|
Other okplayers can read the situation perfectly, so why can't you?
You are trying to provoke me, so don't be surprised if I resort to 'injuries, pains, evil and theodices' (or whatever pious bullshit it is that you wrote earlier).
But ok, let's entertain this 'groundbreaking' and 'conclusive' post you pigheadedly claim to have made.
>We're hung up on a theoretical issue here. I'm not sure why it is >you think any ground can be gained on a practical level before the >theoretical issue is resolved. You and I disagree on a theoretical >point that is logically prior to your instantiations that you claim >I'm "ignoring", without realizing that the validity of our very act >of debating depends on the theoretical point... you just seem to >want to hop over your self-contradiction and move on to all sorts >of applied ethics. It's no use.
Then let's say FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT (I'm NOT conceding this point) that objective truths exist. Please address the issues of slavery and homosexuality in the context of what we have been discussing. You asked me to clarify these points earlier. I took careful effort to do this for you; so repay the gesture and address them. Demonstrate that you are not ducking these perfectly relevant issues.
>Yes, I read that. It's great. It's good that you recognize that a >lot of people feeling a certain way gives the impression that a >certain feeling is common sentiment. However, it does not save you >from your self-contradiction.
I don't see how the assertion that there is a certain subjectivity in all analysis imports a self-contradiction. I am simply acknowledging the limits of human understanding.
>Thanks again for your sarcasm. My questioning whether you know what >a universal proposition is was a wholly legitimate question, >especially in light of the fact that you keep uttering a self->refuting universal proposition that undermines ALL knowledge...lol. >But of course, you'd rather talk about slavery before epistemology.
Keep laughing pal because YOU first cited slavery in #148.
>No plurality can make a self-refuting statement not self-refuting.
Semantics eh? Then ok, all 'truth' is self-refuting.
>No, I don't believe it does. Again, we're talking about something >way prior, way theoretical. Now you've added Christianity to your >multiplying list of instances (slavery, homosexuality) which you >seem to want to debate BEFORE you address the very obvious point >that your position undermines the very act of debating. I will not >begin on self-contradictory ground with you, and then proceed to >apply illogic all willy-nilly.
>>HOW do you KNOW it is objective?
>I don't recall having said that it is. If you think that I have, >could you point it out to me?
Post #84 (do you own work in future).
>You're under the mistaken impression that you've even gotten >underway.
>Your position is unfalsifiable, in that, whatever I say, you will >just announce "that's subjective!" This seems to be your tactic; be >grossly specious and when that's pointed out, be obstinant.
The irony!
>But you'd like "ONE" example of an objective truth to disprove your >(already self-contradictory) notion that all truth is subjective? >Fine, here's one:
>Two contradictory statements cannot both be true.
>Marinate on that Moot.
>>Lol, perhaps there IS only one objective truth: that there are >>no other objective truths!!
>Then the statement "there are no objective truths" is FALSE.
>Agreed? Yes or no.
>The world is waiting... I've given you one, disprove it.
Lol, that's not even a challenge. (In fact, look at Strav's post)
In summary of what you have written above I will say that you have tapped into the weak-arsed criticism of Lyotard's conception of metanarratives. I wont explain this for you, but will let you look it up. You need to expand your horizons. I'll give you a clue; mine is an anti-theory.
>But once again, you don't even realize that your OWN position >renders the act of proving or disproving ANYTHING into nonsense.
Again, I recognise the limitations of human understanding. How is this automatically nonsense? Anything purporting to transcend human understanding is nonsense. Universal truths are nonsense.
>No Moot, because if "no idea could truly correspond to reality" >(which is what you're position about truths implies) then there >could be no such thing as debate.
No, wtf are you talking about? Don't ever imply. Ideas construct reality. Ideas correspond with the object world in that we understand the object world through them. Why can't you understand the simultaneous affinity and difference between the notions of 'reality' and the 'object world'?
Read some structuralist and post-structuralist theory.
|