I recall that we agreed on much over linguistic meaning, but we disagree substantially over ethics. — S

That's true I had forgotten that.

OK, that's interesting. I knew that Peirce accepted the constraints on knowing; the 'counsels of prudence' that evolve out of the understanding of our situation re noumena, although I had thought that he favored a greater range of speculation than Kant did; speculation always grounded on what he called "phaneroscopy" (equivalent to 'phenomenology'), which he understood to consist in, perhaps inter alia, the sciences 'the disciplined studies of phenomena'.

I do kind of like his formulation of truths as being the beliefs that the community of inquirers will come to hold at the very end of inquiry, but I think he also held that absolute or objective truth is unknowable. I said "kind of like" because that formulation seems to be more idealistic than realistic; as if we could ever know that the end of inquiry had been reached, or as if the very last beliefs that humanity held in common the 'moment' before their extinction could count as final truths in anything more than a temporal sense.

I think about what Empiricus thought... — Mww

Think about that at the same time you're denying the difference between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief.

I don’t have to know what everybody knows to know there is at least one thing nobody knows. — Mww

What is it?

Show me the black swan.
— creativesoul

Assuming you’re not joking, it’s not my burden to show you a black swan, but it wouldn’t be difficult to show you that which falsifies the notion of universal moral belief. You would have to prove a universal moral belief is possible without considering a particular example of what one would be, in order to circumvent the induction principle. — Mww

Why suppose a need to circumvent that which is untenable/self-contradictory? It is itself a universal claim based upon particular examples thereof.

I think I'm done here. It's getting way too ridiculous for my tastes. You win. I've shown how the framework you're using is inherently flawed. You've offered nothing more than distractions, and failed to directly address valid objections, but instead just keep on denying what is obvious. That simple true statement that has such far-reaching consequences when combined with a few other ones...

Sigh... Indeed.

Be well.

The intrinsic circularity of pure reason has been known for centuries. It is inescapable when reductionism is taken too far, which leads inevitably to illusions and manufactured contradictions. But it’s your theory; you’re more than welcome to expound it until the common understandings finally see the light. — Mww

You're confused.

My position refutes the very notion of 'pure reason'. The inherent flaws of that conception have no bearing upon my position.

My position refutes the very notion of 'pure reason'. — creativesoul

I'd like to see the reasoning to support that. I'd say there is pure reason, but it consists only in tautologies and 'contentless' formal logic. Some people, Kant among them, claim that there is synthetic a priori reasoning (as well as the tautologous analytic a priori kind) but I'm pretty sure that should not be accepted.

How do you arrive at your distinctions between thought and thinking about thought? Are they tautologous or something more than that? If you say they are more than that what kind of evidence do they rely on to justify them?

I think I'm done here. — creativesoul

Thank goodness.

I'd like to see the reasoning to support that. — Janus

Please don't. Haven't we seen enough?

That which exists in entirety prior to language. Utterly fail to distinguish between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief. Existentially dependent on the latter.

This is crazy.

Sure. Later though. I promise. Tired. Terribly distracted. Real life calls for the next few days...

:wink:

I'd say there is pure reason, but it consists only in tautologies and 'contentless' formal logic... — Janus

Just want to note that there is most certainly a conception called "Pure Reason". Much if not most of Western Philosophy holds to it.

No worries, whenever you're ready. :smile:

Toothpicks and eyelids...

Just want to note that there is most certainly a conception called "Pure Reason". Much if not most of Western Philosophy holds to it. — creativesoul

Let me guess. You think/believe that it consists in/of thought/belief, and the whole of Western philosophy utterly fails to distinguish between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief.

I've picked up your crazy/insane talk.

Please don't. Haven't we seen enough? — S

I am tired of being combative, S; I want to adopt a different approach, give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and if I find valid well-reasoned arguments and no inconsistencies, then I will accept anyone's philosophy as an expression of their own unique individuality, even if I disagree with its presuppositions,

Your subjective relativism should allow for no less.

I am tired of being combative, S; I want to adopt a different approach, give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and if I find valid arguments and no inconsistencies, then I will accept anyone's philosophy, as an expression of their own unique individuality, even if I disagree with its presuppositions, .. — Janus

I disagree with that approach. I think we should combat nonsense and garbage, not encourage it. He's under the illusion that what he's saying is credible, and not crackpottery. That's a serious self-harming illusion.

But if it is based on valid reasoned arguments and is not inconsistent then it's only nonsense and garbage according to someone's judgement, according to your own lights.

Why is there any need to combat those you might, rightly or wrongly, think of as crackpots, or those you just disagree with, when no one is forced to read anything anyone else writes?

But if it is based on valid reasoned arguments and is not inconsistent then it's only nonsense and garbage according to someone's judgement, according to your own lights. — Janus

I've engaged it myself before. I haven't just jumped right in to attacking it in this way. I doubt much good will come of seriously engaging it.

Why is there any need to combat those you might, rightly or wrongly, think of as crackpots, or those you just disagree with, when no one is forced to read anything anyone else writes? — Janus

Because crackpottery is bad, and crackpots need help. I don't want to see crackpottery on this forum, because I think it should have a higher standard. I'm trying the stick approach, others are trying the carrot approach. I hope that one of these approaches works, but I doubt they will.

