This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
... but that has no bearing on whether a god exists.
If you want to use this as a criticism of materialism, dropping the "atheist" part, then you still have a massive problem:
What gives you the "right" to declare such a being exists? How you could you, a being who is not omnipresent or all-powerful, possibly verify its existence? You're stacking the deck by allowing one side to assume the existence of an arbitrarily complex entity that will fit into whatever shape hole they need; that's a far bigger issue than materialists trying to comment on matter.
This is gibberish.
Again, this goes meta-level higher. It allows for God to exist. The other paradigms outright reject this idea. It is about web of beliefs AKA paraigms. Beliefs do not exist in isolation, they have implications. And there are some fundamental and mutually incopmatible beliefs that lead to completely different paths and that shut down forever the other path. Are you a monist like idealist or materialist who says "only matter exists", or are you pluralist and you believe in multiple realms. Do you believe in objective or subjective morality etc. These are fundamental paradigmatic pressupositions that you need to be aware of.
Because it grounds everything else. Again an analogy - what gives you a "right" to say that 2+2=4 as opposed to 2+2=24546534? A coherent explanation of the rest of the math. Especially if the person endorsing 2+2=24546534 then just says that 1+1+1+1 = 4 as if it is not in contradiction at all with previous statement. It is a paradigmatic level, a meta level argument. You cannot say just say that there is no reality except of subjective experience. FUCK YOU. That is a universal statement that CANNOT be proven by subjective ground-up justification. It is an invalid move exactly as saying that "married bacheolrs exist" while at the same time saying that you are a proponent of logic.
It is called an analogy. What exactly did you not understand from this?
I don't know why this topic got you so emotional, but even with your long record of AAQCs, this is not acceptable. Take a day to cool off.
More options
Context Copy link
You are deeply confused about many things. I strongly recommend you use simpler words, because you're tangling yourself up by slinging around complicated words in ways that don't actually coherently refer to anything. (Apologies for being blunt; I don't mean this as an insult.)
You've already lost me. There is nothing about this that is a meta-level higher.
Yes, of course.
Yes, I'm aware of these things you're calling "paradigmatic pressupositions [sic]", but that could more accurately be called "beliefs".
Nothing in this paragraph actually addresses my point about your criticism of materialism.
... no, it isn't. You need to stop saying "paradigmatic" and "meta" if you want to actually communicate anything. 2+2=4 isn't based on anything meta. And this entire avenue of who has the "right" to make philosophical claims isn't useful.
Excuse me?
If you're going to claim a thing CANNOT be done, the burden is on you to supply a watertight proof. Just because you can't see a way to do it doesn't mean there's no way to do it. Though again, you're tangling yourself up with words like "universal" and "justification".
I am aware of what analogies are, thanks. Your "analogy" is meaningless nonsense. "god in Gödel's ontological proof serves as an anchor that provides for a modal collapse that smooths away existence of unprovable truths" -- this doesn't mean anything.
If you think I'm wrong, you should be able to explain what you mean in simple words. I don't mean "dumb it down" -- you can assume that I'm familiar with Godel's ontological proof, mathematically capable, etc. I mean explain this in plain English, without hiding behind phrases like "modal collapse" that don't actually mean anything.
Ok, I will use simple language. You used this argument:
This is universal statement that there has to be an uncaused cause. How do you know that to be true? How do you justify this statement - did you personally examine all effects and traced them to their causes - or did you just use your imagination to just assert it to be the case? In that sense it is your presupposition. But in fact I do not even have to go that far. For instance what is a "cause" if number 2? How does it exist, how is it caused? First cause is accepting physicalist presuppositions, it is playing inside that narrow box. The meta-level argument goes beyond that.
That is what I am talking about meta-level. Also just to be sure, I am not classical theist and I do not think that natural theology is truly a coherent system to explain God. A system similar to Neoplatonist Gnostics, who presuppose the existence of THE ONE and just handwave any justification for that idea including One and the Many problem via some system of tiers and whatnot.
Of course 2+2=4 is reliant on various presuppositions such as that math and laws of logic exist and so forth. How do you know that 2+2=4 as opposed to 5 and again in a justified manner that excludes "all" other possibilities? It is basic question of presupposed epistemology and metaphysics. You boldly claim that you are beyond presuppositions, on what grounds?
"Just because you can't see a way to do it doesn't mean there's no way to do it.". Exactly. This applies 100% to you and your stupid First Cause argument. Thank you for pointing that out so eloquently.
Okay, analogy in simple words. Gödel's god solves the problem of unprovable truths, it provides for modal collapse that all truths are necessary and excludes unprovable truths. If there is somebody who denies existence of Gödel's god and AS WELL say that there are no unprovable truths, that is a problem. He cannot have access to modal collapse without presupposing Gödel's god entity. That was the point for the analogy.
Simple words, okay. You say "Presuppositions wrong. It presupposes stuff. Haha. I know that there is uncaused cause! I know it because it is what it is. Everybody agrees. Justification not necessary. This presupposition correct, I know it bro. Checkmate presuppositionalists. I can say "everything can be explained without presupposition, pretend I do not have presuppositional grounding for universals like "everything" or "explain" and I can say you are bad presuppositionless - just because"
No, I didn't. Go back and check the username you grabbed the quote from.
If you're going to be an asshole and call my arguments "stupid", maybe make sure you're replying to the right user.
So, I'm going to skip over defending an argument I never actually made.
Stop making stuff up.
I never claimed I did. Stop making stuff up.
2+2=4 is a useful, coherent model for counting discrete entities. I "know" it is true insofar as it consistently works.
2+2=4 is not universally physically true. If I add 2 clouds to 2 clouds, I don't (necessarily) get 4 clouds, because clouds are not a discrete entity that's appropriate for modelling via addition.
But within mathematics, within the rules of the game of addition, 2+2=4. If you think that's not "justified", then i reject your concept of justification as being useful.
You're still making statements like this that don't mean anything.
This is a parody, right? I literally flagged up "modal collapse" as the primary example of nonsense phrases you're using. You're not using simple words in this explanation. I don't think you can use simple words, because you're not actually conveying any kind of coherent concept; you're just stringing together big words in a way that feels like an explanation to you.
And no, Godel's god doesn't "solve the problem of unprovable truths"; that's nonsense, and shows you don't understand Godel.
No, I didn't. Please stop lying.
If you're going to be childish and rude, try actually reading the comment you're replying to.
It does not matter in this case. The point was usage of universal claims without justification. Which you claimed right here in this discussion bellow.
And? Telling stories about unicorns to my daughter also works consistently, the same about stories about all kind of made up things. But that is also besides the meta-point I am making - why is "consistently works" any form of justification? What does it even mean and how did you came up with it?
Excellent. We discovered a difference of counting by identity vs division. However the realm of numbers is realm of counting by identity, so this analogy does not wok. 2+2=4 is either true or false, there is nothing like "kind of". We are talking about a concrete thing - abstract concept of standard numbers and not clouds or persons inside Trinity. Which is by the way a good argument against OP's Gnosticism.
And here we are. A universal metaphysical game. Either you believe 2+2=4 or you are out. You reject the concept of justification of anything outside of 2+2=4, because presumably it goes against your presupposition. Anything other than 2+2=4 such as 2+2=5 or 2+2=6 up to 2+2=Googleplex is not part of this presupposition and thus an incoherent paradigm not to be taken seriously. If somebody believes in his drug induced schizoid mania that all + operations are 42, you would discard it as incoherent and not worth any serious discussion.
This is exactly my position but on meta-level higher. There are paradigms with no justification for 2+2=4, they have no grounding and even worse, they positively reject the only entity - GOD - that could provide such grounding. As you named it, they break rule of "math" and metaphysics and thus they speak gibberish. Now you may have some inkling of my presuppositional argument.
You yourself said that You can assume that I'm familiar with Godel's ontological proof, mathematically capable, etc.. I don't want to waste more time on this. Do you want to explain the analogy or not? It is not crucial for my point. If you do not grasp it, that is still okay.
Actually it does matter that you're ascribing quotes to me that I never said, and positions that I don't hold.
Not in the way that 2+2=4 "works". You're extremely confused if you think you can just conflate two entirely different meanings of the word "work".
Then first you need to justify why "justification" matters. What do you even mean by it?
No, sorry, that's nonsense. You failed to understand. This has nothing to do with identity or division.
Mathematics consists of models. One such model is "here are the natural numbers, and we can use addition on them". This is good for counting things like pebbles, so we use it for that. This is bad for counting things like clouds, so we don't use it for that.
Nowhere has identity or division entered into it.
It is true, within the rules of the model. And we also use it as a shorthand for another true statement: "If you have two things, and another two things, and you group them together -- without breaking anything or fusing anything together -- you end up with four things".
... in what world are numbers concrete and clouds not??
You really need to use simple language. You're tangling yourself up. What do these statements even mean?
No, I don't. Stop making stuff up.
Still meaningless. I have no idea what you're talking about, and neither do you. If I'm wrong, try and communicate it using plain English. No "meta", no "paradigmatic", no "metaphysical".
I did. I also explicitly said that phrases like "modal collapse" were meaningless and making you confused. You then decided to use "modal collapse" in your simple words explanation. If you actually understand what you're talking about, you can explain it without saying "modal collapse".
I'd love an explanation. A genuine explanation that doesn't hide behind using complicated words to disguise the fact that there's no actual substance there.
Look, here's how you sound to me. Suppose I said something like this: "Here's an analogy: the atavistic ontological modalities of pseudo-presuppositionalist frameworks lack consanguinity with the indirect supplication of their co-philosophies."
And then you ask me to explain what that means, and I sneer and say "oh, I suppose if you're not smart enough to understand part of my analogy".
That's ok. Neither of us grasps it.
Just read what I said. I critiqued access to unjustified universal categories. That is the point.
Usually if people use these words like "useful" or "works" they are concept from philosophical pragmaticism. So please do not leave me in a suspense and tell me what do you mean by "works" and "useful".
Do you know how to read? I specified it in the very same sentence: saying that "abstract concept of standard numbers and not clouds". The abstract entity of "2" is not identical to two clouds or two bananas. But I am willing to go there if you wish as this is exactly touching the metaphysics: what are numbers, how are they existing, where are they existing?
I do not have to explain words to you. You yourself said that you are knowledgeable about Godel's ontological proof. Google it with conjuction with "modal collapse" in "plain English". I do not know what you want at this point - should I define the word definition in plain English?
What are you talking about. There is literal wiki article about Godels ontological proof. Modal collaps is literally a subcategory with its own wiki page. If you are too simple or lazy to grasp it, then that is okay. And it is not even necessary, it was just part of the analogy But do not blame me on using the terms.
What you said was that I made a bunch of claims that I did not, in fact, make. I don't know why you're incapable of admitting you're wrong or apologising for making up things about another user.
The ordinary everyday meaning. This isn't complicated. By "works", I mean: "If you use 2+2=4 when measuring out ingredients for a dish, you'll get the right proportions. If you use 2+2=4 when designing a plane, you'll get a plane that flies. If you use 2+2=4 when figuring out how much change to give a customer, you'll give them the correct amount of change".
This is obviously entirely different to the way you used "works" in your facetious unicorn analogy, where you mean something like "telling this story accomplishes my goals".
Now please define exactly what you mean by "so", "please", "do", "not", "leave", and so on, for every other commonplace word you used.
Yes. Your English is poor. I assume your native language is something Eastern European (judging by how often you omit articles). While I recognise it's a feat to discuss complicated things in your second language, you could maybe have a bit more humility concerning whether the communication issue might be on your end.
It is unusual to describe "the abstract concept of numbers" as concrete, given that "abstract" and "concrete" are pretty close to antonyms.
Agreed, of course.
Already covered this. Mathematics consists of models, which you can think of as games or systems consisting of rules. Numbers are elements within particular mathematical models. Numbers are things like 5, 2.45, and 1,000.
I have no idea what this kind of question means, for any subject. "How is an apple existing" -- what does this mean?
You seem confused. Numbers are abstract concepts. They aren't like apples or horses; they're not in a location. That's like asking "where is justice existing?"
I never said you did, nor would I think you capable.
But you said you were giving me a simple-word explanation of your analogy, and used the phrase "modal collapse". You're under no obligation to give me a simple-word explanation, but if you pretend to be giving me one while using nonsense phrases, I'm going to point it out.
You know exactly what I want, as I've said it explicitly twice now. You literally just offered what I want: a plain English explanation of your analogy, without using any bullshit phrases like "modal collapse". You don't need to define individual words or phrases, just say your analogy using normal words.
There's a literal wiki article on Transubstantiation. That doesn't mean that Transubstantiation isn't meaningless bullshit; the existence of a wikipedia page doesn't save it.
If you think your point is meaningful, you can explain it in simple words. You keep refusing to do this and pretending not to understand.
Ok, buddy. Maybe learn to spell, as a bare minimum, before accusing other people of being stupid.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I noticed a while ago where an academic philosopher or follower thereof comes in to a discussion with that word, justification, the discussion is already over, for what they demand is not evidence or logic but a lengthy, wordy essay that acknowledges their shibboleths (both conceptual and corporeal) and which largely suits itself to the genre customs of the dry academic « philosophy » journals. Ironically, this is a demand of dogma and faith and not a demand coming from the desire for truth.
Mit « Gödel » (mir shaudert!) ist es immer so.
The word justification is a very powerful word, because in the end it proves that all the subjectivist have is assertions. And I agree - discussion is over because often times they do not even have coherent paradigm to explain why to have discussion at all.
Oh, I am done, what a powerful argument. Also you absolutely did not understand what I am talking about, Gödel's ontological proof is not Gödel's incompleteness theorem which you probably moronically misunderstood it for.
I am not a subjectivist, I have Bayes, logic, and evidence (priors wash out under sufficient amounts of the latter). Read again:
I have no interest in lowering myself to this. I will not produce that writing, I do not need to write pointless words, I will not cite Gödel, I will not cite Quine, I do not care for them, their work is useless to me. I have no interest in academic (philo)sophistry « justification ».
Seems you have heard my attitude before, maybe when someone wrongly interprets his « ontological proof » ? (I have heard it said it debunks science. Wow.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link