I’m not ignoring the evidence - you only think I’m ignoring it, because I’m not giving it the same weight as you are. — Possibility
You have said precisely nothing in objection to that view — Bartricks
Note: objecting to a view, or to the holder of it, does not an objection make. — Bartricks
Not very good at that are you? — creativesoul
Assertions are made with language use. Reason is not the sort of thing capable of using language. Reason cannot make assertions. — creativesoul
It depends on what the quality is. — Bartricks
For example, take the quality of self-approval — Bartricks
To be reasonable essentially involves caring what Reason says and believing things precisely because she says to believe them (so, it matters not just what you believe, but how you believe it). As such someone who does not care that much about what Reason has to say on a given matter - someone who, for instance, will not believe something Reason says if it conflicts with something they care about more - is not as reasonable as someone who cares more about what Reason says. So it does follow and you're wrong. — Bartricks
I use language to make assertions. I make the assertion, not the language. — Bartricks
Have I made a false assumption? No. I have assumed this: I have assumed that all reasonable people will agree that they have acquired the true theory of truth when it is clear to the reason of all of them that the theory in question is asserted by Reason. Is that assumption false? Well, you've said precisely nothing - nothing - to challenge it. You don't seem even to be aware of it. But it is true, is it not? I mean, what more could a reasonable person want before they will be assured of the truth of a thesis?
I have also assumed this: that if all reasonable people will be satisfied that they have acquired the true theory of truth when and only when it seems clear to them all that Reason asserts it to be true, then - other things being equal - it is reasonable to suppose that this is what truth itself consists of. That is, that truth itself is composed of Reason's assertions, given that this and this alone is what assures us we have it. — Bartricks
It depends on what the quality is. — Bartricks
Not at all. — god must be atheist
Self-approval is not a quality. It is a noun. Adjectives describe quality. — god must be atheist
You realize that this second quote by you is bad fantasy, gibberish, nonsense. — god must be atheist
Aside from your non-sequitur nonsense, you should know that Reason is not a female person. It is not a person. The reason you use female gender for reason is that in German the word "Vernunft", which is the German word for reason, is of feminine gender. It is also capitalized in German, as all nouns are capitalized in German. You simply copied and pasted some passages from the English translation of Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" too many times, and it mesmerized you to believe that the proper use of reason in English is to capitalize it and use it as a feminine-gender noun. — god must be atheist
Well, if you really need me to reduce my level of reasoning to yours...how about we start with the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy? There are a number of reasonable posters here who object (and have made reasonable objections) to your assumptions. Appealing to Reason as you see it is not the same as being reasonable. So are you the only one here who is being ‘truly’ reasonable? — Possibility
There are a number of reasonable posters here who object (and have made reasonable objections) to your assumptions — Possibility
I validly concluded that Reason, being an asserter of things, must be a person — Bartricks
All asserters of things are Reason... it would follow... not a person. All people who assert. — creativesoul
Here is the relevant argument:
premise 1: Reason makes assertions
premise 2. Persons and only persons make assertions
Conclusion: therefore Reason is a person.
Now, which premise are you taking issue with? — Bartricks
Here is the relevant argument:
premise 1: Reason makes assertions
premise 2. Persons and only persons make assertions
Conclusion: therefore Reason is a person.
Now, which premise are you taking issue with? — Bartricks
If you think groups of persons can assert things, that's because you've committed the fallacy of composition. — Bartricks
I've already adequately refuted the primary premiss. — creativesoul
I've already adequately refuted the primary premiss.
— creativesoul
No, premise 2 is true, you just don't understand what it means — Bartricks
'm now granting it and focusing upon the invalid inference. After you grant that mistake, I'll continue along the path of showing you how a valid inference results in being a problem with your analysis of truth. — creativesoul
No, relevant. It means the premise is true. — Bartricks
So, we will be happy we have the true theory of truth when our question "what is truth?" is answered with proposition whose representative contents seems to all rational reflectors to be something Reason is asserting to be the case.
If that's true - and I don't see how a reasonable person could deny it - then that itself should be what we consider truth to be. That is, truth is the property of being a proposition that Reason asserts to be the case. When Reason asserts that something is the case, it is the case. Her asserting it, and its being true are one and the same. — Bartricks
it entails that Reason is a person. Not 'a persons' - that's just bad grammar. — Bartricks
Here is the relevant argument:
premise 1: Reason makes assertions
premise 2. Persons and only persons make assertions
Conclusion: therefore Reason is a person.
Now, which premise are you taking issue with? — Bartricks
Also capitalized Reason is poetic, but what does it refer to? Our everyday reasoning? A God's-eye view? — Andrew M
Isn't that like saying that the solution to world peace is what Reason asserts it is? — Andrew M
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.