He is far, far too invested to be helped. He won't change. He won't take on board any criticism and suitably adapt his position. He has dedicated ten years of his life to this claptrap, and it has driven him insane. He is far too confident in his own abilities. He has unswerving faith in his own pet theory. There is no getting through to him. We've all tried.

Granted I only went through the first few posts, and I did follow them, I feel like they missed the mark.
I immediately thought of language, and the words we use, and their meanings.
They evolve, you know.. And it is generally dictated by popular usage. Looking at cultures throughout history

We see staggering differences.. it reminds me of A remarkable statement was made by a nine year old Susy Clemens, Mark Twain’s Daughter, after she learned the natives believed in many gods. She told her mother that she had changed her evening prayers, because “Well, mamma, the Indians believed they knew, but now we know they were wrong, by and by it can turn out that we are wrong, so now I only pray that there is a God, and a Heaven, or something better..”

Be well. — creativesoul

You too.

I do kind of like his formulation of truths as being the beliefs that the community of inquirers will come to hold at the very end of inquiry, but I think he also held that absolute or objective truth is unknowable. I said "kind of like" because that formulation seems to be more idealistic than realistic; as if we could ever know that the end of inquiry had been reached, or as if the very last beliefs that humanity held in common the 'moment' before their extinction could count as final truths in anything more than a temporal sense. — Janus

Why do you think that you're so attracted to going with the crowd? That's a disposition I run into frequently--it seems to be the whole nut of getting on board with both objectivism and "intersubjectivism" on anything--a disposition to consider something right because it's common, but I don't really understand what the attraction is. I'm always instead reminded of the "if everyone were jumping off of a bridge" thing.

I do kind of like his formulation of truths as being the beliefs that the community of inquirers will come to hold at the very end of inquiry, — Janus

Yeah, we see this form of truth in jury-based judicial systems.
————————

he also held that absolute or objective truth is unknowable. — Janus

I’m not sure any respectable philosophy advocates knowledge of anything absolutely. The closest the Masters dare to say is that of which the contradiction is impossible is as near absolute as they care to venture, re: the thinking subject, logical laws of thought....stuff like that. I guess this could be called objective truth, if one grants everybody thinks, and has his own “I”. Certainly not an empirical objective truth, however.

Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, is currently in the throes of seemingly irreducible indeterminism, which would be a negative absolute, insofar as there seems to be things we can never know, at least with respect to current understandings, re: Planck scale observations, the size and/or volume of the Universe. But Peirce, et.al., wasn’t aware of any of that empirical science, at least at first, so that probably doesn’t count.

Disclaimer: I’m not familiar enough with pragmatism to talk too much about it.

Why do you think that you're so attracted to going with the crowd? That's a disposition I run into frequently--it seems to be the whole nut of getting on board with both objectivism and "intersubjectivism" on anything--a disposition to consider something right because it's common, but I don't really understand what the attraction is. I'm always instead reminded of the "if everyone were jumping off of a bridge" thing. — Terrapin Station

Me too. It would be quite alarming if he actually thought that way, but he doesn't. He is inconsistent. He only goes with the crowd when the crowd happen to agree with his own judgement. He wouldn't actually jump off a bridge, and that is sufficient to refute his argument.

He can't seem to bring himself into accepting that his argument has been refuted.

Just want to note that there is most certainly a conception called "Pure Reason". Much if not most of Western Philosophy holds to it. — creativesoul

My position refutes the very notion of 'pure reason'. — creativesoul

I've shown how the framework you're using is inherently flawed. — creativesoul

It's getting way too ridiculous — creativesoul

In closing, I’ll give you two of four. Humans reason, and the fullest use of reason is logic. Th only way you can refute the notion of pure reason, the kind common to most of western philosophy, metaphysics and science itself, is to call it something else, and then stab at it recklessly until you’ve convinced someone you’ve accomplished something. I must say, I don’t know what a notion of pure reason would even be, that wasn’t itself pure reason.

Now I must grant that your thought/belief theory may be valid. Just because I don’t understand it speaks either to my lack of ability or your lack of sufficient explanation. No matter which, you haven’t shown me the flaws in my framework, and because you’re talking to me, as far as I’m concerned, you haven’t refuted anything having to do with some notion relevant to most western philosophy.

Have a nice day.

In closing, I’ll give you two of four. — Mww

Generous.

that absolute or objective truth is unknowable. — Janus

I think this is a reference to Pierce above. If you have any idea what it means, could you share that? I'm thinking it's meaningless, or that the speaker wasn't really thinking about what truth is when he spoke, or wrote. Or if you like, you can answer for him.

Thanks for your thoughts Mww. I won't be posting here for a while. I am moving soon, and have much to do to the house before selling it, and my mind is now turning to practical matters. I've enjoyed our exchanges.

I was just saying that if my memory serves, Peirce, like Kant held that absolute truth is unknowable. I could be mistaken about that, though.

We still got unpacked boxes from cross-country move three years ago.

Tip of the pointy hat, and.....thanks....and......see ya later.

))) The End - Finis (((