Page 16 of 19 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 189

Thread: I reject Humanism

  1. #151
    Professor
    MrWonka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    2,057

    Re: I reject Humanism

    Quote Originally Posted by RAMOSS View Post
    Well, I find the people who do that sort of ignore the issue of WHY the subcategory of feminism exists, or WHY BLM exists.. because they are being treated substantially worse than the average. It's not a 'sum zero' game. Just because you think that women should have equal rights doesn't mean you don't think that everyone shouldn't have equal rights. As for the Black Lives Matters, the reason it came about is because of incidences where it appears blacks lives DON'T matter. There is an unspoken TOO in the BLM. They are coopting the term.
    Right, but the term humanist just seems silly to me because it implies that it's to improve the lives of all humans, but who exactly is it that is oppressing humans if it's not also other humans? To me it's important to highlight the reality that some humans are oppressing other humans and identifying which ones are actually the victims and which ones are the assailents is important. Humanism seems to imply an equality that simply isn't there.

    The other way I've heard the term humanism used is about making logical descisions based on facts and science and a rejection of religious dogma. That's fine I guess, but to me that's called atheism or just science, maybe even philosophy. It's not really an ideology or a specific philosophy it's just a discipline.

  2. #152
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 06:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: I reject Humanism

    Quote Originally Posted by RAMOSS View Post
    That is not a correct statement. There are a number of statements here that are incorrect. I don't think you will take a time to post postiive arguement's because you know that they do not hold up to scrutiny. Until you do, I"ll just assume you don't know what you are talking about.
    Well, you started with unsupported assertions, so I suppose it is quite fitting you'd you end with them. You have been entirely unable to support your epistemological claims, and have just talked in a vague and confused way. If this is how you argue when defending your own position, why would I discus with you arguments of my own?
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  3. #153
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 06:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: I reject Humanism

    Quote Originally Posted by devildavid View Post
    Arguments have no bearing on reality. Anyone can make up anything using their imagination. What is in your mind can't be verified independently. What exists physically can be verified independently. Talking about something is not the same as observing something.

    This is just wrong, on numerous fronts. Firstly, argumens here means reasoning. Science uses reasoning, so you condemn science as well with your claims. Even science has to reason its conclusions from the facts and assumptions that make up its premises. Secondly, philosophical arguments are supposed to be based on true premises and valid (or cogent if inductive) reasoning. This is just the same as natural science. Indeed, you have given no reason why science is exempted or different from your blanket condemnation, as noted, unless we call the silly strawman about imagination. So far as what you are calling imagination is referring to valid acts of abstracting from or conceiving parts of reality, then there is nothing wrong with it, and you give no proper reason why this is different from reasoning in science. So far as it refers to what is vague or unsupported then the premises cannot be shown to be true. But this doesn't condemn all reasoning or philosophy in general.

    What is it with gnus here asserting things and not backing them up properly? You, and Ramoss, have asserted radical empiricism or scientism, but have singularly failed to argue for it properly.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  4. #154
    Sage


    RAMOSS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:06 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,721

    Re: I reject Humanism

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    This is just wrong, on numerous fronts. Firstly, argumens here means reasoning. Science uses reasoning, so you condemn science as well with your claims. Even science has to reason its conclusions from the facts and assumptions that make up its premises. Secondly, philosophical arguments are supposed to be based on true premises and valid (or cogent if inductive) reasoning. This is just the same as natural science. Indeed, you have given no reason why science is exempted or different from your blanket condemnation, as noted, unless we call the silly strawman about imagination. So far as what you are calling imagination is referring to valid acts of abstracting from or conceiving parts of reality, then there is nothing wrong with it, and you give no proper reason why this is different from reasoning in science. So far as it refers to what is vague or unsupported then the premises cannot be shown to be true. But this doesn't condemn all reasoning or philosophy in general.

    What is it with gnus here asserting things and not backing them up properly? You, and Ramoss, have asserted radical empiricism or scientism, but have singularly failed to argue for it properly.
    There is a difference between the 'science' reasoning and the reasoning from the metaphysical reasoning. That is the reasoning is based on physical data, and the conclusions are based on testable models and predictions. The models make testable predictions, and if the results do not meet the predictions, the model is either changed or discarded. In the various arguments for dualism, there is no empirical data to test the validity of the premises, the various assumptions, or the conclusions.

