It would have been great to have been able to fully commit to Plato there, to reject Aristotle's critiques. Because, of course, Aristotle is not as fun to read. Instead of a series of polished dialogues we mostly have cluttered, meandering lecture notes stapled together. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is a view of Aristotle that has recently been challenged; that his writings are neither doctrine nor lecture notes, but dialogic. He is in dialogue both with earlier writers and with the reader who is provoked to think these things through rather than accept them as either the truth or Aristotle's opinion. Like Plato's dialogues they lead to aporia. Rather than answers Aristotle guides the reader through questions.

To say that all justification is relative is not necessarily to say that all justification is equal. — Janus

"Not necessarily"? Okay. The definition I use is stipulative and not categorical. It works in the context of the OP.

The definition I use is stipulative and not categorical. — 180 Proof

So? You were responding to a post stating that, in this context, there are different definitions of "relative". That you stipulated one and presented it as though it were the only one is precisely what is at issue.

The only "issue", mr / ms, is your uncharitable reading of what I wrote. Stipulating a(n arguably) better, more relevant – probative – definition is not a claim it's "the only one". As you've said, your definition of relativism "is not necessarily" synonymous with mine. Okay, but so what? :clap: You present no substantive reasons why I should not stand by the distinctions I make between 'relativism and perspectivism / pluralism' with respect to the thread topic.

My original point was that the difference between your definition and other definitions is not merely "grammatical". Which of the definitions is "more relevant—probitive" is a wholly different argument, and could certainly not rely on mere grammar to decided it (if it could even be decided at all)..

only to make indefinite progress toward there. — Pfhorrest

Is philosophy the concatenation of true statements, or the process?

“A philosophy” is a set of statements or opinions about philosophy; “philosophy” is an activity or process.

See my new thread on plumbing. I was unable to articulate my discomfort with the approach you give here, but the Midgley article goes some way towards expressing my reservations about treating philosophy as a concatenation of truths.

You do realize this argument proves God, right?

1. Imperatives of Reason exist
2. Existent imperatives require an existent mind to bear them.
3. Therefore, imperatives of Reason are the imperatives of an existent mind
4. A mind whose imperatives are imperatives of Reason will be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent
5. Therefore, the mind whose imperatives are imperatives of Reason - Reason - is a mind who exists and is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent
6. An existent mind that is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent is God
7. Therefore, God exists. — Bartricks

A serious matter, to prove God exists. So let's take a look.

1) What is such a thing, or, what is an example of such a thing? Lacking explication, yours nothing more than a word-game claim.

2) I know what an imperative is. I know what reason is. I do not know what an imperative of reason is. This reservation made, I see nothing to object to in suggesting that an idea requires a mind to have it.

3) With reservations, why not?

4) This one is outrageous and stupid, or seems so to me. For many people can and do operate on the basis of imperatives, and those often enough based in reason - some not. But at no time would anyone entertain the notion that any of them were omni-anything. And you have never addressed the point due to Martin Luther et al that omnipotence and omnibenevolence are inconsistent. Mocked and dismissed it yes, never addressed it.

5) & 6) Ecstatic nonsense. If this is your creed that you believe, go in peace. But if you want it to be real, then make it real.

7) I'm glad God has no need of you, else he would have to remain behind the curtain.

So. I make no argument here except that yours fails to meet minimum standards of coherence. My own oft-stated belief is that God, in all forms, is a powerful idea - belief - and sometimes a good one and sometimes a bad one. But never more than an idea. From which status he derives, as the Patristic fathers well-understood, most of the powers that you would like to bestow in virtue of a claimed reality, which, were He real, he could not possibly have.

A serious matter, to prove God exists. So let's take a look. — tim wood

Such skill at argument assessment. Such insight. I imagine esteemed philosophy journals must send you work to review for them all the time.

Such skill at argument assessment. Such insight. I imagine esteemed philosophy journals must send you work to review for them all the time. — Bartricks

That's right, FW, don't engage; just slip your clutch and generate smoke.

I thought I was a weasel. Now I'm driving a car or perhaps motorbike? Is it a little one for weasels?

Weasels aren't stupid, FW, (and the F is substantive, btw) they're just weasels. So why do you not turn your mind to the questions I raise about your "proof."

I thought FW meant fast-forward for some reason. So I'm a clever weasel on a motorbike. I just want to get the imagery right. I'm zooming around the forest floor on my motorbike collecting nuts, presumably.

I couldn't understand what you were saying in response to my proof of God. It didn't make any real sense to me. None of it. Not a single word.

Which premise are you rejecting and why?

Try reading, FW. No more games.

Not having read the article there yet, your abstract of it sounds agreeable to me, and not contrary to anything I’ve meant here.

If it clears anything up, when I spoke of a philosophy being a set of statements or opinions (and so of “the true philosophy” being a set of truths), I didn’t mean narrowly descriptive truths about the way the world really is, but truth in a broader sense that also encompasses prescriptive or moral “truths” (correct norms), logical or mathematical “truths” (valid inferences from coherent axiomatic definitions), rhetorical or artistic “truths” (effective presentation and delivery of useful or otherwise wanted content), and most to the point, philosophical truths, which I hold to lie in the intersection between logical/mathematical and rhetorical/artistic truths.

I do think that our philosophical opinions serve as a kind of “plumbing” for both our prescriptive and descriptive opinions, in the way that you say that article says they do.

No she isn't. Nothing I've said gives you any ground for thinking such a thing. She's not a language - languages don't issue instructions, people do. So Reason is a person - a mind. So, one of us. Just she's also going to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, by virtue of being the one among us whose attitudes constitute reasons. And thus she will qualify as God. So the exact opposite of what you said. She - God, Reason - is a personality. And nothing stops her having a flesh and blood body too, if she so wished. — Bartricks

I didn’t say ‘God’ was a language - I’m saying that you have a particular perspective of Reason as an experience of mind from eternity - one that infinitely prefers logic. I’m arguing that a philosophical understanding of reason would transcend this preference for logic that you attribute to your description. I’m saying that God/Reason as a personality or mind is only one aspect of potentiality.

As for Reason having a flesh and bone body, or wishing anything - while I’m not disputing a relational structure between reason, intentionality and flesh, I will argue that bias or affect does come into this at some point. I’m wondering where you think that point is, and how it arises. I don’t see a clear relational structure here that follows from logic to flesh - not without affect.

And a bloody good job I'm doing too, if I do say so myself. And why is 'follow reason' in inverted commas? You show already that you're not interested in doing so, not seriously, and that you've already made your mind up about how things are with Reason. — Bartricks

Sure, ‘good’ by your limited understanding of reason. This is what I mean about interpreting my words and actions as if my relative position is against reason, just because it doesn’t align with your perspective. I’m not against reason - I’m wary of the inaccuracy of reason bound by logic. I place ‘follow reason’ in inverted commas because I disagree with your limited perspective of reason as bound by logic. I do the same with those who profess to ‘follow God’ by rejecting gender diversity, for instance. It’s just an interpretation of what it means to ‘follow God/reason’ that’s biased against an aspect we both recognise as existing. I don’t believe that reason necessarily excludes the illogical. You do.

You do realize this argument proves God, right?

1. Imperatives of Reason exist
2. Existent imperatives require an existent mind to bear them.
3. Therefore, imperatives of Reason are the imperatives of an existent mind
4. A mind whose imperatives are imperatives of Reason will be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent
5. Therefore, the mind whose imperatives are impertatives of Reason - Reason - is a mind who exists and is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent
6. An existent mind that is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent is God
7. Therefore, God exists.

You don't think it does, because you don't follow reason. If you did, you'd know the conclusion follows and the premises are all true far, far beyond a reasonable doubt. — Bartricks

You do know there’s a difference between reason and logic, right?

Your premises are true only within a limited (and arguably inaccurate) understanding of Reason, imperatives, God, mind, and the relation between omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence. You see, none of this is real. It’s all just signs and symbols, with a logical structure only. As long as you convince yourself that reality is structured only according to logic (not according to ideal quality or affect/energy), then sure, this might appear to logically prove that God exists.

But it doesn’t really prove anything.

God, mind, science, benevolence, potence, existence and reason all refer to ideas that embody different qualities according the logical relations in which they appear. Mind exists as a possibility, while an existent mind consists of potentiality. But an existent imperative is not only contingent upon the potentiality of an existent mind but also on the intentional (affected) relation of that existent mind to a temporal state of being. Otherwise it’s just words, with no imperative quality at all.

So, the existence of any imperative - yes, even an imperative of reason - is contingent upon consciousness, which muddies the waters of certainty. But we don’t even have to look at consciousness, we can just take a closer look at 4.

A potentially existent mind which has or ‘bears’ existent imperatives is potentially limited by these imperatives (in relation to consciousness). For an existent mind to be omnibenevolent, it would logically be bound by imperatives of reason. Yet for an existent mind to be omnipotent, it cannot even be potentially limited by imperatives at all. And for an existent mind to be omniscient, it would recognise this as a logical contradiction. So, a mind that is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent with imperatives is either an illogical possibility, or logically impossible.

Therefore, God is not just an existent mind, but an idea that extends beyond the bounds of logic. The existence of God is a relation to truth. You can limit it to logic if you prefer, but the existence of God as a mind with imperatives is not beyond reasonable doubt.

I didn’t say ‘God’ was a language - I’m saying that you have a particular perspective of Reason as an experience of mind from eternity - one that infinitely prefers logic. I’m arguing that a philosophical understanding of reason would transcend this preference for logic that you attribute to your description. I’m saying that God/Reason as a personality or mind is only one aspect of potentiality. — Possibility

Gibberish.

As for Reason having a flesh and bone body, or wishing anything - while I’m not disputing a relational structure between reason, intentionality and flesh, I will argue that bias or affect does come into this at some point. I’m wondering where you think that point is, and how it arises. I don’t see a clear relational structure here that follows from logic to flesh - not without affect. — Possibility

More gibberish.

Sure, ‘good’ by your limited understanding of reason. This is what I mean about interpreting my words and actions as if my relative position is against reason, just because it doesn’t align with your perspective. I’m not against reason - I’m wary of the inaccuracy of reason bound by logic. I place ‘follow reason’ in inverted commas because I disagree with your limited perspective of reason as bound by logic. I do the same with those who profess to ‘follow God’ by rejecting gender diversity, for instance. It’s just an interpretation of what it means to ‘follow God/reason’ that’s biased against an aspect we both recognise as existing. I don’t believe that reason necessarily excludes the illogical. You do. — Possibility

Gibber. Rish.

You do know there’s a difference between reason and logic, right? — Possibility

Oh do enlighten me.

Gibberish. — Bartricks

More gibberish. — Bartricks

Gibber. Rish. — Bartricks

Oh do enlighten me. — Bartricks

There’s really not much point - you’ll just dismiss it as ‘gibberish’. Which only demonstrates complete and utter ignorance on your part. Blatant unwillingness to understand an alternative viewpoint is not philosophy. What a waste of time.

I just find your viewpoint to be incomprehensible. You're going to ignore reasoned arguments whenever doing so is needed to preserve your viewpoint. So, really what you're engaging in is a kind of expressivism, not a search for truth. I think that's a waste of time.

If ones taste is to value truth that's great.
If not,then it's just second hand car sales. Which is what most of philosophy,science and religion is.

Why do you disagree with people (and publicly ridicule them etc.), if not because you believe there is One True Philosophy (which also happens to be yours)?
— baker

In order to point out the error of their ideas. — Banno

IOW, you do believe there is One True Philosophy (which also happens to be yours).

This is a common mistake. That there is not one true philosophy does not mean that all claims are equal. Some ideas are in error.

This is a common mistake. That there is not one true philosophy does not mean that all claims are equal. Some ideas are in error. — Fooloso4

A typical statement made by someone who believes there is One True Philosophy.

So is your position that there is "One True Philosophy" or that all claims are equally true?

Neither, I'm pointing out where the other poster's position becomes absurd.
One cannot consistently criticize others for believing there is One True Philosophy without ending up oneself implying there is One True Philosophy (which also happens to be one's own).

I do not think it follows from the rejection of one true philosophy that one holds to their own philosophy as the one true philosophy. But since this was directed at Banno I will leave it to him to respond.

Some ideas are in error. — Fooloso4

And the conjunction of all the ones that are not in error is ... ?

And the conjunction of all the ones that are not in error is ... ? — Pfhorrest

And the conjunction of all the ones that are not in error is ... a set of claims that are not in error. They do not amount to "the One True Philosophy".

What do you think “the one true philosophy” means above and beyond the conjunction of all philosophical claims that are not in error?

Surely you can have only one such set of claims, since it’s the set of all such claims; and being true is being not in error; and “a philosophy” is a set of philosophical claims.

So there’s one of them, it’s true, and it’s a philosophy. How is it not thus the one true philosophy?