You don't know what 'begging the question' means, clearly. — Bartricks

“This is clearly so” as a first premise in proving whether something is so is not begging the question?

Look, I have already explained why 'X is just' does not mean "X is permitted" or "X is wrong" or "X is right". I have given examples illustrating this. This is pointless, like I say. — Bartricks

And I’ve responded to this:

The fact that doing X would bring about a just state of affairs, does not entail that it is right to do X.
— Bartricks

Correct. But had you undergone the reflections, and discovered that X is a just state of affairs, then yes it does entail it. The only situation it doesn’t is when you intend to do something wrong, but it ends up bringing about a just state of affairs. — khaled

But you’re right this is pointless.

Get a therapist.

I don't need therapy to reason like you do. I need a head injury.

You have not shown how my case is "bullshit" (incidentally, you don't know what bullshit is either - it has now become a technical term in philosophy since Harry Frankfurt published a book on the subject). You have simply ignored it or failed to recognize it. But oh well.

I still do not understand your point.

Do you think the argument is valid? Do you have anything philosophical to contribute, or are you also another budding therapist who wishes to express their conviction that I need some?

I don't need therapy to reason like you do. I need a head injury. — Bartricks

Most people here are reasoning like I do and I find it highly unlikely that they all have head injuries. Again, it’s very statistically unlikely that everyone has it wrong and you are the only one that has it right. Should be a red flag.

it has now become a technical term in philosophy since Harry Frankfurt published a book on the subject — Bartricks

“speech intended to persuade without regard for truth”

Fits the bill I’d say.

You have not shown how my case is "bullshit" — Bartricks

Yes I have.

You have simply ignored it or failed to recognize it. But oh well. — Bartricks

Anyways hurry up and say the dunning Kruger thing so I can clear the notification and go about my day.

And get a therapist. Or neurosurgeon.

It is easy to prove God exists. — Bartricks

So easy, in fact, that D-K Club members like you can't. :lol:

:up:

Regular pessimism is simply an outlook or a personality tendency. Philosophical pessimism generally has a larger picture understanding how suffering is related to the world. It's the difference between someone being stoical and a Stoic. — schopenhauer1

:up:

Er, so? — Bartricks

So you start a thread to show that antinatalism is compatible with something that you consider to be, well, a figment of imagination.

If you'd be writing the script of a soap opera, that could be a worthwhile endeavor, but otherwise ...

That's an assertion that is not even close to being necessarily true. Actually, it might be quite the opposite, that someone is pessimistic because they are poor, and I wouldn't blame them! — schopenhauer1

And how is their pessimism (philosophical or plain) helping them in that poverty?

But I want you to understand that there is a distinction between "pessimism' and "Pessimism". Regular pessimism is simply an outlook or a personality tendency. Philosophical pessimism generally has a larger picture understanding how suffering is related to the world. It's the difference between someone being stoical and a Stoic.

Exactly, which just goes to show that philosophical pessimism is viable for the elites, but not for others, which I've been telling you all along.

Schopy would never invite you over for afternoon tea.

I still do not understand your point. — Bartricks

It's quite simple.

Either philosophy has an externally demonstrable measure of 'expertise' or it does not.

If it does, then the fact that virtually every professional philosopher that's ever lived disagrees with you should give adequate cause to assume you're wrong (at least about the clarity of your argument).

If it does not, then your frequent references to expertise, Dunning–Kruger etc. are irrelevant to the assessment of your argument.

I think God exists. I don't think God is a figment of my imagination at all. My imagination has not been involved at all. So I still don't know what you're talking about.

If it does, then the fact that virtually every professional philosopher that's ever lived disagrees with you should give adequate cause to assume you're wrong (at least about the clarity of your argument). — Isaac

You're quite a crude thinker, aren't you? You don't do philosophy by consensus. You assess a position based on the evidence.

Expert agreement is good evidence. If it wasn’t then why do you keep bringing up dunning and Kruger? You’re implying that someone is simply misunderstanding your argument due to lack of expertise. Which is to say that someone with expertise would understand it (If even the experts don’t get it then why ask about expertise at all?). Your behavior demonstrates that you think expertise matters. And yet you think that you being the literal only person in the world that thinks the way you do is not a red flag. Then again, consistency is not your forte.

What is the source of your thoughts about God?

My mind has my thoughts.

How did you come to know about God?
Did God contact you?
Have you read books on the topic of God?

By ratiocination. And yes, I have read such books. Is this going anywhere?

And how is their pessimism (philosophical or plain) helping them in that poverty? — baker

So I don't know how you are using pessimism here, is my point. I have never heard "pessimism" be someone's reason for poverty. I have heard a bad set of circumstances (job loss) coupled with bad economy, structural poverty that is generational, drug use, certain preferences and habits, etc.

Exactly, which just goes to show that philosophical pessimism is viable for the elites, but not for others, which I've been telling you all along. — baker

This is ridiculous and honestly shouldn't be waste typing on this but:
1) You can argue that anyone who doesn't have proper access to ANY idea is only "viable" for people with that access. This goes for scientific ideas, philosophy, or any academic writing.

2) A crude form of "life is suffering" or even "this shit ain't worth it" can count as philosophical pessimism to me, so this is amenable to anyone, and perhaps may be especially realized by those who are suffering most acutely. But to attribute the poverty to this conclusion is reversing the order of things.

3) I think it ironic you bring this point up when I JUST wrote a WHOLE thread about how people view productivity in socioeconomic terms as how credible a philosophy is. So my point in the thread was that "respectable middle-class types" would more likely view a philosophy as more legitimate because they were "productive" in society. So my example included a person who was extremely "productive" (in the respectable middle-class sense) of creating innovative technology and even designed and built buildings and homes.. All things one woul associate with some positive philosophy of "pragmatic-realism".. now imagine that person is a Philosophical Pessimist. This would be a "kick in the balls" for people who think in these terms of credibility because their "man" is now associated with a philosophy they loathe. There is now a cognitive dissonance they have to accept of this person who is supposed to be "credible" for them, also associating with a philosophy they would normally eschew.
See here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10642/credibility-and-minutia

You don't do philosophy by consensus. You assess a position based on the evidence. — Bartricks

Then what do you mean by

It is also worth noting that the majority of philosophers who have thought carefully about this issue have also come to the conclusion that we have free will, despite disagreeing over what possessing it involves. — Bartricks

most moral philosophers agree that moral norms and values are categorical — Bartricks

most people's intuitions - most people who think soberly about such matters, are capable of understanding, and who are not in the grips of a dogma - deliver the verdict that it would be wrong to torture one to maximise the happiness of the many.

That doesn't mean they're right. But it is very good evidence that they're correct. — Bartricks

the majority agree that we have free will of the moral responsibility-grounding kind. — Bartricks

I could go on, I honestly wasn't expecting the search to yield so many results. Central to the support of your premises is that fact that a majority of philosophers agree with them (I don't even think that is true, but that's not the point here). The charge you've yet to answer is how you can use majority consensus to support your premises whilst dismissing this exact same property when it departs from your own preferred positions.

You will, of course, be tempted to turn to a distinction between premises and conclusions - premises are supported by consensus, but conclusions only by reasoning from evidence. But if you want to support that distinction, then what exactly are philosophers doing such that they are more likely to arrive at true premises than non-philosophers? If premises are not reasoned to then there's no skill-set in reasoning being applied to deriving them, if they are being reasoned to then they are a conclusion of some process and as such consensus carries no weight.

Well, I doubt very much you possess the subtlety of mind needed to understand what I am about to say, but here goes.

The rational intuitions of philosophers are more reliable than those of others, or at least it is reasonable to suppose them to be. Why? Because they can grasp difficult concepts and understand thought experiments and not get distracted by irrelevancies.

Now you took the quotes out of context. When I pointed out that the bulk of philosophers have agreed that we have free will, that was not in itself evidence that we have free will, as the context made clear. (I mean, I said that explicitly). What that broad consensus was evidence of is the fact that the intuition that we are morally responsible for what we do is stronger than any rational intuition we may have about the compatibility or otherwise of free will with determinism. So, that wasn't doing philosophy by consensus. That was noting that a consensus was evidence for something, namely how powerful and widely felt a given intuition is. And those widely shared powerful intuitions were then in turn powerful evidence that a given premise in my case was true.

