Harris' Landscape @ Philosophers' Carnival

on fundamental matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and ethics.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: Harris' Landscape @ Philosophers' Carnival

#21  Postby Cito di Pense » Oct 13, 2010 1:55 pm

Ichthus77 wrote:At least I offer rational arguments, Shrunk. You don't even offer that. If you're going to slam me, do it rationally, or don't do it at all. If you were a teacher, you'd be fired for this baloney. You don't give a student an F w/o explaining how they could've improved. A teacher who does that is not worth listening to.

Cito--there're thoughts of my own (although not 'inventions'--that wouldn't be philosophy) on my blog. Have you read it? Not likely.

This is crazy. Anyone have a rational argument to offer?


You have to earn it, Ichthus/MaryAnn. As Carl Sagan once said, there is no royal road to geometry. I agree with Shrunk, your writing style is ponderous and disjointed, so it's not possible to know whether the thoughts behind it are ponderous and disjointed. But it's a reasonable guess that they are ponderous and disjointed if you cannot express them clearly, and that you are skankin' us to promote your philosophy blog.

Ichthus77 wrote:
Here is a question to get the critical thinking juices flowing:

If truth corresponds to reality, then, if there is moral truth,
shouldn't it correspond to a real good, an always fulfilled ought?


A good preliminary question is whether and under what circumstances one should presuppose that truth corresponds to reality, and whether we should derive our realities from our truths, rather than vice versa. I don't think that this is what Harris starts with, but I do think that it is what you start with, and since you show no inclination to inspect why it is that someone might want to start with that hypothetical, I conclude that your thoughts on the matter are kind of fuzzy, and you know that is why you don't want to go into matters very deeply here.

You could generate a long and useless wibble-fest by starting with such an hypothetical, and the result would be worth the shiny sixpence it takes to purchase a brightly-coloured gum ball out of a vending machine.

Do so with my blessings, Ichthus/MaryAnn, but do try to chew it carefully, so as not to dislocate your jaw, and be careful not to get any in your hair when blowing pretty bubbles with it.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 30482
Age: 25
Male

Country: Nutbush City Limits
Ukraine (ua)
Print view this post

Re: Harris' Landscape @ Philosophers' Carnival

#22  Postby Shrunk » Oct 13, 2010 3:18 pm

What is this "govenata", anyway? Not even Google seems to know.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 58
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Harris' Landscape @ Philosophers' Carnival

#23  Postby Cito di Pense » Oct 13, 2010 3:50 pm

Shrunk wrote:What is this "govenata", anyway? Not even Google seems to know.


Best I could come up with is 'governata' which is feminine past participle of 'governare' in Italian. If it's 'govedanta', Google doesn't have anything on that, either.

A reference to 'governata' suggests a controlling agency. I've been to the puppet show, Mary Ann, and I've seen the strings. In the supermarket of ideas, no one can hear you scream.

ETA: Now I've reviewed your performance art in the 747 thread, just to see what else you have to bring us besides hypotheticals which contain your conclusions.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 30482
Age: 25
Male

Country: Nutbush City Limits
Ukraine (ua)
Print view this post

Re: Harris' Landscape @ Philosophers' Carnival

#24  Postby Ichthus77 » Oct 14, 2010 3:18 am

Have you never seen the Terminator movies, and do you not know who is the governor of California?

My adapted line is taken from what is only one of the best lines in movie history. Duh.

Harris agrees w/ the correspondence theory in some places, though in others, not so much (comes off sounding anti-realist, which I didn't have enough space to address fully--there were fifty billion things I didn't have enough space to address). The thought that we have to go through this before discussing the rest of my statement makes me wish it were summer, with time running out my ears. It never gets old. I just don't have time. Can you not just take it as given that truth is that which corresponds to reality and get on to the rest of the discussion?

Cito...a philosopher who ponders nothing is no philosopher; a scientist who hypothesizes nothing has no spine. Nietzsche said that. Just kidding.
User avatar
Ichthus77
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 72
Female

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Harris' Landscape @ Philosophers' Carnival

#25  Postby Ichthus77 » Oct 14, 2010 4:17 am

The revelant scene begins about 7 minutes in, but the whole video is good: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5Vjz1Wiitk
User avatar
Ichthus77
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 72
Female

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Harris' Landscape @ Philosophers' Carnival

#26  Postby hotshoe » Oct 14, 2010 6:53 am

Ichthus77 wrote:Have you never seen the Terminator movies, and do you not know who is the governor of California?

It's just Maryann acting overly cute, folksy, and striking out as usual.
'
There's probably not another person in California who calls him the "govenata" although there are literally millions who call him the "Governator".

But, no, when Maryann plays cute-and-dumb and invents her own word, then no one understands her coinage, she pumps up the shock at how dumb everyone else is for not getting it :lol: :lol: :lol:
Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"
hotshoe
 
Posts: 3177

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Harris' Landscape @ Philosophers' Carnival

#27  Postby Shrunk » Oct 14, 2010 10:24 am

Ichthus77 wrote: Can you not just take it as given that truth is that which corresponds to reality and get on to the rest of the discussion?


Why? Because without doing that the rest of your argument collapses as if clobbered by the govenata's left hook?

Well, I guess that's how apologetics work: "Hey, let's define God as 'the necessary eternal being that is the uncaused cause of the universe.' I have now proven that God is the necessary eternal being who is the uncaused cause of the universe."

Unfortunately, actual philosophy doesn't seem to work that way. The actual philosophers here can correct me if I'm wrong (When I venture onto this particular board, it is usually inadvertent).

Tell me: Is a statement like "The square root of nine is three" truth? If so, with what "reality" does it correspond?
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 58
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Harris' Landscape @ Philosophers' Carnival

#28  Postby Cito di Pense » Oct 14, 2010 11:05 am

Ichthus77 wrote: Can you not just take it as given that truth is that which corresponds to reality and get on to the rest of the discussion?


Nope, I won't do it. It's equivalent to, "Here, drink the Kool-Aid." Because neither truth nor reality really are at stake when you equivocate with a word like 'corresponds', which is what you get into when you interpret Harris as using the correspondence theory inconsistently.

Now, I've been around the block a couple of times with internet wibblers bloggers (self-styled, because they have a byline at a website with 'blog' in its URL) about the correspondence theory, as if they were actually doing philosophy. As if, in some way, they knew how to do philosophy, and I didn't, because they could name-drop the correspondence theory of truth. I honestly don't know what people with philosophy degrees imagine they have learned besides a bunch of fancy names for one bloody thing.

The point here is that you are using us to argue with Harris, and you're assuming that people agree with Harris. Why is that? How should I find significant the fact that Harris signs his name to something? Is it because the name shows up on a mass market paperback book? Why the fuck don't you just go to a conference and argue with Harris directly if you don't agree with him? What's the matter? Can't get access? He has his own forum, you know. Or are you just spamming rationalist boards in general with this Carnival crap, taking on all comers, like Ahnold?

a philosopher who ponders nothing is no philosopher


Yep, give the person who said that a gold star on her paper. What is it you think I'm not pondering just because I won't swallow your Kool-Aid? What do you suppose is my hypothesis concerning Mary Ann Spikes? Surely you have a clue, now. And it is a scientific hypothesis, by the way, since I use it to predict the kind of shenanigans you're going to execute in your posts, and I seem to be getting it right.

Ichthus77 wrote:I just don't have time.


Then perhaps you only have enough time for waddling around the internet spamming atheist boards with your Carnival crap.

Ichthus77 wrote:Do you know something you think I couldn't possibly understand, and so won't even bother to reason with me about it? Or is it that you are dispensing entirely with rational argument because you agree w/ me that Harris is wrong, but you don't like the alternative--and so you resort to this baloney?


The answer to the first question in that sequence is 'Yes'. The answer to the second question is that there is a third possibility which, as Arlo Guthrie once sang, "we had not even counted upon". The existence of a third possibility partly helps to justify why I answered the first question the way I did. I ain't one for dichotomisation, you might say, but that's just a little tap with my clue bat to get your creative juices flowing. Out of your ears, as it were.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 30482
Age: 25
Male

Country: Nutbush City Limits
Ukraine (ua)
Print view this post

Re: Harris' Landscape @ Philosophers' Carnival

#29  Postby Shrunk » Oct 14, 2010 1:02 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
Ichthus77 wrote: Can you not just take it as given that truth is that which corresponds to reality and get on to the rest of the discussion?


Nope, I won't do it. It's equivalent to, "Here, drink the Kool-Aid." Because neither truth nor reality really are at stake when you equivocate with a word like 'corresponds', which is what you get into when you interpret Harris as using the correspondence theory inconsistently.

Now, I've been around the block a couple of times with internet wibblers bloggers (self-styled, because they have a byline at a website with 'blog' in its URL) about the correspondence theory, as if they were actually doing philosophy. As if, in some way, they knew how to do philosophy, and I didn't, because they could name-drop the correspondence theory of truth. I honestly don't know what people with philosophy degrees imagine they have learned besides a bunch of fancy names for one bloody thing.

The point here is that you are using us to argue with Harris, and you're assuming that people agree with Harris. Why is that? How should I find significant the fact that Harris signs his name to something? Is it because the name shows up on a mass market paperback book? Why the fuck don't you just go to a conference and argue with Harris directly if you don't agree with him? What's the matter? Can't get access? He has his own forum, you know. Or are you just spamming rationalist boards in general with this Carnival crap, taking on all comers, like Ahnold?

a philosopher who ponders nothing is no philosopher


Yep, give the person who said that a gold star on her paper. What is it you think I'm not pondering just because I won't swallow your Kool-Aid? What do you suppose is my hypothesis concerning Mary Ann Spikes? Surely you have a clue, now. And it is a scientific hypothesis, by the way, since I use it to predict the kind of shenanigans you're going to execute in your posts, and I seem to be getting it right.


Well, there it is: Another reminder why I should just keep my mouth shut when on the Philosophy board. A quick lesson on "correspondence theory" (which was much more successful than my search for "govenata") reveals I need not have even bothered trying to respond to Maryann's blatant ploy.

I hope no one here would be so disrespectful of Maryann's time (which she repeatedly reminds us is so precious) as to start a discussion with her by saying "Can't we just take it as a given that all that exists is material, and get on to the rest of the discussion?"
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 58
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Harris' Landscape @ Philosophers' Carnival

#30  Postby Ichthus77 » Oct 14, 2010 1:18 pm

hotshoe, if they're saying it Governator they're wrong, as it is clearly not in an Austrian accent.

I have to update the carnival w/ a new post submitted from practical ethics news, but I'll probably be back here this evening.
User avatar
Ichthus77
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 72
Female

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Harris' Landscape @ Philosophers' Carnival

#31  Postby Cito di Pense » Oct 14, 2010 1:45 pm

Ichthus77 wrote:hotshoe, if they're saying it Governator they're wrong, as it is clearly not in an Austrian accent.


That's fine, Ichthus, but 'govenata' without diacritical marks and IPA symbology gives no fucking clue as to how it should be pronounced. So telling people how 'govenata' is supposed to be pronounced without diacritical marks & c. is like telling people that reality corresponds to truth and that is fucking that.

I'm surprised that you would make this sort of mistake. For a solipsist, you're awfully perky in expecting people to read your mind. Maybe it's your byline with the eggzaminnuh that makes you so perky. They need ya ta be perky, there, they do. Like all American newspapers except NYT and WSJ, it's a shit paper.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 30482
Age: 25
Male

Country: Nutbush City Limits
Ukraine (ua)
Print view this post

Re: Harris' Landscape @ Philosophers' Carnival

#32  Postby hotshoe » Oct 14, 2010 3:50 pm

Ichthus77 wrote:hotshoe, if they're saying it Governator they're wrong, as it is clearly not in an Austrian accent.

There she goes again. Maryann is right, and collective reality is wrong. :lol: :lol: :lol:

governator:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=governator


govenata:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=govenata


It's so telling. How can one trust anything Maryann says, when she refuses even to get one simple word right ?


Maryann, we've previously had a similar discussion. When you're mistaken about a fact (especially a minor one such as how people collectively spell a particular word) it's really best to just admit you're wrong, and then you can move on.
Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"
hotshoe
 
Posts: 3177

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Harris' Landscape @ Philosophers' Carnival

#33  Postby Ichthus77 » Oct 14, 2010 10:59 pm

Hey...folks do say govenata, too, so...there.

Hm. I've read the recent comments and I see you'd rather not discuss my question (having no rational argument) and so you delay with red herring and ad hominem, so--goodbye.
User avatar
Ichthus77
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 72
Female

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Harris' Landscape @ Philosophers' Carnival

#34  Postby Shrunk » Oct 14, 2010 11:08 pm

Ichthus77 wrote:Hey...folks do say govenata, too, so...there.

Hm. I've read the recent comments and I see you'd rather not discuss my question (having no rational argument) and so you delay with red herring and ad hominem, so--goodbye.


Shaker clock running...
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 58
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Harris' Landscape @ Philosophers' Carnival

#35  Postby hotshoe » Oct 14, 2010 11:10 pm

Shrunk wrote:
Ichthus77 wrote:Hey...folks do say govenata, too, so...there.

Hm. I've read the recent comments and I see you'd rather not discuss my question (having no rational argument) and so you delay with red herring and ad hominem, so--goodbye.


Shaker clock running...

:whistle:
Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"
hotshoe
 
Posts: 3177

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Harris' Landscape @ Philosophers' Carnival

#36  Postby Shrunk » Oct 14, 2010 11:34 pm

Maybe we should start putting our arguments in GREAT BIG LETTERS so Maryann doesn't miss them.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 58
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Harris' Landscape @ Philosophers' Carnival

#37  Postby Ichthus77 » Oct 14, 2010 11:58 pm

Better yet...only post the argument so I don't have to wade through crap to get to it. :thumbup:
User avatar
Ichthus77
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 72
Female

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Harris' Landscape @ Philosophers' Carnival

#38  Postby Shrunk » Oct 15, 2010 12:02 am

Ichthus77 wrote:Better yet...only post the argument so I don't have to wade through crap to get to it. :thumbup:


59 minutes. Not bad.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 58
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Harris' Landscape @ Philosophers' Carnival

#39  Postby IIzO » Oct 15, 2010 12:03 am

Shrunk wrote:
Ichthus77 wrote:Better yet...only post the argument so I don't have to wade through crap to get to it. :thumbup:


59 minutes. Not bad.

pwned !
Between what i think , what i want to say ,what i believe i say ,what i say , what you want to hear , what you hear ,what you understand...there are lots of possibilities that we might have some problem communicating.But let's try anyway.
Bernard Werber
User avatar
IIzO
 
Posts: 2182

Country: La France , evidement.
France (fr)
Print view this post

Re: Harris' Landscape @ Philosophers' Carnival

#40  Postby hotshoe » Oct 15, 2010 12:34 am

Shrunk wrote:Maybe we should start putting our arguments in GREAT BIG LETTERS so Maryann doesn't miss them.

I dunno if that's going to help enough to be worth it. My competent attempts - as well as yours and others - to educate her on various facts and concepts (mostly in that 747 thread) were so poorly grasped by Maryann that I predict she also can't or won't grasp an argument about whatever-it-is-she's-saying re Harris' Landscape.

Whatever-it-is, she can have it. Really. There's nothing to be gained by arguing with the woman. I don't need the practice to keep my mind sharp, not at the cost of having to parse that gobbledegook in her posts/blog. And I don't need the "win" to keep me happy. We already see that she can't or won't admit even a minor mistake but somehow has to keep digging.

On the other hand, I am interested in what you might say about morality, about Harris's book, about the concept of scientific facts finally speaking to the "ought" of human progress. So, go for it. In fact, I'll start by just copying a section of Harris making his opening argument:

Sam Harris wrote:... Imagine that there are only two people living on earth: We can call them "Adam" and "Eve." Clearly, we can ask how these two people might maximize their well-being. Are there wrong answers to this question? Of course. (Wrong answer #1: They could smash each other in the face with a large rock.) ... If Adam and Eve were industrious enough, they might realize the benefits of creating technology, art, medicine, exploring the world and begetting future generations of humanity. Are there good and bad paths to take across this landscape of possibilities? Of course. In fact, there are, by definition, paths that lead to the worst misery and to the greatest fulfillment possible for these two people -- given the structure of their brains, the immediate facts of their environment, and the laws of Nature. The underlying facts here are the facts of physics, chemistry, and biology as they bear on the experience of the only two people in existence.
...The question of how human beings should live in the 21st century has many competing answers -- and most of them are surely wrong. Only a rational understanding of human well-being will allow billions of us to coexist peacefully, converging on the same social, political, economic, and environmental goals. A science of human flourishing may seem a long way off, but to achieve it, we must first acknowledge that the intellectual terrain actually exists.


Can there be a science of good and evil?
Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"
hotshoe
 
Posts: 3177

United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest