Three Seas Forum

the archives

dusted off in read-only

  •  

Battleground God posted 04 September 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionBattleground God by Replay, Auditor

Have a go at [url=http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm:yxqendkz]this[/url:yxqendkz]

Bit the bullet twice myself (and would happily do so again). view post


Battleground God posted 04 September 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionBattleground God by Grantaire, Moderator

Heh, that was interesting. I took two direct hits, and didn't bite the bullet at all. I got tangled between the loch ness monster and athiesm ones, and my other contradiction was evolutionary theory being correct vs higher proof for existance of god. Meh. I did well enough <!-- s:wink: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt=":wink:" title="Wink" /><!-- s:wink: --> view post


Battleground God posted 04 September 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionBattleground God by legatus, Auditor

Neat. I hadn't seen this test before, so I took the Do-It-Yourself Deity test as well. The type of God I'm most comfortable with is a simple creator God which garnered a Plausibility Quotient of 1.0, so my notion of God is certainly rationally consistent, but they questioned whether my conception of God can really be considered a God at all.

On the next test, Battleground God, I ended up taking no direct hits and biting a single bullet. Honestly though, it's a bullet I have no qualms with, and would bite again were I to retake the test. I'm going to go over the questions involved with that bullet below, so anyone that hasn't taken the test yet might want to do so now before reading further.

Anyway, they questioned my assertion that atheism is a matter of faith when there's a lack of evidence to support the notion that God doesn't exist, but conceded that I was at least logically consistent, since I also rejected the assertion that it's justifiable to say that the Lock Ness monster doesn't exist simply due to a lack of evidence that it does.

In my view, a lack of evidence is a reason for doubt certainly, but not a reason for outright disbelief. A lack of evidence for or against something simply makes it an unknown. Evidence to the contrary is required before I'll ever completely reject an idea, even if that means I have to consider the possibility that many outlandish thing may in fact be true.

Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. At least I don't believe it does. view post


Battleground God posted 04 September 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionBattleground God by Grantaire, Moderator

Ah Legatus, that's exactly the one I made. But I only took a direct hit because I acknowledged that it was a contradiction. view post


Battleground God posted 04 September 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionBattleground God by Replay, Auditor

Yeah i was caught out by the Loch Ness one as well, because the problem is with how they worded the questions. Also, there have been extensive tests to find the Loch Ness monster, such as sweeping the lake, and nothing has been found. No such test can be done with something such as God (well not scientifically anyway).

Was a few other things in the test that I did not really agree with either, but still, it was a fun way to spend 5-10mins. view post


Battleground God posted 05 September 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionBattleground God by AjDeath, Didact

You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you progressed through this activity being hit only once and biting no bullets suggests that your beliefs about God are well thought out and almost entirely internally consistent.


The direct hit you suffered occurred because one set of your answers implied a logical contradiction. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analysis of your direct hit. You would have bitten bullets had you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, this did not occur which means that despite the direct hit you qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

Direct Hit 1

You answered "True" to Question 7 and "False" to Question 15.

These answers generated the following response:

You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you said that it is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction. But now you do not accept that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified in doing just that. The example of the rapist has exposed that you do not in fact agree that any belief is justified just because one is convinced of its truth. So you need to revise your opinion here. The intellectual sniper has scored a bull's-eye!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They got me here /\

I am not going to say a rapist was right (at least in his "world")Because he Thought that God wanted him to do these things. My world is based on perceptions, but definitely not this much relativity. view post


Battleground God posted 06 September 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionBattleground God by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

Yeah, this thing has been around for quite some time now. I hope everyone realizes that it's unconscionably deceptive in that it literally depends on several false dilemmas (and if I remember correctly, one or two equivocations) in order to generate what it calls 'hits.' In other words, it literally uses fallacies to force you into 'contradictions' - as it has to in order to stuff a debate as sophisticated and nuanced as the 'existence of God' into an algorthm. view post


Battleground God posted 07 September 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionBattleground God by Grantaire, Moderator

Well, clearly Scott. The very concept of "god" is subjective in what it means. My idea of god and yours are almost certainly not the same. Even if everyone in the world had an exactly identical view of what exactly god is, there is still no way we could turn god into an algorithm- simply because we rely on words for description. Can abstract concepts be described by mathematics? I don't think someone could come up with an algorithm to describe "justice" or "peace" or "love". So clearly, "god" isn't any different. Also, by the very transient nature of language, description of god is quickly warped. Language simply can't equate onto the plain of mathematics. If we could have a mathematical description of God, that would be excellent, because mathematics is the only unarguable thing there is. Though science is a close second.

Eh. More I wanted to say, but I must get some sleep. Cheers <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) --> view post


Battleground God posted 07 September 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionBattleground God by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

You make it sound like they own up to the deception on the site. Did I miss something? view post


Battleground God posted 07 September 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionBattleground God by Replay, Auditor

There is a part on that site where they say if that you do not talk rationally/logically or contradict yourself, there can be no real discussion. But could not the same be said for them? There can be no real discussion if you define some narrow boundaries and refuse to step outside of them.

And besides, what is wrong with contradictions? For instance if I hold up a stick and say this is the top of it, then flip it over and now say that the other end is the top, where's the problem? A contradiction is often nothing more than looking at a truth from multiple angles, each as valid as the other.

If we could have a mathematical description of God, that would be excellent, because mathematics is the only unarguable thing there is.


Interesting. But let's try a little experiment. One hundred multiplied by zero equals zero right? And thirty three multiplied by zero also equals zero? If that is so that, then are not one hundred and thirty three equal? view post


Battleground God posted 07 September 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionBattleground God by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

I think you write off contradiction a little too quickly, Replay, but I certainly agree with the spirit of what you're saying. Contradiction is a useful tool, not the foundation. And as I say, they knowingly use false dilemmas to generate contradictions, which is why I think the primary point of the site is manipulation rather than provocation or education. They would have owned up to their own bullets otherwise.

The philosophy of mathematics is as controversial and divisive as any other philosophical field. And lately, with the sophistication of proofs going through the roof, it's starting to seem more and more interpretative. view post


Battleground God posted 07 September 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionBattleground God by Aldarion, Sorcerer-of-Rank

I made it through largely "unscathed" because I read into it and replied False to almost every single question. What I believe and what I know can sometimes be two separate things and I'm almost always mindful of that. As to what this says about my religious beliefs is up to others to decide <!-- s;) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- s;) --> view post


Battleground God posted 07 September 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionBattleground God by Grantaire, Moderator

You make it sound like they own up to the deception on the site. Did I miss something?

What makes you say that? My point wasn't necessarily to defend their contradictions or errors, but rather to point out that not too many people could do better, as there is no way to make a universally identically comprehended description of something as clearly subjective as god.

I made it through largely "unscathed" because I read into it and replied False to almost every single question. What I believe and what I know can sometimes be two separate things and I'm almost always mindful of that. As to what this says about my religious beliefs is up to others to decide


It was interesting actually today..a couple days ago in my history class, we were supposed to write a short essay about the beliefs of one of the key people in the Protestant Reformation, and whether or not we agreed with them. I wrote about John Calvin, and went on the attack about the fundamentally flawed basic assumption of religion- assuming the existence of god. It was interesting to see what my teacher wrote back (he basically wrote "good job" or the typical teacher fare on everyone elses papers), he was attacking back my ideas. Man I wanted to get into a class argument over that! I didn't really develop my ideas as far as I wanted (I would have put in the anthromorphizing comment that someone else here said). I was just rather interesting, teachers don't often attack back (he also took a shot at my quotation of Nietzsche <!-- s:D --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_biggrin.gif" alt=":D" title="Very Happy" /><!-- s:D --> ). Yeah. My random story for the day <!-- s:wink: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt=":wink:" title="Wink" /><!-- s:wink: --> view post


Battleground God posted 08 September 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionBattleground God by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

What makes you say that? My point wasn't necessarily to defend their contradictions or errors, but rather to point out that not too many people could do better, as there is no way to make a universally identically comprehended description of something as clearly subjective as god.


Communicative misfire. My point had to do with the deceptiveness of the site, and your response (that it was obviously so) made me think I'd overlooked something. I actually don't think the deceptiveness is obvious at all. If anything, they seem at pains to conceal it with a patina of 'Hey, it's just rational man.' view post


Battleground God posted 08 September 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionBattleground God by Aldarion, Sorcerer-of-Rank

Quote: &quot;Cu'jara Cinmoi&quot;:1tudlu8o
What makes you say that? My point wasn't necessarily to defend their contradictions or errors, but rather to point out that not too many people could do better, as there is no way to make a universally identically comprehended description of something as clearly subjective as god.


Communicative misfire. My point had to do with the deceptiveness of the site, and your response (that it was obviously so) made me think I'd overlooked something. I actually don't think the deceptiveness is obvious at all. If anything, they seem at pains to conceal it with a patina of 'Hey, it's just rational man.'[/quote:1tudlu8o]

Which brings up one of the bigger fallacies out there: saying "rational" as if it were an entity or something clearly delineated rather than as a tool or process for evaluating the world around. Some of the best fun I've ever had was in trying to get others who took that stance to define what is and what isn't "rational." <!-- s:twisted: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_twisted.gif" alt=":twisted:" title="Twisted Evil" /><!-- s:twisted: -->

I'm just of the belief that "reason," when carried far enough along the path, usually just leads to "I don't know further" or "I can't explain this." Sometimes, it just seems that the hardest thing for people to do is to accept that there are just things that are and will be unknowable and/or nonunderstandable. For making meanings out of this, Reason and Science (as entities of perception) probably should take a back seat to Tradition and Myth and Religion. Otherwise, it'd be like using a hammer to drive a screw in - not a pretty result. view post


Battleground God posted 08 September 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionBattleground God by Grantaire, Moderator

Larry, who says that those are the sole things that can create meaning? Who says that things even need meaning? Sure, we desire for it, but is it crucial enough that we would put religion ahead of science? view post


Battleground God posted 08 September 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionBattleground God by Aldarion, Sorcerer-of-Rank

Quote: &quot;Grantaire&quot;:2dlym1ag
Larry, who says that those are the sole things that can create meaning? Who says that things even need meaning? Sure, we desire for it, but is it crucial enough that we would put religion ahead of science?[/quote:2dlym1ag]

Re-read what I said. I didn't say that those were the sole things that create meaning, but in terms of creating interpretations and applications, those just happen to be better suited than scientific/rational discourses. Why? I'd suspect it'd have to do with the different rĂ´les each has. I don't need a yes/no dichotomy to utilize something like the tooth fairy for a situation. If a ritual is created and embedded with a meaning that distracts, that deflects, that even sometimes comforts, in a situation of loss, then that is an effective ritual. Whether or not it is "rational" or not is beside the point. It is outside the scope of what the scientific method should be applied toward.

In terms of religion, I would argue that it is crucial, in precisely the manner I mention above. The Marxist labelling of religion as "the opiate of the masses" is very telling, but for differing reasons than what they would have concluded. Humans like patterns, they seek for patterns, they create patterns. Patterns from as simple as how one walks around others to as complex as how humans interpret the world around them. It might be that I'm "contaminated" by almost four years of dialogue with an anthropology grad student who is my closest friend/confidant, but all too often people do rush in and dismiss Ritual in the debate of how to view the world. A truth of the matter is that all too often, the disruption of Ritual by a whole new faith-value system leads not just to the expected short-term chaos of readjustment, but also to increased feelings of helplessness and searching for understanding.

Science is a very valuable tool. The application of this toward questions of How, When, and Where is the best out there. There is much that it explains. But in terms of providing comfort in one's life, it often is worse than useless. Worse because for some, it strips away built-up Meaning and leaves nothing behind.

I'd say more, but I better leave it for the essay on Fantasy that I'm about to (finally) write <!-- s;) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- s;) --> view post


Battleground God posted 08 September 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionBattleground God by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

Something has 'meaning' when it has a 'point,' which is to say, when it's purposive.

My question to you, Larry, would be, What, in this day and age, is the point of traditional ritual? If it's simply 'comfort' or 'social bonding' why not take ecstasy and go to a rave? If the point is to give life a point, why should we look to tradition, when it all it offers is a plethora of unsubstantiated and incompatible options?

My question to you, Grantaire, would be, Given that you see yourself living a pointless life in a world where value and meaning are illusory, how do you reconcile this with your own arguments, which continually appeal to epistemic values, and presumably have the point of providing the best conclusions? view post


Battleground God posted 08 September 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionBattleground God by Aldarion, Sorcerer-of-Rank

Quote: &quot;Cu'jara Cinmoi&quot;:bbt9giwv
Something has 'meaning' when it has a 'point,' which is to say, when it's purposive.

My question to you, Larry, would be, What, in this day and age, is the point of traditional ritual? If it's simply 'comfort' or 'social bonding' why not take ecstasy and go to a rave? If the point is to give life a point, why should we look to tradition, when it all it offers is a plethora of unsubstantiated and incompatible options?

My question to you, Grantaire, would be, Given that you see yourself living a pointless life in a world where value and meaning are illusory, how do you reconcile this with your own arguments, which continually appeal to epistemic values, and presumably have the point of providing the best conclusions?[/quote:bbt9giwv]

In this day and age? Tough to say, other than the alterations done to earlier shapings. I see in my reply that I failed to state that there's much more to Ritual than just comfort or social bonding, so I guess I better elaborate a bit more here (even if it opens me up to more probings <!-- s;) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- s;) -->):

We humans process a helluva lot of information. In order to make sense of it, we tend to construct (or Shape, which might be a better word for this) structures that help us make sense of these situations. Now, a great many of these structures are based on simple survival - superiority in numbers, specialization of tasks, focus on coping strategies that ensure the least resentment and the most happiness for various situations. This is, I know, a simplistic model, but I think the basics are mostly true.

From this, I believe Traditions arose, belief-patterns that became embedded in the cultures in which we grew up. It is something that goes beyond mere language, into a larger Historia that shapes the ways that we come to view the world. Now Traditions can be broken, can be altered somewhat, but in breaking or transgressing them, there is some implicit acknowledgement that Tradition is something substansive, if not exactly known or understood.

Of course, Tradition is largely negative in the eyes of many, defining what should not be as much as what is. But yet Tradition, as multifaceted and as illogical as it might appear, offers something that goes much beyond the present. Taking drugs for their own sake would not fit into a Ritual, because there is an implied statement that the drug usage is not for the connection into a set of beliefs and Weltanschauungen, but more for an individual's attempt to create his/her own statement, her/his own organization of meaning. Rituals and Traditions are much, much more than just people bonding (and this is where I depart from certain anthropological views). They are the foundation upon which our very own identities are built.

While I'm not going to embrace Freud's Ego/Id/Superego model, there is indeed some conflict and cohesion to the Individual/Society. In a world in which we want to stand apart and have difficulties differentiating between "I" and "you," between "we" and "they," there are going to be some interesting clashes. In certain cultures, take the Quechua-language descendents of the Incas, there are two forms for "we" - "you and me" and "the others around me, but not you". It is a distinct contrast to Anglo-based concepts of societies, which tend to be more "me, but you can be included in the we" than group-based identities.

But this is getting afield from what you were stating in your question, yes? Why should we look toward Tradition if it's going to be fraught with conflicts? Because, despite of (or maybe even because of) its seeming incompatibilities, it's the very foundation and origin for "us." For example, how would you describe yourself in non-physical terms? What do you do? Why do you do it? How do you greet a stranger and is it the same as greeting a friend? Why do we not kill the old ones when they become chronically infirm? How do we nurture children and educate them? Why is education considered (on the surface at least) to be so important? Why kneel at certain times and stand at others? Why do we elect/place others in front of (or behind) ourselves in perceived importance? Why do we name children the ways we name them?

