If it didn't, we wouldn't use it, as it would be as pointless and useless as me typing something random like d8f73v3ve8duwbeve dofu2veid72ge f93u3beie8e8. Does that help explain it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Coherence means that something logically follows, no parts contradict. Language, to be useful as a tool, has to be coherent. It follows certain consistent, coherent rules and patterns in order to communicate ideas. If it didn't, we wouldn't use it, as it would be as pointless and useless as me typing something random like d8f73v3ve8duwbeve dofu2veid72ge f93u3beie8e8. Does that help explain it?

So that is it. Language is logical and coherent?

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Left Coast]

So that is it. Language is logical and coherent?

Regards
Mikkel

Specifically, language as a tool to communicate ideas. Do you object to this?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Specifically, language as a tool to communicate ideas. Do you object to this?

No, but how is that a worldview?

Regards
Mikkel