    Basically, because of the difference between the way the reasoning in science works, and the reasoning in metaphysics works, you are using the logical fallacy known as 'equivocation'.

    The ideas in science start with empirical data. The ideas in metaphysical quite often do not.
    No one needs a war more than a Politician who is low in the Polls.

  5. #155
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 06:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: I reject Humanism

    That's a little better. You are groping for a proper epistemology, if a flawed one.

    Still, there are clear problems with your claims. Firstly, metaphysics does usually start in some sense with experience. It just often starts with basic experiences and analyses them. Arguments about qualia, for example, start with our phenomenological experience of qualia, as well as our understanding of material things, and analyse whether qualia can be reduced to the material. There's a different kind of interaction with experience here, but it is wrong to say there isn't one.

    Secondly, it is hard to see why not being empirically testable is enough to rule out philosophical claims. For a start, that claim, like your whole argument here, is not empirically testable, so it seems self-defesting. Also, the same forms of inference and reasoning (deductive, inductive) are used in philosophy and in natural science. You will really have to spell out your position in more depth, and avoid it being self-defeating.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  6. #156
    Sage


    RAMOSS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:06 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,721

    Re: I reject Humanism

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    That's a little better. You are groping for a proper epistemology, if a flawed one.

    Still, there are clear problems with your claims. Firstly, metaphysics does usually start in some sense with experience. It just often starts with basic experiences and analyses them. Arguments about qualia, for example, start with our phenomenological experience of qualia, as well as our understanding of material things, and analyse whether qualia can be reduced to the material. There's a different kind of interaction with experience here, but it is wrong to say there isn't one.

    Secondly, it is hard to see why not being empirically testable is enough to rule out philosophical claims. For a start, that claim, like your whole argument here, is not empirically testable, so it seems self-defesting. Also, the same forms of inference and reasoning (deductive, inductive) are used in philosophy and in natural science. You will really have to spell out your position in more depth, and avoid it being self-defeating.
    "sense of experience' is not the same as physical data that can be examined. One is objective, the other,quite often is subjective. So, that is yet another logical fallacy of equivocation.
    No one needs a war more than a Politician who is low in the Polls.

  7. #157
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 06:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: I reject Humanism

    Quote Originally Posted by RAMOSS View Post
    "sense of experience' is not the same as physical data that can be examined. One is objective, the other,quite often is subjective. So, that is yet another logical fallacy of equivocation.
    Ironically, you are equivocating on the term subjective. You are using the term implicitly to mean entirely personal whims or fancies, or something of that sort. Philosophers do not, generally, start with such as their premises and assumptions. They either start with objective premises (for example, one version of the cosmological argument starts with the premise change exists, which is arguably at least an objective fact, though some do think change only exists as part of our subjective experience, not the external world) or they start with subjective premises like qualia exist. This latter is subjective in the sense that qualia, or qualitative experience, seems to be intrinsically subjective and first-person (though some argue otherwise). But only fringe people, like eliminative materialists, deny that we all do experience qualia. Such subjective facts are not the sort of whims and fancies you seem to be implicitly referring to.

    And, again, your talk of physical data seems to just repeat your previous unsupported position. You need to show why only physical data that can be examined (presumably in the sense of being scientifically testable and measurable) is legitimate evidence for our reasoning. You need to show how this isn't a self-defeating claim, as we can't scientifically test or examine it, and you need to address the fact that philosophers and scientists use much the same kinds of reasoning and inference, and therefore how these are legitimate in one sense and not the other.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  8. #158
    Sage


    RAMOSS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:06 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,721

    Re: I reject Humanism

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    Ironically, you are equivocating on the term subjective. You are using the term implicitly to mean entirely personal whims or fancies, or something of that sort. Philosophers do not, generally, start with such as their premises and assumptions. They either start with objective premises (for example, one version of the cosmological argument starts with the premise change exists, which is arguably at least an objective fact, though some do think change only exists as part of our subjective experience, not the external world) or they start with subjective premises like qualia exist. This latter is subjective in the sense that qualia, or qualitative experience, seems to be intrinsically subjective and first-person (though some argue otherwise). But only fringe people, like eliminative materialists, deny that we all do experience qualia. Such subjective facts are not the sort of whims and fancies you seem to be implicitly referring to.