Similarly, most philosophers agree that one of the marks of a moral norm is that they have categoricity. That is evidence that the reason of those who are exceptionally good at attending to their reason - represents moral norms to be categorical. And that, in turn, is good prima facie evidence that this is indeed a feature of moral norms.

Now, do you have anything at all philosophical to say about anything argued in the OP?

Like I say, I'd be more worth my while explaining it to my cat. — Bartricks

So I take it that not only are you not going to prove the existence of god, but you are also incapable of drawing the Venn diagram to prove your point with the little test.

Well actually, so that you do not get pissy about it, 6 is a valid conclusion from 1,2,3,4,5 but 8 does not need 7 as a premise to be valid and it really does seem that you have no idea what you are doing.

You have not shown how my case is "bullshit" (incidentally, you don't know what bullshit is either - it has now become a technical term in philosophy since Harry Frankfurt published a book on the subject). You have simply ignored it or failed to recognize it. But oh well. — Bartricks

But this begs the question, did you ever read it?
I thought it was very entertaining. I can send you a copy if you tell me where to send it to. For free.

Oh, by the way. That was one of the things he actually calls bullshit. Adding extra useless to the topic information. So good job on telling us abut the book and providing an example for it.

Now, do you have anything at all philosophical to say about anything argued in the OP? — Bartricks

The rational intuitions of my philosophical mind leads me to the following conclusions but not necessarily beliefs:
1. god created mankind
2. god's guide to living says that mankind should worship him
3. therefore god needs mankind to worship him

1. if god needs mankind to worship him the mankind must reproduce to continue worshiping him
2. some people think that not reproducing is a morally correct thing to do
3. therefore either god does not decide what is moral and is not omnipotent OR some people are wrong about their ideas

Quick test for you, are these valid or not.

And I am still waiting for something.

No, of course they're not valid. And you didn't know that, did you?

So, that wasn't doing philosophy by consensus. That was noting that a consensus was evidence for something, namely how powerful and widely felt a given intuition is. And those widely shared powerful intuitions were then in turn powerful evidence that a given premise in my case was true. — Bartricks

Oh I see. So it wasn’t “Most philosophers agree to it therefore it’s true”. It was “Most philosophers agree to it therefore it’s a widely felt intuition, therefore it’s true”.

Stop trolling.

Oh I see. So it wasn’t “Most philosophers agree to it therefore it’s true”. It was “Most philosophers agree to it therefore it’s a widely felt intuition, therefore it’s true” — khaled

Once more you demonstrate your inability properly to understand the English language.

most philosophers agree that one of the marks of a moral norm is that they have categoricity. That is evidence that the reason of those who are exceptionally good at attending to their reason - represents moral norms to be categorical. — Bartricks

Not at all. You've already established that they may simply be defending a stupid view cleverly. So their agreement carries no weight at all.

No, of course they're not valid. And you didn't know that, did you? — Bartricks

Oh dear, could you possible explain why they are not valid? It seems to me that they are perfectly valid.


Or would that explanation be something else I will never get?

Once more you demonstrate your inability properly to understand the English language. — Bartricks

And you sir have once again proved you inability to use the English language to do something productive, like explain properly or give decent answers instead of abuse.

By ratiocination. And yes, I have read such books. Is this going anywhere? — Bartricks

It's not clear how you can be sure that you know the truth about God.

"God" is a term whose native domain are monotheistic religions which offer competing or even mutually exclusive accounts of what "God" is.

Are you suggesting you resolved millennia of theistic disputes and figured out who or what "God" is?

Are you suggesting you resolved millennia of theistic disputes and figured out who or what "God" is? — baker

Yes. And using entirely obvious premise so with simple logic too he claims. Check his thread about the “proof” of God. Though I wouldn’t bother. It’s garbage.

Which way did he go, George?

He hasn't answered my questions? :smirk:

No, of course they're not valid. And you didn't know that, did you?
— Bartricks

Oh dear, could you possible explain why they are not valid? It seems to me that they are perfectly valid. — Sir2u

He hasn't answered my questions? — Sir2u

The clue to why lies in the conclusion of this valid argument:

1. If someone thinks Sir2u's arguments are valid, then that person is too dumb for fun
2. Sir2u thinks Sir2u's arguments are valid
3. Therefore....