Those are just a few of the myriad questions we confront and answer, almost without thinking, each and every day. Tradition might not be logical or free from internal conflicts, but it's the way we confront the world and no better solution has been developed yet of helping our progeny deal with the difficulties of the universe around them. So that's why I tend to sidestep the question of whether or not one can "prove" the existence of a God (or Gods) and look instead to how these beliefs (or non-beliefs) have helped shaped the moralities and the codes of conduct that various societies have developed over the millenia. view post


Battleground God posted 08 September 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionBattleground God by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

I think you might be trading off two different senses of tradition to make your point, Larry: tradition as the collection of social habits that makes societies possible, and tradition as something that gives life meaning. It seems to me that you're using the inevitability of the former to anchor the latter. I'm not sure the social neccessity of custom warrants any inference to the adequacy of traditional accounts of meaningfulness (religion), which is the very question at issue. What warrants a return to tradition in the attempt to comprehend the 'point of it all'? view post


Battleground God posted 08 September 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionBattleground God by Aldarion, Sorcerer-of-Rank

Quote: &quot;Cu'jara Cinmoi&quot;:vu08cckh
I think you might be trading off two different senses of tradition to make your point, Larry: tradition as the collection of social habits that makes societies possible, and tradition as something that gives life meaning. It seems to me that you're using the inevitability of the former to anchor the latter. I'm not sure the social neccessity of custom warrants any inference to the adequacy of traditional accounts of meaningfulness (religion), which is the very question at issue. What warrants a return to tradition in the attempt to comprehend the 'point of it all'?[/quote:vu08cckh]

Only two? <!-- s;) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- s;) --> Yeah, I know I was doing that, in part just to illustrate the problems of the word. Or something like that <!-- s;) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- s;) --> No, to be more serious, I see what you're saying here, Scott, but there's a problem that I see that I'm not sure can be addressed without utilizing these various senses of tradition. It's that of "Can Religion exist without a Tradition?" Or must the two be instrangible?

But I believe I can make a case for having to take Tradition into account when attempting to comprehend the "point of it all" just by noting that the very presumption of the idea (discredited or not) of "a point to it all" would ipso facto have to be related to that person's relationship to his/her culture and that culture's sense of Tradition. I just don't know if we could separate the "individual" from the "tradition." In fact, I'd be afraid if we could in fact do that, because it seems to me that there is a strong correlation between an individual's mental well-being and his/her perception of her/his place in society, or at least the solidity of that placing. But that's just idle speculation, right? <!-- s;) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- s;) --> view post


Battleground God posted 08 September 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionBattleground God by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

If I were a positivist I'd accuse you of succumbing to the genetic fallacy, Larry! <!-- s:wink: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt=":wink:" title="Wink" /><!-- s:wink: -->

Instead, I'm inclined to accuse you of obfuscation, of throwing up a semantic smoke screen to avoid answering my question! But that wouldn't be charitable, so let me rephrase your point to make sure I understand what you're saying.

Any attempt to answer the question of meaningfulness will depend in some respect on past socio-cultural attempts to answer that same question, and in this respect, tradition is an ineliminable part of the debate.

I agree with this, if this is what you're saying, but now I think you're succumbing to the process/product ambiguity: just because the process of determining 'the point of it all' inevitably engages tradition, doesn't mean that the product - namely, the conclusion - will be 'traditional.'

My original question - 'Why should we trust tradition to give us an answer considering its dismal track record?' - still stands, I think. view post


Battleground God posted 08 September 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionBattleground God by Aldarion, Sorcerer-of-Rank

Quote: &quot;Cu'jara Cinmoi&quot;:888mzgbi
If I were a positivist I'd accuse you of succumbing to the genetic fallacy, Larry! <!-- s:wink: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt=":wink:" title="Wink" /><!-- s:wink: -->

Instead, I'm inclined to accuse you of obfuscation, of throwing up a semantic smoke screen to avoid answering my question! But that wouldn't be charitable, so let me rephrase your point to make sure I understand what you're saying.

Any attempt to answer the question of meaningfulness will depend in some respect on past socio-cultural attempts to answer that same question, and in this respect, tradition is an ineliminable part of the debate.

I agree with this, if this is what you're saying, but now I think you're succumbing to the process/product ambiguity: just because the process of determining 'the point of it all' inevitably engages tradition, doesn't mean that the product - namely, the conclusion - will be 'traditional.'

My original question - 'Why should we trust tradition to give us an answer considering its dismal track record?' - still stands, I think.[/quote:888mzgbi]

Damn, I knew I should have used more smoke! <!-- s:P --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_razz.gif" alt=":P" title="Razz" /><!-- s:P -->

You're basically correct in restating what I was implying. I do realize that the end result is not going to be "traditional," but instead a dialogue with that tradition, whether it be one of continuity or a discontinuity that also falls back upon having a tradition from which to trangress and/or depart.

Now why should we trust it? That's very difficult to answer, because my own answer is bound to be chock full of ambiguity. But if I had to take a stab at it, tradition doesn't so much as provide an answer as it does provide a framing for the natures of the questions being asked. How's that for a non-commital answer? <!-- s:P --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_razz.gif" alt=":P" title="Razz" /><!-- s:P --> view post


Battleground God posted 08 September 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionBattleground God by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

Now that's what I call slipping the bullet into a bag of Fritos. You bite it, but with all that crunching going on no one's the wiser!

I actually think you and I pretty much agree on this point, save that I'm more pessimistic about our ability to press our point against those foul and despicable Nihilites, like Jack and Grantaire. <!-- s:wink: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt=":wink:" title="Wink" /><!-- s:wink: --> view post


Battleground God posted 08 September 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionBattleground God by Grantaire, Moderator

My question to you, Grantaire, would be, Given that you see yourself living a pointless life in a world where value and meaning are illusory, how do you reconcile this with your own arguments, which continually appeal to epistemic values, and presumably have the point of providing the best conclusions?


Because we do not choose to exist. I didn't choose to be here, but I am, and I must live. And it seems to me that science and the other things we've discussed show that value and meaning are illusions. I simply want people to accept that, rather than further delude themselves. Sure, I'm making an argument based on the value of realizing there are no values. But as a human, that is the way things must be argued, in terms of value and meaning. view post


Battleground God posted 08 September 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionBattleground God by Aldarion, Sorcerer-of-Rank

Quote: &quot;Cu'jara Cinmoi&quot;:1m7wzsro
Now that's what I call slipping the bullet into a bag of Fritos. You bite it, but with all that crunching going on no one's the wiser!

I actually think you and I pretty much agree on this point, save that I'm more pessimistic about our ability to press our point against those foul and despicable Nihilites, like Jack and Grantaire. <!-- s:wink: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt=":wink:" title="Wink" /><!-- s:wink: -->[/quote:1m7wzsro]

Yep, based on quite a few comments we've made in other posts in the past, I'd have to agree. And you certainly have the most apt description of my approach toward things I've ever read <!-- s:D --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_biggrin.gif" alt=":D" title="Very Happy" /><!-- s:D --> view post


Battleground God posted 09 September 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionBattleground God by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

Sure, I'm making an argument based on the value of realizing there are no values. But as a human, that is the way things must be argued, in terms of value and meaning.


But you're contradicting yourself, aren't you? You're assuming value in the course of arguing against it.

Since contradiction is an indicator of incoherence (the indicator, in fact), why shouldn't I just dismiss your position as nonsense? view post


Battleground God posted 09 September 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionBattleground God by Aldarion, Sorcerer-of-Rank

Somehow, I suspect a discussion on Value and Meaning will be next up on the agenda <!-- s;) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- s;) --> view post


Battleground God posted 09 September 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionBattleground God by Grantaire, Moderator

Did I ever claim to be a total nihilist, Scott? I'm arguing it on a more simply basis, more like the premise that nothing is inherently "good" or "bad" from an objective viewpoint, and that things don't automatically have meaning, it must be created by us. But I'm saying that as humans, we need to create and evaluate value around us. And thus, we argue things in terms of value, there is no other way that I know to do it. Of course, if you care to enlighten me, go for it. view post


Battleground God posted 09 September 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionBattleground God by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

Did I ever claim to be a total nihilist, Scott?


No. You just claimed to be a nihilist! <!-- s:wink: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt=":wink:" title="Wink" /><!-- s:wink: -->

Of course, if you care to enlighten me, go for it.


No need for tetchiness, Grantaire - I'm just asking questions! If I could 'enlighten' you I would, but that would suggest I actually knew the answers to most of the questions I ask, which is most definitely NOT the case.

(This is why I consider hardnosed examination to be my friend. I don't feel safe unless everyone I know is as confused as I am! <!-- s:wink: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt=":wink:" title="Wink" /><!-- s:wink: --> )

So do you think value is simply a mistake we humans foist on the world, or that it actually exists as a property of our neurophysiology or some such? view post


  •  

The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown