EducatorBig6648 t1_j46p71j wrote
Reply to comment by FireingHex in Life can’t be reduced to a rulebook. But committing to certain moral principles can help us navigate life better. by IAI_Admin
To navigate life and to be as knowledgeable as possible you want a grasp of what is real and what is myth. Horse and pegasus.
[deleted] t1_j46rlc9 wrote
[deleted]
EducatorBig6648 t1_j46tfaw wrote
(sigh) A myth is a fiction believed by a large number of people (in the present or in the past) to be a non-fiction. So masturbation causing blindness, alligators thriving in the sewers of New York and Zeus being the cause of lightning while ruling the gods of Mount Olympus.
So no, I'm not misusing the word myth.
EDIT: Your "According to you, nothing is real" nonsense... (sigh) trolling or strawman argument or both, aye, there lies the rub.
GroundedMystic t1_j499dsd wrote
You say “value” is not real, but then elsewhere talk about living a “better life,” and that “nihilism is stupid.”
You roll out a laundry list of things that are “real” or “myth” (which aren’t ordinarily juxtaposed as exact antonyms), seemingly without any serious reflection upon the entires and thereby introducing a number of inconsistencies into the list.
You say, or imply, that a horse is “real” and a Pegasus is a “myth.” Well, this is confusing for one because you are using the wrong sense of myth that you cited, as people rightly (according to you) believe a Pegasus to be a fiction. But it is primarily confusing because you claim a concept is “real,” yet a Pegasus is a concept. In what sense is it a “myth” then? That it doesn’t exist outside of your mind? Do other concepts? Do horses?
Basically your comments are formed on the tip of an iceberg of ontological assumptions. Which wouldn’t be a problem if you entered into these discussions from a position of intellectual humility, but instead you baselessly assert everything you put forth as fact, and display childish exasperation and immature condescension when challenged.
EducatorBig6648 t1_j49kbo7 wrote
>"You say “value” is not real, but then elsewhere talk about living a “better life,” and that “nihilism is stupid.”"
I don't recall saying anything about living a better life but yes, "value" is not real and nihilism is stupid.
>"You roll out a laundry list of things that are “real” or “myth” (which aren’t ordinarily juxtaposed as exact antonyms),"
Did I say they were exact antonyms? Does it matter to my point? I don't think it matters to my point.
>"seemingly without any serious reflection upon the entires and thereby introducing a number of inconsistencies into the list."
Then you either don't understand what I'm saying or you're smarter than me in which case I would ask you to enlighten me where I am inconsistent.
>"You say, or imply, that a horse is “real” and a Pegasus is a “myth.”
Technically I am using pegasus as a symbol of a fictional thing more than example of myth but sure, the general point is that to the ancient Greeks the pegasi were like the alligators thriving in the New York sewers.
>"Well, this is confusing for one because you are using the wrong sense of myth that you cited, as people rightly (according to you) believe a Pegasus to be a fiction."
...as in people today? Yes, people today see pegasi as fictional. That's the point. That's why I used them.
"But it is primarily confusing because you claim a concept is “real,”"
Hhohh boy. Yes, all concepts are real concepts. There's no such thing as a fictional concept.
>"yet a Pegasus is a concept."
The concept of the pegasus is a concept, yes. The concept of the horse is a concept. But the actual horse exists apart from just being a concept. If it didn't a horse would be a fictional thing. This is my point. This is why I used horse and pegasus.
>"In what sense is it a “myth” then?"
Because the ancient Greeks believed pegasi were non-fictional flying around somewhere. This is how Zeus and the New York sewer alligators are different from Harry Potter and James Bond.
>"That it doesn’t exist outside of your mind?"
Harry Potter and James Bond don't exist outside our imagination and are therefore fictions. Basically no one thought they were not fictions so they're not myths.
>"Do other concepts? Do horses?"
Concepts exist outside our minds as abstract things. And at risk of beating a dea... hrm, horses exist outside our minds as they are not fictions.
So far you have given zero evidence of being smarter than me, you've done the opposite, you've made me begin to suspect you're feigning stupidity to troll me. In other words, what you just had me do above? That was me breaking down the most basic things and mansplaining it because it seemed you barely knew how a concept works e.g. how the concept of Superman existing as a concept differs from Superman existing in real life and from Superman existing as a fictional character in the imagination.
>"Basically your comments are formed on the tip of an iceberg of ontological assumptions. Which wouldn’t be a problem if you entered into these discussions from a position of intellectual humility, but instead you baselessly assert everything you put forth as fact"
Not baselessly.
>"and display childish exasperation and immature condescension when challenged."
Not quite, I display exasperation with the immaturity I have on occasion been presented with. I ENJOY being challenged on the intellectual logical level. Instead I have been receiving responses like the following:
>"According to you nothing is real and everything is a myth." --FireingHex
(That's strawman argument if not an outright lie)
>"Like “organisms don’t need to live”. Okay? Go ahead and don’t" --FireingHex
(That's telling me to go kill myself)
>"You are free to believe life is pointless and humanity is not the center, but what is life's point then?" --FireingHex
(That's outright stupidity. What to even call it, an inverse tautological question?)
GroundedMystic t1_j49tq7d wrote
> I don’t recall saying anything about living a better life but yes, “value” is not real…
I think I misquoted, I see “navigate life better” in another one of your comments - better than what? In what way? The point of this was that this is implicitly a value statement.
> The concept of a horse is a concept. But the actual horse exists apart from the concept.
Prove this.
> Concepts exist outside of our minds as abstract things.
Another assumption.
> Morality exists outside your mind.
Another assumption.
It sounds like you don’t subscribe to materialism, which is a fine place to avoid setting up camp; I myself am a dualist on good days and an idealist on bad ones. And yet, while I believe in an objective reality, I have yet to prove that materialism is an untenable world view, just as you have failed to do, along with countless philosophical minds of the past much greater than ours. This isn’t to say that I don’t truly believe in my worldview, but the minute I appeal to the distinct nature of qualia the materialist will object. More philosophical work must be done for the matter to be “settled,” if it ever can be.
> So far you have given zero evidence of being smarter than me, you've done the opposite, you've made me begin to suspect you're feigning stupidity to troll me.
Where did I say I was smarter than you, and how is that even relevant? The caliber of my intellect does not grant or revoke special credence to my ideas. The ideas should have merit on their own, and “stand trial” as you say. Likewise, me indicting your ideas is not indicting your intellect. The only personal thing I was criticizing was your behavior. Finally, I assure you I am not feigning anything; if I’m truly that incoherent in these remarks then I am that stupid.
EducatorBig6648 t1_j4a3fym wrote
>"I think I misquoted, I see “navigate life better” in another one of your comments"
Okay, I see that.
>"- better than what? In what way? The point of this was that this is implicitly a value statement."
Would it be a "value statement" to say that we navigate better when we are not hallucinating things that are not there? I don't think so, seems to be more about the nature of what navigation is to me. Kind of like seeing works better if you're not cutting your eyes with a razor blade at the time.
>"Prove this."
No. You know what a horse is. There are only about seven things we can know for certain exists beyond doubt i.e. not as parts of some 'The Matrix-type illusion' but this is not a conversation about "Are we on a planet or more like brains in a jar fed sensory data?"
>"Another assumption."
(sigh) No, it is not. Imagine we went extinct then a hundred years later aliens land and pick up a Superman comic. They decipher English and begin to grasp it is about a humanoid from another planet that came to this planet and from its Sun gained powers beyond the local humanoids. Communication is the sharing of concepts. Concepts are one of the few indestructible things there are. They can be lost to us physical beings but they can never be destroyed.
>"Another assumption."
No, rape is evil, this is not something just in our minds, that is objective fact. It would remain true if we humans went extinct and then ages later some other species got the exact same sapience as us and rape existed just like now. 'Rape is evil' would remain true today even if all life in the universe had gone extinct a very long time ago.
>"It sounds like you don’t subscribe to materialism"
I don't care about labels and clubs like that.
>"I myself am a dualist on good days and an idealist on bad ones. And yet, while I believe in an objective reality, I have yet to prove that materialism is an untenable world view, just as you have failed to do, along with countless philosophical minds of the past much greater than ours."
I don't care about "philosophical minds of the past". I don't care if it was David Hume that said "You cannot get an ought from an is" or someone else, what I care about is what that means and how it fits with what else I understand about the truth.
>"This isn’t to say that I don’t truly believe in my worldview, but the minute I appeal to the distinct nature of qualia the materialist will object."
What do I care, if you can't even follow the logic of the person you are speaking with without going "You can't say that is fact because no one can prove it." and "Those are assumptions you're making, you can't possibly know them to be facts." etc.?
>"More philosophical work must be done for the matter to be “settled,” if it ever can be."
Nothing ever "must" be done. Our ancestors could have gone sterile and our species would be extinct by now.
>"Where did I say I was smarter than you,"
You didn't.
>"and how is that even relevant?"
Did you just skim my last post for things to go "Prove it." and "No one can know that yet and no one might never figure it out." about?
>"The caliber of my intellect does not grant or revoke special credence to my ideas."
I wasn't talking about your ideas, I was (obviously) talking about your post prompting me to mansplain myth and concept, and my use of horse and pegasus, and even regurgitate the very point our conversation started on; me not misusing the word myth. Observe;
You said this: "You say, or imply, that a horse is “real” and a Pegasus is a “myth.” Well, this is confusing for one because you are using the wrong sense of myth that you cited, as people rightly (according to you) believe a Pegasus to be a fiction."
This, what you were referring to, was what I cited: "A myth is a fiction believed by a large number of people (in the present or in the past) to be a non-fiction."
It's right there: or in the past. The past includes ancient Greece.
So your ideas (or them getting special credence) have zip to do with you making me go "Did this person leave their brain at home or am I being trolled with feigned ignorance?"
>"The ideas should have merit on their own,"
"Should" is a myth. And I guess "merit" would be too since it would be a form of "deserving" which is (drum roll) another myth.
>"and “stand trial” as you say."
I don't think that's the same as what I was referring to. I was referring to them standing trial to be decided as fiction or non-fiction, not if they "merit" something. But I guess you don't mean it like that, you mean in terms of plausibility and truth in which case I take it back, it is the same.
>"Likewise, me indicting your ideas is not indicting your intellect."
That on other hand is wise of you. I hope that is true of me as well.
>"The only personal thing I was criticizing was your behavior. Finally, I assure you I am not feigning anything; if I’m truly that incoherent in these remarks then I am that stupid."
I was not saying you were incoherent.
GroundedMystic t1_j4ab0xd wrote
Brother, it sounds like your ideas are fixed and immune to external review. I don’t think my proof demands or objections are unreasonable or illogical. These labels - “materialist,” “dualist,” “idealist” - that you have shrugged off are not primarily membership tokens, but rather a shorthand for communicating belief in ideas, ideas that are at the heart of philosophical study! That is to say, if someone who believes in materialism is a “materialist,” this means only that she believes in the idea of materialism, not that she values the solidarity of others who believe in materialism as well, or that she derives authority of belief from the number of materialists. This lack of mission or purpose is unlike a club to me.
In addition, the objectivity of morality, which you have asserted without argument, is a hotly contested topic! Do you really figure your conclusions to be so bulletproof to the collective scrutiny of humanity, past and present?
For the record, I did not skim your response to merely clamp down on what I perceived as weak points in an effort to produce “gotchas” and make myself seem smarter. I wasn’t prompting you to mansplain or break down rudimentary concepts to spin your wheels either. I just tried to pinpoint the crux of our disagreement so that we might communicate more efficiently.
In any case, if this be the beginning of your philosophical journey, then I implore you to at least entertain other ideas and continue to examine your own; if this be the end, then I hope there is peace in your resolute thoughts.
EducatorBig6648 t1_j4b3d0m wrote
>"Brother, it sounds like your ideas are fixed and immune to external review."
Not at all, you're missing my point; If you're not even awake enough to actually correctly read the sense of myth I cited or take on board anything I've said about concepts then you're giving me no indication that you're trying for anything but to troll with feigned ignorance and strawman arguments.
>"I don’t think my proof demands or objections are unreasonable or illogical."
I didn't say they were*, I'm saying you're (possibly deliberately) misreading what I've said and asking for proof that belongs in a different conversation ("Is everything an illusion?")
>"These labels - “materialist,” “dualist,” “idealist” - that you have shrugged off are not primarily membership tokens, but rather a shorthand for communicating belief in ideas, ideas that are at the heart of philosophical study!"
Yes, but you're clearly not understanding why I shrug them off in terms of this conversation.
>"That is to say, if someone who believes in materialism is a “materialist,” this means only that she believes in the idea of materialism, not that she values the solidarity of others who believe in materialism as well, or that she derives authority of belief from the number of materialists. This lack of mission or purpose is unlike a club to me."
What do I care? I'm saying I don't care what club you're in in terms of this conversation because that has no bearing on there being inconsistencies in what I've said.
>"In addition, the objectivity of morality, which you have asserted without argument, is a hotly contested topic!"
I know but what do I care? Rape is objectively evil, it still would be if there were only two lifeforms in the universe or zero lifeforms in the universe. And I've more or less said that already so it was decidedly not without argument.
>"Do you really figure your conclusions to be so bulletproof to the collective scrutiny of humanity, past and present?"
That depends on which conclusion is in question.
>"For the record, I did not skim your response to merely clamp down on what I perceived as weak points in an effort to produce “gotchas” and make myself seem smarter."
I didn't say you were doing that particularly or for that particular reason.
>"I wasn’t prompting you to mansplain or break down rudimentary concepts to spin your wheels either."
I didn't say you prompted me to break down any rudimentary concepts for you so that's more (deliberate?) misreading from you. I said "prompting me to mansplain myth and concept, and my use of horse and pegasus, and even regurgitate the very point our conversation started on; me not misusing the word myth."
In other words, I had already broken down the rudimentary concept of myth.
>"I just tried to pinpoint the crux of our disagreement so that we might communicate more efficiently.".
That crux is you've been Mr Magoo from the getgo and all throughout and never getting to any actual inconsistencies due to just trying to invoke neighboring but irrelevant philosophical issues.
In other words: Brother, you asked me to prove horses are real. So asking I prove atoms and radiation are real when I was saying breaking a mirror unleashing seven years bad luck is not the same as splitting the atom unleashing radiation, the former is a fiction and a myth. You said "I don’t think my proof demands or objections are unreasonable or illogical." You said this with a straight face?
- Until now.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments