You are confused. Causality works forwards rather than backwards. — Devans99

No, you are confused. I know how causality works. You definitely don't need to explain it to me in the way that you're doing. The problem is that you don't seem to realise that you're being illogical.

So you have to work from the oldest first - the more recent elements depend on the oldest element. If the oldest element is missing, more recent elements are not defined: — Devans99

Are you insane? There is no oldest element in an infinite regress. It's an infinite bloody regress.

An infinite regress does not have a first element. — Devans99

Yes, that's obvious.

A regress needs a first element. — Devans99

That's pure dogma. You don't really belong here on a philosophy forum. Dogma is unwelcome.

I've explained the giant and obvious fault with your argument about "defined" events. An infinite regress would just have an infinite number of defined events. So you aren't justified at all if you make up some bullshit that I haven't provided any criticism. You're just quite literally deluded.

What is it? Which 'philosophy of idealism'? Just the one? It's meaningless. — StreetlightX

Just idealism. The general understanding of that position. I'm not speaking French, am I?

Meaningless how? In what sense? :brow:

But, 'the philosophy of idealism' is a placeholder: it names, at best, a space or place where such a motivation might be found. Like: "it's East of here". — StreetlightX

Arguing against it would be the motivation in that case, obviously.

Yes but working from the other direction - there is no start - so none of the years are defined. And that is the correct direction to work from - time does not run backwards - the future does not define the past. An analogy of how it works is here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/277817 — Devans99

You were talking about an infinite regress. That means backwards, not forwards. You can't work from the other direction. That makes no sense. If you pick an arbitrary point and go forwards, you won't reach any meaningful conclusion. And by that, I mean something like logically relevant, not something like comforting to hear or confirmation bias.

I was just applying logic to a segment of your own reasoning. But you don't like the conclusion.

You also don't like logic, unless you think it is useful for hiding your dogma. You're not hiding it well here, which is a good sign. I'm glad a whole bunch of us are logical enough to see through it. If you're seeking converts, you would fare better with a dumber audience.

You seem like a charitable interlocutor. We should converse more often.

And he called me unclear.
— S

But that's what we do. — Banno

What would happen if we didn't? Will we have solved half of the problem?

:chin:

There wasn't a troll.

Purchase a firearm. You're in America, so it should be easy.

On the spot poetry, sent by text to my friend whilst in the taxi, or "spacecraft", as I like to call them:

Race your spacecraft, pickle me nice. Race your spacecraft, egg spinach rice. Race your spacecraft, what's over there? Race your spacecraft, strawberry éclair.

We need to talk about Kevin.

There is a motivation there. It's just a reactive, rather than creative one. It's taking something that's already there and using it, in order to define oneself against some clearly demarcated, monolithic tradition of Hocus Pocus.

I feel like that is a type of philosophy. It's not OLP, tho. It's whatever New Atheism is, in essence. More charitably, I guess you could call it Voltairism. — csalisbury

Yeah, that's not far off.

Once upon a time, a long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...

There was a troll.

Okie dokie! Bye byes. I'll miss you, whoever you are.

@Banno, do you grant Streetlight's "problem"? How would you respond? Do you think I'm not properly dealing with a serious problem that he is raising?

I need an outside perspective on this which I can trust. (To some extent. Don't let that go to your head, lol).

Non-answers, both paragraphs. — StreetlightX

You're just looking for peculiarly particular answer that I don't have. I answered it in my own way. If that's not satisfactory to you, then so be it. You're creating a problem that I don't accept as a real problem.

But I didn't ask you to spell everything out. I asked you quite specifically about what force of necessity the distinction you've drawn has. What motivates it? Why this distinction, and not any other of the rather fanciful ones I came up with? What presuppositions are at work such that this distinction is significant? What is the drawing of this distinction meant to say - imply - about how the world is, such that it has this significance? What makes this distinction non-arbitrary? The very drawing of this distinction - and not another - has something to say. But what? — StreetlightX

How does pointing out that the distinction is useful in certain contexts, and explaining what it means, and explaining what it says about the world, and so on, not answering your plethora of questions? What more do you want from me? You want me to declare that it's the best thing since sliced bread?

