- Capitalism and Alternatives -

More hair-splitting, just to annoy Stewpot some more.

Posted by: Farinata ( L'inferno ) on March 03, 19100 at 13:37:28:

In Reply to: Yes posted by Stuart Gort on March 03, 19100 at 11:52:49:

: :: Any philosophical statement that is a base part of any philosophical theory is an axiom. It's a basic part of predicate logic.

: :: Try reading up on your logic.

: I think it's about time to stuff your hair splitting method of arguing, Farinata. Language and the art of communication has no purpose if you are constantly going to dissect and parse it to your advantage in these debates.

Where do you think understanding comes from, Stuart?

Any collection of letters is equal until it is dissected by the viewer; there is no inherent difference between 'ensmanrdso' and 'randomness' - except in the perception of the viewer; one is a meaningful word because it is an accepted word; because there is a consensus that that collection of letters has that connotation.

Being trained in a philosophical subject and skilled in my usage of English, I'm slightly more rigorous than most about my decoding and phraseology of statements; that's all.

(I'm not claiming that this makes me a better person in any way, of course...)

Unless you accept that there are underlying rules and principles of communication, you are treating language as a doctrine, not a philosophy.

A parrot uses language as a doctrine; it hears and imitates. Deriving higher meaning from language requires a different approach.

(There's a whole interesting argument about whether language and the form of language shapes philosophical thought, but semiological discussions are not germane right now.)

Feel free to discard philosophical rigour if you want, Stuart, but don't pretend it'll carry much weight in a philosophical discussion - which is what this is, after all.

: I take the meaning of the word "axiom" as most people do;

I'd contend that most people wouldn't know what an axiom was if it bit them on the arse. It's not exactly the most commonly used word in the English language; it comes from philosophy and has generally stayed there. In philosophical terms it has a precise meaning.

: 1. A principle, universally received.
: 2. A self-evident truth or proposition.

OK, let's go to a dictionary...

(Taken from the Mirriam-Webster online dictionary...)

Main Entry: axiom
Pronunciation: 'ak-sE-&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin axioma, from Greek axiOma, literally, something worthy, from axioun to think worthy, from axios worth, worthy; akin to Greek agein to weigh,
drive -- more at AGENT
Date: 15th century
1 : a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit
2 : a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference
3 : an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth

Which of these is applicable to Barry's statement?

The first reading isn't; since Barry is saying that there is no yardstick by which to judge 'merit'; specifically, if Barry's statement is accurate, it explicitly contradicts reading #1.

The third reading isn't; since Barry's statement isn't an established rule and there aren't really any 'self-evident' truths in this subject.

As such, by elimination, the second reading is the most applicable one; that Barry is positing the statement as true for the purposes of his philosophical stance.

It is not *universal* as such because Barry is not saying that he has a monopoly on absolute rectitude.

Which makes sense; this is a debating room for the discussion of political philosophy ("Capitalism and the Alternatives").

: Barry's statement was and still is widely controversial and entirely unprovable yet he spoke it as if it were self-evident.

The statement 'God exists' is also highly controversial and entirely unproveable; and you say it as if it were self-evident.

At least Barry's statement agrees with the observed physical evidence a bit better than your does; it may not be ultimately correct; but it is more *reasonable* than yours.

Occam's razor; Barry's statement is more defensible than yours on a strictly physical basis because it does not multiply causes unnecessarily.

: There are far-reaching ramifications if morality really is only a social construct. There are intelligent arguments that can be made to the contrary.

So make them, then. You haven't produced one yet...

(Although McSpotlight would probably prefer it if you put it on the Anything Else room.)

: All your vitriolic nonsense aside, why don't you just let Barry tell us if he spoke truth in that sentence. Reading his response to my post he comes off, once again, as well past characterizng his philosophy as belief.

It's a philosophical debating room; and Barry gets a lot of flak from those who do not agree with his point of view (myself included). It doesn't mean that he is declaring himself to be God or to have a monopoly on absolute truth.


Follow Ups:


The Debating Room Post a Followup