The pattern, were you agree with the critique of your position, only to snap back of a sudden to were you started, is repeating. — Banno

I see what you are saying. That’s where we agree.

But I see more than that. And I don’t see it as contradictory. This is what I can’t get you to see.

What is odd to me is not that you don’t agree with me, but that you see your own position as coherent.

You can’t say “better” in any meaningful way. I agree we could all agree something is better, but who really gives a shit what we think? Certainly nobody in 100 years.

I’m trying to say something, anything, one thing, that someone might give a shit about in 1,000 years, or if they were an alien race of persons 10,000 years advanced, or a god.

I think they would all agree the LNC will always help clarify reasoning.

I am going for it, anyway, despite stepping out too far over the precipice.

And I see you doing the same but you won’t admit it.

You can’t say “better” in any meaningful way. — Fire Ologist

Can and do.

This thread has been better. Others will agree. That'll do.

This thread has been better — Banno

Sure. I agree. I won’t speak for you, but I tried and failed. That makes me one of the others I guess, who agree with your application of ‘better’ to something other than this part of the thread.

But do you think there are still others who could reasonably argue against us? Showing how this was the best part of the whole thread? Is that reasonably possible? (You know you can’t answer no and be consistent.) And if so, don’t you see how that just won’t do? How is that a rigorous use of “better”, one that is reasonably disagreeing with you and me about how this part of the thread stinks in comparison to other parts?

Maybe the best part of this thread is yet to come, making those other better roasts pale. Maybe if we shoot for the absolute best, meaning full agreement from all parties about undeniable validity and soundness, clear and concise truth about the world, captured for all time, maybe we might actually make a little progress, actually say something better, that is worth saying.

Naaa. Let’s just be content to cut our losses. As usual. (At least this time we aren’t cursing each other - that’s something better maybe? :hearts: )

Sure. We learn where to use the syllogism, and where not to. We might do much the same with Ramsey's idea. We are not obligated to shoe-horn. — Banno

OK.

Again, I'm not seeing a substantive point if disagreement. — Banno

I agree it's not going to change the world.

What is odd to me is not that you don’t agree with me, but that you see your own position as coherent.

You can’t say “better” in any meaningful way. I agree we could all agree something is better, but who really gives a shit what we think? Certainly nobody in 100 years.

I’m trying to say something, anything, one thing, that someone might give a shit about in 1,000 years, or if they were an alien race of persons 10,000 years advanced, or a god. — Fire Ologist

Why?

Personally I know that what I say is in the face of an absurd world -- so it will only matter locally.

However, that's what matters. Our responding to you demonstrates that "who gives a shit?" is us, here, talking.

I think they would all agree the LNC will always help clarify reasoning.

I am going for it, anyway, despite stepping out too far over the precipice.

And I see you doing the same but you won’t admit it.

You think that, but the only reason you think it is because you can't imagine things otherwise, yes? :

The LNC is an absolute. Maybe someday we’ll find we can use reason while contradicting reason, but probably not, so I see no need to say the LNC is merely stipulated and temporary and provisional awaiting its revision. It’s absolute - I can’t think otherwise and be thinking. — Fire Ologist

"I can't think otherwise" is usually a hint at a kind of transcendental argument going on, if it be articulated.

If it's absolute, then it's not absolutely absolute -- it's only absolute relative to your ability to imagine or think.

"I can't think otherwise" is usually a hint at a kind of transcendental argument going on, if it be articulated. — Moliere

Nice.

Personally I know that what I say is in the face of an absurd world -- so it will only matter locally. — Moliere

How locally? Just for you, in your own head so to speak, or how wide can the local go, and why do you think that? (Aren’t all humans on earth throughout all of human history just a local blip? - where do you found your local boundaries if they extend beyond your own head at all?)

I don’t agree that it is necessary that what matters locally couldn’t matter universally. I know you didn’t say that expressly, but you said it will “only matter locally.” It will have to matter locally for sure, but only? Are you certain about that? I know you said “personally” but is that part of the substance of the rest of your assertion?

"I can't think otherwise" is usually a hint at a kind of transcendental argument going on, if it be articulated. — Moliere

Is that a red flag or something? Banno liked it, so I must have stepped into some forlorn corner. (You are focusing on “how” I am making my arguments, not “what” the arguments are saying. I usually try to let the how emerge from a focus on the what.)

Before characterizing the argument or doing the work to articulate it, can you think you are not thinking? Or can you think you both exist and do not exist in the same sense of “you” and “exist” at the same time in the same manner?

I’m more interested in what those experiences might be, or conducting one of those exercises, described in whatever ugly terms you could muster. I mean, maybe you can show me how not to think I’m thinking when I’m thinking. I can’t do it. That’s what I described as an example of something absolutely all who speak can always say. If you can undo that, I might find more credence on “only locally” in the notion that “I know that what I say is in the face of an absurd world -- so it will only matter locally.”

How locally? Just for you, in your own head so to speak, or how wide can the local go, and why do you think that? — Fire Ologist

I'd say "just for us", rather than just for me. It's not like I invented logic, philosophy, language, etc. I'm connected to others and through that connection -- which included a great deal of care on the part of others before I was able to care in turn -- I am enabled to participate in the game of giving and taking reasons along with everyone else so enabled. Part of that game is in modifying the rules of giving and taking reasons -- a reason for a reason. I think that's the part where we can collectively build the rules of inference in a sort of sui generis manner for every endeavor.

Now, maybe the cosmic universe cares in some sense about that, but from my perspective it only matters locally. I don't even care if there is a universal perspective that says it all. My finitude ensures that I'll never attain that.