Another way this might be put: as it stands, the whole question of 'objectivity' as you've set it out is merely nominal. 'Objectivity', as you use it, simply names a particular (let's call it) state of affairs, which may or may not be the case. And what is being wrangled over is nothing but the applicability of a name ("turns out, the existence of Jupiter is (what we call) an objective fact! Wow!); But again, why this distinction and not another? It is simply arbitrary that this relation (between 'us' and Jupiter) is called 'objective'? Or is the significance of this distinction - from whence it draws the force of its necessity - being guided by a certain set of (as yet un-spelled-out) presuppositions? If you're doing any kind of philosophy worthy of the name, then of course it is. If. — StreetlightX

I think I've addressed this by pointing out that it is useful in certain contexts. It's this distinction, rather than others, because a bunch of people came up with the philosophy of idealism, and the terms are of obvious usefulness in that context.

...and then I would say "what the fuck does than mean..." — Banno

I know, right. And he called me unclear.

Could we all agree at least on this? — Banno

I can easily agree that there are both, by my understanding of what those terms mean.

Without a start, neither exist. — Devans99

At what point does this become something like propaganda or spam?

Why? — Banno

Because God. That's the honest answer.

But you cannot start in 2018 - 2018 does not exist until 2017 has happened. 2017 defines 2018. You have to choose the start as the oldest item - and there is no oldest item in an infinite regress.

Because there is no start, none of the years are defined. — Devans99

That's codswallop. Each year is defined by the previous year, to infinity. There's an infinite number of defined events. They're all defined. Every single one of them.

But if its infinite, it can't be a regress — Devans99

No, that makes no sense. A regress can indeed be infinite.

...the first event defines the second, the second the third, and so on down the chain. — Devans99

Working backwards from today's event, it's logically possible to regress infinitely, and you haven't logically demonstrated otherwise.

You can simply assume a first event, but you aren't being logical in doing so.

The only real problem here is that you don't realise that you're being illogical.

I do not 'assume an infinite regress has no start' - if it had a start it would not be infinite. — Devans99

Exactly. That's how you begin your attempted reduction to the absurd. But you aren't logical enough to make it work. You just zoom in, follow the chain for a while, then make a giant logical leap to a presumed start. You haven't demonstrated that an infinite regress is impossible, you've only demonstrated that you're bad at logic and dogmatically attached to the idea of there being a start, so you can smuggle in God through the backdoor.

You don't need a philosophy forum, you need a psychiatrist.

I'm not in the mood to work through all the stuff done over the last few days. I was going to address replies specific to me.

Is there anything specific you or anyone else here now would like to address? For maybe an hour or so? — Banno

Nah, you're talking to the wrong person, I think. We're too close in agreement.

So what now? — Banno

I don't know. You're effectively the chair of the discussion. You tell us.

I objected to presenting an alternative definition of the term "objective" here on The Philosophy Forum, because it isn't what people typically mean in the context in which it's used here, which seems like an obvious problem. This ain't a science lab.

Then the other guy unhelpfully chimed in.

And now here we are.

You might be weaker or stronger in other ways, and vice versa. Why does it have to be a broad stroke of “they are weak, I am strong”? — DingoJones

I was only talking in respect to the psychological need for a god, or the lack thereof, and I think that that's clear from the context.

Weaker or stronger in other ways is beside the point.

Not you.

Sorta like someone saying, "How can there be a creation without a creator?"
— Frank Apisa

It is impossible to have a creation without a creator. — Devans99

Whoosh.

Where does it break down? — Devans99

You zoom in on a particular section of the causal chain, follow it along for a while, and then make a giant leap of logic because of your dogmatic faith.

I do not assume a start; I assume that an infinite regress has no start. — Devans99

No, you start by assuming that an infinite regress has no start, and then you do as I described above, which still assumes a start, just not straight away. First, you pretend to be logical, and then you assume a start.

You have either not read or not understood my argument. — Devans99

That's your delusion which you must maintain or your fragile psychology will collapse.

We already discussed this. By ancient logic, the universe is discrete is the point. — Devans99

You miss the point.

Frank and S have presented pages of waffle not containing any actual criticism of my arguments. — Devans99

That's your delusion which you must maintain or your fragile psychology will collapse.

Shh!

And it is clear that you occupy the position described by Wayfarer:
...the assumed stance of naturalism, which assumes the perspective of the subject, attempting to arrive at as objective a view as possible, through eliminating everything other than what can be quantified

Or alternatively explaied, but identical in meaning

...views the subject-object quantitatively, as occupying the extreme ends of a gradient, which in turn represents the varying degrees of subjectivity and objectivity. Truth is found in objectivity, so the less subjective one becomes, the closer he is to obtaing truth
— Merkwurdichliebe — Merkwurdichliebe

Completely wrong.

I don't use the terms such that it is a matter of degree, such that something can be more or less objective. I don't try to reach as objective a view as possible. Objective view? That's Wayfarer's transparent attempt at using language that seems to imply a contradiction. I am not foolish enough to be trapped like that.

If you were unclear on something, you could have simply asked. I even encouraged you to do so. Yet you respond in this way, which is foolish.

That's just it, you haven't made it clear, and you saying you "made it clear" doesn't mean you have done so. And that is why you find everyone challenging you here. — Merkwurdichliebe

1. Stop appealing to those around you in an attempt to inflate yourself.

2. Tell me what you find unclear.

The way things are going, we're proceeding at a snail's pace, and that it isn't my fault.

The problem: your definitions of subject and object are whack, lame, played-out doo doo. They have only confused things. — Merkwurdichliebe

No, that's another one of those comments made of words, but which says nothing. If that's the best that you can come up with, I will end up losing interest. I will give you another chance to cut out the rhetoric and skip to the supposed problem: something substantial instead of a bunch of negative-sounding adjectives you seem to have picked up from a school playground.

So your really just talking about weakness/strength concerning a few specific traits, the god belief traits such as fear of death? — DingoJones

Yes, amongst others. Fear or unwillingness to confront harsh reality. Escapism. Infantilism.

Is it that they are weak, or possess certain traits such as a need for spiritual meaning? — DingoJones

It is that they are weak. There is no need for meaning which can't be fulfilled without religious mumbo-jumbo. If I do not need a pacifier, then why do they? If I do not need faux-meaning, then why do they? It is a difference in strength of character.

But your definitions are weak and shoddy, and most people here appear to find them unacceptable for an edifying philosophical discourse. So they been attempting to clean up your mess. — Merkwurdichliebe

That's one of those comments made of words, but which says nothing. Cut the rhetoric and skip to the supposed problem.

So there are no people who believe in god that are brave, resilient and self - sufficient? — DingoJones

No, there can be and probably are. It depends on the context. But not in respect to their psychological need for a god.

What do you have in mind in how you are using “weak” and “strong”? What attributes define those words? — DingoJones

The strong are brave, resilient and self-sufficient, and the weak are cowardly, fragile and reliant.

It's not about superiority, it's about appropriate engagement. I wouldn't turn up to a discussion on some scientific topic like general relativity and start redefining terms to my liking.

My language is no more condescending than yours. You already insinuated that I was "elitist", and you made reference to "unsophisticated humans" before I even made my remarks which you've singled out.

I couldn't care less if the rest of humanity, or "unsophisticated humans", as you condescendingly refer to them, do not care about this fallacy (and it is a fallacy, so scare quotes are inappropriate), because they must not care about the deep and fundamental questions of philosophy, whereas I do.

Good luck having any hope of getting close to the truth if you show a careless disregard for logic and reason.

Alright, well what is useful about including science and history in a definition of philosophy? Perhaps there is some purpose that I don't see.

For my part, a definition which excludes science and history allows one to give an accurate description of academic philosophy, and that may well be needed to explain to non-philosophers what it is that an academic philosopher spends his time doing. — PossibleAaran

I've explained this already. It is useful for salvaging the already damaged reputation of philosophy as excessively focussed on stuff of little substance or bearing on the world, and I dispute your claim about accuracy, because I am categorising these statements accurately in accordance with the appropriate branches of philosophy which they fall under, and doing this doesn't mean that they can't be distinguished from history or science, as they retain their own more specific identities. Philosophy is just a broader category which relates to, and subsumes, other academic subjects, such as those mentioned.

I am not going to guess at your motivation, but you will find that the more you play games, the less interested people will be in having a conversation with you. Your loss. There are some members here who know quite a bit about philosophy, but given your behavior I doubt that any of them will bother with you for long. — Fooloso4

This is a very good example of an attempt at psychological manipulation. I've been on the brunt end of it myself. You're sending out signals. "I'm not going to guess at your motivation", denying your subtle attack before you make it: the insinuation that he is playing games, doing exactly what you said you weren't going to do by guessing at his motivation. And then you try to get people on your side, signalling that they ought not to bother with one such as him, and trying to use this as some sort of threat.