    And, again, your talk of physical data seems to just repeat your previous unsupported position. You need to show why only physical data that can be examined (presumably in the sense of being scientifically testable and measurable) is legitimate evidence for our reasoning. You need to show how this isn't a self-defeating claim, as we can't scientifically test or examine it, and you need to address the fact that philosophers and scientists use much the same kinds of reasoning and inference, and therefore how these are legitimate in one sense and not the other.
    No, I mean subjective is internal to a person. Objective is external to the person, and can be observed and measured by multiple people. That is how I am using it. I was the first person in this thread to use that terminology in this discussion, so it's not an equivocation of someone else's use.
    No one needs a war more than a Politician who is low in the Polls.

  9. #159
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 06:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: I reject Humanism

    Quote Originally Posted by RAMOSS View Post
    No, I mean subjective is internal to a person. Objective is external to the person, and can be observed and measured by multiple people. That is how I am using it. I was the first person in this thread to use that terminology in this discussion, so it's not an equivocation of someone else's use.
    It is perfectly possible to use a term ambiguously without reference to someone else's use.

    I have no idea why you think this subjective/objective distinction is important then. For a start, often philosophical arguments do appeal to what are, in your terms, objective facts - as I mentioned one version of the cosmological argument starts with the existence of change. For another thing, I don't see, then, why subjective facts should be looked down upon. When I pick up a red rose, most philosophers consider the qualitative experience of its colour to be subjective, but it is still real and important and can be reasoned from to help tell us important things about the world. Also, in the end, all human knowledge begins in subjective experience, in the sense that even science is done by humans and requires humans to do, and therefore experience, the measuring and reasoning involved.

    The stuff about measuring and observing is yet again just another way of referring to your basic unsupported epistemological position. Basically, all your posts seem to assume some sort of radical empiricism or scientism. But you don't argue for this properly. You just assume it. Your references to the superiority of physical data or what is measurable and observable, all assume, rather than argue for, some sort of strong empiricism. But I don't accept such an epistemological position, and neither do most dualists, so you'll to actually argue for it. And in doing so you'll have to show, again, why your position isn't self-defeating and how you differentiate properly because the legitimate reasoning of natural science and the illegitimate ones of philosophy, where the same sort of inferences seem to be used.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  10. #160
    Sage


    RAMOSS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:06 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,721

    Re: I reject Humanism

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    It is perfectly possible to use a term ambiguously without reference to someone else's use.

    I have no idea why you think this subjective/objective distinction is important then. For a start, often philosophical arguments do appeal to what are, in your terms, objective facts - as I mentioned one version of the cosmological argument starts with the existence of change. For another thing, I don't see, then, why subjective facts should be looked down upon. When I pick up a red rose, most philosophers consider the qualitative experience of its colour to be subjective, but it is still real and important and can be reasoned from to help tell us important things about the world. Also, in the end, all human knowledge begins in subjective experience, in the sense that even science is done by humans and requires humans to do, and therefore experience, the measuring and reasoning involved.

    The stuff about measuring and observing is yet again just another way of referring to your basic unsupported epistemological position. Basically, all your posts seem to assume some sort of radical empiricism or scientism. But you don't argue for this properly. You just assume it. Your references to the superiority of physical data or what is measurable and observable, all assume, rather than argue for, some sort of strong empiricism. But I don't accept such an epistemological position, and neither do most dualists, so you'll to actually argue for it. And in doing so you'll have to show, again, why your position isn't self-defeating and how you differentiate properly because the legitimate reasoning of natural science and the illegitimate ones of philosophy, where the same sort of inferences seem to be used.
    And, I did so.

    So, your claims that my position is not self defeating is not relevant, since you have not shown it is self defeating. There is a difference between a claim, and evidence.

    Not only that.. you have not shown that any of your metaphysical arguments you referred to by name (but not even discussed) are valid, much less sound.

    You are doing what is known as 'shifting the burden of proof' by shifting the argument to trying to claim my position is 'self defeating', so you can effectively ignore and not defend your claims... such as the various arguments you cited by name (but did not examine) as evidence of dualism.
    No one needs a war more than a Politician who is low in the Polls.

Page 16 of 19 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •