Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post

Feb 19, 2004, 06:15 pm

Geoff,

I can best answer your question by pointing out that it, as with your previous post, relied upon the false premise that I am relying on the positivists verifiablity principle. This is why I noted the use of strawman tactics previously.

Fortunately for us, Wittgenstein refuted all that he had written, saving the rest of us the trouble.. :)

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

It is interesting that you say, "I prefer truth, reality, and objectivity". While personal preference may be interesting and useful, it is also unquestionably subjective. If that is the basis of your support for "truth, reality and objectivity" then it sounds very much like a self-defeating position.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Clearly my preference for truth, reality and objectivity is not itself evidence for truth, reality and objectivity. Nothing I said so much as hinted at that notion. I simply noted that unlike some, when faced with the choice to recognize reality, objectivity and truth, else delve into illusions and irrationality, I chose the former over the latter, nothing more.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Your basic argument seems to rely on the very circular falacy that Hume critiqued: thre must be objective truth, becuase if there is not objective truth then there cannot be objective truth.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
All of this is secondary: demonstrate to me how the verification principle itself can be objectively verified (without reference to anything subjective) and I will happily conceed you are right.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

It is quite difficult to defend against such strawman tactics, so I will not bother doing so. I have not offered the arguments you try to attribute to me.

BTW in offering what you believe to be refutations, by claiming that X is true, no matter what X is, you are necessarily accepting as a primary premise that objective truth and reality must exist, otherwise words have no meaning at all and the claims you offer cannot have any truth value at all either. So either they have a truth value, which if true and appropos then they would count as evidence against the existence of truth and reality, else false and they do not count as evidence against the existence of truth and reality but still assume the existence of both, or else they are without truth value which means that they cannot be refutations at all, nor can they have any meaning.

Feb 19, 2004, 06:15 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	Geoff, I can best answer your question by pointing out that it, as with your previous post, relied upon the false premise that I am relying on the positivists verifiablity principle. This is why I noted the use of strawman tactics previously. Fortunately for us, Wittgenstein refuted all that he had written, saving the rest of us the trouble.. :) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by It is interesting that you say, "I prefer truth, reality, and objectivity". While personal preference may be interesting and useful, it is also unquestionably subjective. If that is the basis of your support for "truth, reality and objectivity" then it sounds very much like a self-defeating position.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Clearly my preference for truth, reality and objectivity is not itself evidence for truth, reality and objectivity. Nothing I said so much as hinted at that notion. I simply noted that unlike some, when faced with the choice to recognize reality, objectivity and truth, else delve into illusions and irrationality, I chose the former over the latter, nothing more. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Your basic argument seems to rely on the very circular falacy that Hume critiqued: thre must be objective truth, becuase if there is not objective truth then there cannot be objective truth.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by All of this is secondary: demonstrate to me how the verification principle itself can be objectively verified (without reference to anything subjective) and I will happily conceed you are right.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> It is quite difficult to defend against such strawman tactics, so I will not bother doing so. I have not offered the arguments you try to attribute to me. BTW in offering what you believe to be refutations, by claiming that X is true, no matter what X is, you are necessarily accepting as a primary premise that objective truth and reality must exist, otherwise words have no meaning at all and the claims you offer cannot have any truth value at all either. So either they have a truth value, which if true and appropos then they would count as evidence against the existence of truth and reality, else false and they do not count as evidence against the existence of truth and reality but still assume the existence of both, or else they are without truth value which means that they cannot be refutations at all, nor can they have any meaning.