VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Thursday, May 02, 02:23:34pm [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, [9], 10 ]
Subject: Philosophy invitational


Author:
Damoclese
 		[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 12/12/02 2:07pm
In reply to: Wade A. Tisthammer 's message, "You betcha." on 12/11/02 10:55pm
 >
>Again, that need not necessarily be the case. I have
>yet to see any identifiable logical reason for this
>being so. (It is logically conceivable for everyone
>being mad and thinking that 2 + 2 = 5, but that still
>wouldn't change the objective truth.)
>

Or would it? If I redefine a word to mean something else the old defintion of the word becomes defunct. Is there any objective truth to begin with?


>
>Believe it or not Ben, we both rationally
>accept beliefs without proof or evidence. We
>both base our beliefs on what we intuitively
>“feel” to be true.
>
>A quick example. How do we know that memory is ever
>reliable? One could try to justify belief in memory by
>saying something like, “I remember many times when I
>recall where I parked my car. When I went to the place
>where my memory told me I parked my car, it was
>there.” One could also say, “I remember people telling
>me my memory is sometimes reliable.” Yet, since those
>responses would be using memory to justify the
>reliability of memory, there is the logical fallacy of
>circular reasoning (assuming the truth of
>something that the argument is supposed to establish).
>Consequently, we have yet to provide any real evidence
>to support the reliability of memory. We can go and
>do the same for testimony and sense experience. No
>proof. Not one shred. I suggest you go to rel=nofollow target=_blank >href="http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/tisthammerw/rlgn&phi
>l/skepticism.html">this brief web page of mine for
>further elucidation on this matter. Feel free to
>comment on it if you wish. I’d like to hear your
>input.

It is one thing to suppose that because you've stepped out in front of a car in the past, and you got hurt you shouldn't do it again. It's quite another when someone asserts moral truisms. The logical extension of your argument is that we should admit every and any belief as a possible truism. No need for defense, simply say ahh, this is an uncorruptable truth. If you are willing to admit this, then your point is valid.

Damoclese
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:
Subject Author Date
I like philosophyWade A. Tisthammer12/13/02 9:21am

Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
Forum timezone: GMT-6
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.