| | | Author | Comment | Naturyl 
Proficionado
Posts: 253
(3/2/04 1:58)
Reply
 | Re: The Play-By-Play
Yes, that was I problem I also noticed, but declined to comment on because I want to avoid 'polluting' the debate by exerting undue influence on its course. Robert will see the circularity in any case, and while I gave David a 7, Robert is set up to score considerably higher than that in his rebuttal, assuming he takes advantage of the opportunity you pointed out and others like it. 
| ksolway
Visitor
Posts: 1
(3/2/04 2:39)
Reply | Edit
 | Re: The Play-By-Play
Quote:
"enlightenment is what I say it is because I am enlightened, you cannot know if I am enlightened because you are not enlightened, therefore lets only talk about what enlightenment is- which you cannot know, because you are not enlightened."
Very true! That logic is faultless. And it is a marvelous truth.
You have made a correct interpretation of the state of affairs. At best David can only offer us a teaching, and hope we gain something from it. For this we should be thankful.
Indeed, only by becoming enlightened can we understand enlightenment. How can it be any other way?
| alarabi7
misplaced koan
-Administrator
Posts: 1983
(3/2/04 2:48)
Reply
 | Re: The Play-By-Play
Quote:
That logic is faultless.
hmmm... never thought of circular logic as faultless. The Bible is true because the bible says it is true and if you believe you will know the bible is true.
| SPQR Anarchy
Revolutionary
Posts: 258
(3/2/04 3:10)
Reply | Re: The Play-By-Play
Finally some sense around this dump. Geez, all it took was the wisdom of dear sweet David. Where can I buy this enlightenment. It seems to be my ticket outta here.
SPQR
| WolfsonJakk
Inductee
Posts: 10
(3/2/04 3:27)
Reply | Re: The Play-By-Play
It might be.
| Thomas Knierim
Ponderer
Posts: 21
(3/2/04 4:42)
Reply
 | Re: The Play-By-Play
Kevin Solway: Very true! That logic is faultless. And it is a marvelous truth.
It is about as marvellous as the Chinese state doctrine:
"What is good for the peasants and workers is what the governement says. It is because we are the government and therefore we know what is good. Peasants and workers do not know what is good for them, because they are not the government."
Brilliant logic indeed. The working class is cheering.
Thomas
| ksolway
Visitor
Posts: 2
(3/2/04 6:02)
Reply | Edit
| Re: The Play-By-Play
alarabi7 wrote:
Quote:
hmmm... never thought of circular logic as faultless.
All purely logical and philosophical truths are circular (including that very sentence, if you care to analyze it).
Such truths are of the following form:
"A thing is the way it is, because of the way it is."
Here's a random example from the Buddha (Dhammapada): "Hate is not conquered by hate."
| Victor Danilchenko 
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
 
Posts: 1939
(3/2/04 10:29)
Reply
 | Re: The Play-By-Play
I would like to add that Quinn is naively, stupefyingly wrong about science being grounded in the vulgar materialism as he describes (the belief that matter objectively independently materially exists).
What he is describing -- the vulgar materialism -- is a very outdated view; which Quinn would know if only he was not so adamant in rejecting outright 20-th century philosophy.
The modern equivalent is physicalism, the position which explains sensory data not in noumenal (and thus incoherent) terms, but which rather focuses on the fact that perceived interactions are what defines 'physical', thus typically treating sensory world as a closed system rather than a reflection of the noumenal reality.
In short, one doesn't need to believe that atoms really exist in order to do nuclear physics; what one has to believe is that physics theories predict a certain class of future observations. That Quinn doesn't understand this is just one more testament to how his rationalistic 'enlightenment' is worthless when disconnected from the real world. Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him. | Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 1940
(3/2/04 10:42)
Reply
| Re: The Play-By-Play
Solway,
Quote:
All purely logical and philosophical truths are circular (including that very sentence, if you care to analyze it).
No. All analytic truths are tautological. That is not the same as being circular, although the difference may be lost on someone like you 'geniuses' who never bothered to understand how actual logic works, instead proudly proclaiming that their ignorantly naive concept of 'logic' is all that's needed (remember Russell's paradox in Cantor/Frege set theory? Intuition has pitfalls...)
The problem with tautologies of course is that they generally cannot tell us anything useful about the world, largely because empirical experience cannot be formalized.
Quote:
Such truths are of the following form:
"A thing is the way it is, because of the way it is."
That's a circular statement which also happens to be a tautology. Here is a tautology which is not a circular statement, and thus is at least marginally useful:
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Socrates is mortal.
Quote:
Here's a random example from the Buddha (Dhammapada): "Hate is not conquered by hate."
And that's not a tautology; it's not even sound. That the a thing cannot be conquered with itself is a blatant assumption, and a false one -- for example, fire can be fought with fire (that's how many indigenous people living in steppe environment usually combat fires, in fact).
Fire can be conquered by fire. Evil can be conquered by evil (if they destroy each other). Sound can be conquered by sound (if the waves are correctly synched).
You just unwittingly demonstrated exactly why trying to build philosophy on tautologies is such a worthless enterprise: most of the time it's either sound but useless, or useful but unsound.
it's possible that hate cannot be conquered with hate, but you would need to do far more to support such a contention, than merely fallaciously proclaim it to be tautologically true. Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him. | Rando the Considerable
Guru
Posts: 603
(3/2/04 12:08)
Reply
 | Re: The Play-By-Play
I'm betting 900 TPG bucks on Robert and 100 on Quinn. In addition, just to show I'm a nice guy, I'll be awarding the winner of this debate (if there is one) a whopping 10,000 Rando points. In the case that DQ wins, he will be welcome to enter the TPG or KIR Rando Contest, as one is not being held in the Genius Forum. 
| birdofhermes
Visitor
Posts: 1
(3/2/04 14:07)
Reply | The Home Team
Well, the gang's all here : )
Just to be contrary, I'll put all 1,000 of my points on Quinn, simply because I understand his feminine mind more easily.
| Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 1942
(3/2/04 14:26)
Reply | Re: The Home Team
P.S. Welcome to the forum, Anna. Post often, think much. Edited by: Victor Danilchenko at: 3/2/04 14:27
| Tales to Astonish
Follower
Posts: 21
(3/2/04 14:55)
Reply
 | Re: The Home Team
I'm afraid I've never met Robert Larkin but I've read some of David's writings. They're mostly odd, so I'm hoping to maybe understand his point of view better from this discussion.
-Tales Edited by: Tales to Astonish at: 3/2/04 15:15
|  Opto Ergo Sum
Innovator
Posts: 107
(3/2/04 15:01)
Reply
ezSupporter
 | Re: The Home Team
Darn, I was hoping this would be an interesting and "formal" debate. Guild laid out the rules nicely. But it's just another pissing contest.
(whew...one less thread to keep up with)
| Biggier
Innovator
Posts: 220
(3/2/04 16:26)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Having waded though both metaphysical thickets as best I could all I can say is this: may the best self-delusion win.
If this pedantic, ossified exchange does not encompass the irrelevancy to which much that passes for contemporary "philosophy" has sunk, I'm at a loss to imagine it sinking much lower. Is it any wonder that, with each passing year, fewer and fewer folks are willing to give philosophy a fair shot?
Let the next debate at least touch down occasionally in the real world.
Remember that?
Biggie
| Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 1945
(3/2/04 16:50)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
biggier,
Dude, that debate has many flaws, but being too academic and formal, or too representative of modern philosophy, is most assuredly not one of them...
That debate is in fact not philosophical at all. David Quinn is being pseudo-philosophical in the finest continental tradition of making bold proclamations without any support or relationship to reality, and Larkin is essentially arguing scholastically (in the medieval sense of the word)... Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him.Edited by: Victor Danilchenko at: 3/2/04 16:54
| Murray Graham
Rind of the Ancient Mariner
-Study Moderator
Posts: 1001
(3/2/04 17:29)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Ouch.
Regards,
M. Graham As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,
I've got a little list--I've got a little list ..... the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone,
All centuries but this, and every country but his own;
-The Mikado, Gilbert & Sullivan Edited by: Murray Graham at: 3/2/04 17:29
| samadhim7
Guru
Posts: 646
(3/2/04 18:03)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Anyone here who knows me knows enlightenment is my main interest. So here are my thoughts on what so far is a less than stellar debate.
Comments on Quinn:
Q points to the delusion of separate existence. Okay, that's a start. But what about saying why we are under this delusion? To merely assert it does not give anyone access to the concept you want us to understand.
Next he points to what enlightenment perceives. This is a bit dicey since talking about emptiness as a perception could be misleading. What does it mean to perceive emptiness? Q doesn't say.
Some characteristics are described, beyond emotion, beyond religion, infinitely powerful knowledge. Religion needs no comment but emotion is something else. If an enlightened person still has a body, why not a mind? Why expect emotions to disappear? It is the identification with emotion that might disappear. One then has the ability to respond or not to a feeling rather than merely react. Also why assume infinite knowledge? Knowledge is an aspect of mind and duality; enlightenment has nothing to do with either.
He says it brings wisdom that can't be found in any text. No problem but trivial. Same with the argument about whether scripture should be trusted. People trust experience, not somebody else's words.
Finally he wraps it up by saying it is not about him but his words. Okay. But the words aren't doing it for me.
Comments on Robert:
Robert starts by focusing on Quinn. *Yawn* Okay, Quinn isn't enlightened, move on.
He says scriptures should be considered. Well, I thought you were arguing against enlightenment, not just Quinn's enlightenment. If it's only about Quinn, why are you wasting our time?
He asks how we can question enlightenment (Q's version) without being enlightened. You don't need to be enlightened to ask whether someone's concepts are conveying any meaning. If they are not, point out the meaning that is lacking and why.
Robert then asserts no argument has been made. Okay, I didn't much like his argument either but at least in telling me why you don't, you could refer to it. Instead you give us a link to someone else's. Why not stick to Q's?
R proceeds to digress into Buddhism. I don't see the relevance. Nor the men of straw argument. It is not on point.
R sums up that Q is merely asserting based on authority and contradicts Buddhism.
All in all, both sides seem pretty weak. On a scale of 1 to 10, Quinn gets a 3, some principles correct, some not, poorly developed concepts, trivial points. Roberts gets a 2, ad hominem, arguing against what was not presented, not addressing the main point, why we shouldn't believe in enlightenment. I didn't give you a 1 because at least you showed up.
Edited by: samadhim7 at: 3/2/04 18:10
| DavidQuinn000
Ponderer
Posts: 25
(3/2/04 18:29)
Reply
 | Re: Debate Comments
You're forgetting, Samadhim, that this is a debate which is designed to last over four rounds. My opening statement was precisely that - an opening statement. To expect me to outline the entirety of my thought in an opening statement is surely a bit unrealistic. It is like rejecting a book simply because it didn't spill its entire contents in the first chapter.
I also have no confidence that Robert has the knowledge and skill to conduct a proper analysis of enlightenment, and so I tried to keep it at a basic level that he could understand - which is mainly texts and scholarship.
| samadhim7
Guru
Posts: 649
(3/2/04 18:48)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Okay, well you're still ahead. I'm certainly open to revising grades as developments warrant. | |  | | | | | | Author | Comment | Biggier
Innovator
Posts: 221
(3/2/04 18:50)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
Victor,
You know me. My MO respecting philosophy revolves around the extent to which an idea can be attached to something that can, in turn, be reasonably embedded in actual human social discourse. If someone isn't saying something that allows me to understand human interactions more or less existentially then, in my view, they are not saying much at all that is relevent TO human transactions. The debate, in my view, is, thus far, mental masturbation of the worst sort. I have, in fact, been going back and forth with David in the Genius Forum and I find he is positively allergic to anything that could not be wholey construed by a someone who never left his house---ever.
Robert [again, thus far] appears to have gone out on the back porch and perambulated around the yard a few times but I don't see sort of thinking that would lead me to believe he is not just one more Academic Scholar. That may change down the road, of course.
Intellectuals run the philosophy departments of the world. And I will never tire of pointing out how philosophy will continue to be incrreasingly irrelevant in the world until that starts to change.
Biggie
| drowden
Choose Your Title
Posts: 91
(3/2/04 18:56)
Reply
 | Re: Debate Comments
I suspect no-one will give a toss about this opinion but I see the formalisation of a "debate" about enlightenment with attendant concepts of winning and losing to be something over which one ought properly despair. Seems like petty egostism to me.
But - as I seem to be saying quite a bit lately - whatever......
Dan Rowden
| Guildenstern
Mad north-north-west
-Founder
Posts: 7849
(3/2/04 19:26)
Reply
 | Re: Debate Comments
The winning and losing bit is more of a game than anything serious. Just because this is a philosophy forum doesn't mean we can't have some fun.
I think Nat's running commentary provides worthwhile additional entertainment. And I'm not just saying that because he gave me 1000 units of "currency". 
Accidence happens. | ksolway
Visitor
Posts: 2
(3/2/04 19:32)
Reply | Edit
| Re: The Play-By-Play
Victor wrote:
Quote:
The problem with tautologies of course is that they generally cannot tell us anything useful about the world.
According to the definition of "tautology" ("a needless repitition"), they never can. But clearly such repitition is often very useful.
Quote:
Here is a tautology which is not a circular statement, and thus is at least marginally useful:
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Socrates is mortal.
There are three statements of truth here. Let's take each one individually. "All men are mortal". Why are all men mortal? Because a characteristic of men is being mortal So the statement is really saying "Something which has the characteristic of being mortal is mortal", or "Something which is mortal is mortal". This is both circular and "tautological".
The same can be said for "Socrates is a man" ("The man, Socrates, is a man").
Now let's look at the most important truth of the three, the conclusion "Socrates is mortal".
What do we have? "The mortal, Socrates, is mortal".
Once again, both circular and "tautological".
You might claim that these statements are not "circular", but they are certainly circular - it's just that they make a very tight circle.
Quote:
K: Here's a random example from the Buddha (Dhammapada): "Hate is not conquered by hate."
V: And that's not a tautology;
Let's examine "Hate is not conquered by hate".
Actually, it's not possible to break this down any further, as it is already in its simplest state.
It is like saying "You can't refrain from eating, by eating", or "Not eating is not the same as eating".
Once again, both circular and "tautological".
|  Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1487
(3/2/04 19:44)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Debate Comments
I don't believe there have been any other debates so this is an opportunity to test the waters. The debate will play itself out over several more posts and perhaps some of the objections here, those anyway not preening and useless like Opto Ergo Sum's and Victor's most recent, will find solutions. You can only do so much in a single post without risking boring everyone to tears. If others can do it better let's hope we shortly see a demonstration.
| Thomas Knierim
Ponderer
Posts: 23
(3/2/04 22:05)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
Kevin: According to the definition of "tautology" ("a needless repitition" , they never can. But clearly such repitition is often very useful.
Tautologous means propositionally correct here.
Kevin: You might claim that these statements are not "circular", but they are certainly circular - it's just that they make a very tight circle.
It's not circular: (1) mortal(m) for all m of M, (2) S is element of M, (c) -> mortal(S).
Have a look at https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/anwar/www/ai/lecture7.ppt.
Thomas
| Opto Ergo Sum
Innovator
Posts: 109
(3/2/04 22:16)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Debate Comments
“The format of the debate is as follows. First, each side is to make two constructive arguments, beginning with the Affirmative (David), and alternating. These arguments are not intended to respond to each other, but merely to put up arguments for each side's case. Then, there will be two rebuttals each, beginning with the Negative (Robert) and alternating. Rebuttals are intended to respond to the arguments brought up earlier; rebuttals may bring in new information, but may not make new arguments.”
This is the format I was looking forward to.
First shot out of the box, David makes some obscure historical comments about Robert visiting another forum, and whose idea this was, blah, blah,...; then something to do with Enlightenment; then some attacks on Robert about ideas and methodology that haven’t been presented yet. Yawn…
Not to be out done, Robert opens with a comment about how popular “enlightenment” is; then jumps all over David (with more historical commentary and LINKS to the historical smoking gun).
Didn’t you guys ever wonder what the debate team was doing in high school? Did you ever see the episode of “Gilmore Girls” where they had a debate?
This isn’t a debate; it’s a playground fight. And not a very interesting one.
(will there be half-time commercials? Maybe some boobs?)
| Naturyl
Proficionado
Posts: 254
(3/2/04 22:35)
Reply
| Play-by-play, part II
Robert's response is what debate should be about.
Robert advances his argument and counters David's statements with aplomb. His tone is not overly harsh, and yet it is not subdued and shows no sign of intimidation. One gets the the sense when reading Robert's post that he is responding as though David has set himself up as something like a bully, but Robert is determined to cower not. It is clear that no claim of enlightenment, no matter how self-confidently advanced, will dissuade Robert from applying the full force of critical inquiry. In this, he reinforces his reputation as a man who demands the highest standards of intellectual honesty.
I can find no factual errors in Robert's entry. Additionally, he is careful to supply a great deal of reference material to back up his statements. This is an effective strategy in light of the fact that David provided no outside material in his initial post, relying only on his own authority, a fact which Robert uses to good advantage.
Robert covers all of the essential bases in his post, pointing out the strawmen which David erected, as well as the circular logic he employed to establish his claim of enlightenment. While it is the responsibility of each reader to decide for himself/herself whether Robert was successful in establishing that David's claim to enlightement should be dismissed out of hand, he provided a strong argument to that effect. If he is able to sustian this level of refutation, he is poised to do very well in this debate.
Robert's somehat lyrical and nostalgic writing style may be somewhat unfamiliar to those not acquainted with his contributions elsewhere. Because of this, I would have to cede David the edge in terms of straightforward verbal clarity. However, the aesthetic quality of Robert's rather poetic style of writing may make up for this, as readers become more accustomed to his mode of presentation.
In summary, it is clear that Robert went to considerable effort in formulating his entry, and it is the opinion of this commentator that he was thorough, effective, and incisive. He took full advantage of all the material David left for him to work with, and he presented the appearance of a well-informed, realistic person with no interest in self-aggrandizement. Overall, I give his entry a nine.
| Naturyl
Proficionado
Posts: 255
(3/2/04 22:55)
Reply
| Re: Play-by-play, part II
Samhadim and Opto Ergo Sum,
This is not a high school debate. If you want boring rubbish of that nature, I'm sure there are several high schools in your area who would be glad to have you attend their debates.
This is a message board debate, which is an entirely different animal. It is a contest of verbal skill, knowledge, and argumentative ability. It is not some long-winded, boring spectacle of academia. It is intended chiefly to entertain an audience of community participants.
Samhadim, aren't you the guy I pistol-whipped about naturalism a few months ago? And Opto, aren't you the guy who showed up at KIR for 2 days and then left in a huff because we rejected your New Age rubbish?
Regardless, the two of you are both looking at this thing all wrong. It is a contest, a duel, a fight. It is intended to produce a winner and a loser, and we, the audience, get to watch the fireworks. The two of you need to stop complaining and enjoy the show.
| Opto Ergo Sum
Innovator
Posts: 110
(3/2/04 23:13)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Play-by-play, part II
I came back to edit my post above because I wasn't very proud of some of the things I said (just in one of those moods), but since it's been responded to, and there are "RULES" I'll let it stand.
Nat: I still hold that this "debate" had a format as defined by Guild and it has not been adhered to. The fact that it is a fight is the reason I object. I've had all the board fights I need to last a life time. One of the reasons I like TPG is the atmosphere is more congenial. The fact that you like it might give you a clue as to why my stay at KIR was so brief. And for the record; every time some uses the word "spiritual" in a sentence it doesn't make them "New Age".
| Naturyl
Proficionado
Posts: 256
(3/2/04 23:32)
Reply
| Re: Play-by-play, part II
I use the word 'spiritual' frequently. That isn't what makes you New Age. As I recall, you advocated things like universal consciousness, etc.
It doesn't matter, though. I'm not here to bicker with TPG users. In fact, I really have no business on TPG at all, but this debate interests me and I am here to comment on it. When that commentary is complete, I will leave again and return to my own forum, which although nearly abandoned, remains true to its original vision and is in fact the direct precursor of this board and several others like it.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1488
(3/2/04 23:55)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: Play-by-play, part II
As a clarification, 'constructives' are meant for the development of the issues in the debate and also for refutation of the opponent's position. One certainly does not ignore the opponent in this phase else we would have four posts before there was any direct confrontation.
'Rebuttals' are entirely that, rebuttals of the opponent's issues and support for one's own. New issues cannot be introduced in rebuttals although new supporting material can be.
Guildenstern's description was thus slightly off. I ignored it and so did David. No harm, no foul.
| Guildenstern
Mad north-north-west
-Founder
Posts: 7856
(4/2/04 0:00)
Reply
| Re: Play-by-play, part II
My fault, then, for not knowing anything about actual debate format. I misinterpreted Robert's description of how it ought to work.
Accidence happens. | ksolway
Inductee
Posts: 3
(4/2/04 0:12)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Circular reasoning
Thomas wrote:
Quote:
Kevin: You might claim that these statements are not "circular", but they are certainly circular - it's just that they make a very tight circle.
T: It's not circular: (1) mortal(m) for all m of M, (2) S is element of M, (c) -> mortal(S).
I define circular reasoning as "reasoning that goes in a circle", which is the same as "reasoning that ends where it began"
In the case of "Socrates is mortal", the word "Socrates" contains the information "mortal". Ie, part of the meaning of "Socrates" is "mortal". So we essentially have "That which is mortal, is mortal", and we have gone round in a circle, and ended where we began. That's why the reasoning is circular.
| Thomas Knierim
Ponderer
Posts: 24
(4/2/04 1:23)
Reply
| Re: Circular reasoning
Kevin: I define circular reasoning as "reasoning that goes in a circle", which is the same as "reasoning that ends where it began"
Well, then you are wrong. A valid deductive argument derives conclusions from any number of premises by making operations on them in accordance with the rules of logic. The conclusion of a valid deduction is not merely a restatement of the premises. By contrast, in a circular (fallacious) argument, the deduction is implicitely (or explicitely) contained in a single premise.
The reasoning that David employs: "I know what enlightenment is because I am enlightened" is therefore circular. Circularity does not mean that what is stated is false, it just means that the form of the argument is invalid. Basically, it's a non-argument and it can thus be rejected.
Thomas Edited by: Thomas Knierim at: 4/2/04 2:19
| ksolway
Inductee
Posts: 4
(4/2/04 2:26)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Circular reasoning
Thomas wrote:
Quote:
Kevin: I define circular reasoning as "reasoning that goes in a circle", which is the same as "reasoning that ends where it began"
Well, then you are wrong.
My definition can't be wrong, as no definition can be wrong, so I presume you think I am wrong in my application of it. But I don't know why, as your explanation didn't disprove my previous examples of circular reasoning.
Quote:
The reasoning that David employs: "I know what enlightenment is because I am enlightened" is therefore circular, just as the sentence "You don't know what enlightenment is, because you are not enlightened." Circularity does not mean that what is stated is false, it just means that the form of the argument is invalid. Basically, it's a non-argument and it can therefore be rejected.
All reasonings (ie, circular reasonings) are used to dispel ignorance. For that reason alone they are not "invalid" or "non-arguments".
I don't believe David has said "I know what enlightenment is because I am enlightened", but if he did, it would be to teach someone that the only way you can know what enlightenment entails is if you are enlightened. In other words, it would be a teaching to dispel a person's ignorance in thinking that a non-enlightened person can understand enlightenment. In that case such a teaching would be useful.
Quote:
a valid deduction is not merely a restatement of the premises.
It is a restatement of the information contained in the premises (or premiss). In other words, the form may be different, but the information, the content, is the same.
Quote:
By contrast, in a circular (fallacious) argument, the deduction is implicitely (or explicitely) contained in a single premise.
Nevertheless, an argument can't be fallacious if it is true, and useful.
Here is a common example of fallacious circular reasoning:
"Gregory always votes wisely, because he always votes Libertarian."
And I would agree that that is an attempt at circular reasoning. But that sentence would only be true if "wisely" contained the information that a person votes Libertarian - which of course is arguable.
Edited by: ksolway at: 4/2/04 2:54
| Naturyl
Proficionado
Posts: 257
(4/2/04 2:34)
Reply
| Re: Circular reasoning
Rubbish is good and you can't dispute this because you aren't me, so you don't know how I am defining "rubbish." This statement dispels ignorance because I say it does. Therefore, I am right, rubbish is good, and nothing you say can refute me.
| BrainMan50
Ponderer
Posts: 103
(4/2/04 2:48)
Reply | Re:
I think it would be helpful to define enlightenment as "my head was set on fire, enightening me".
But as it is, I think we must ask ourselves if enlightenment could be anything but circular should David be correct. Obviously, being stated as circular, it couldn't. Thus, enlightenment must be circular.
No really. Let us suppose David is enightened. Let us further suppose that enlightenment cannot be taught- only obtained personally. What should his arguments look like? How would a non-circular argument be better? And wouldn't it be wrong if it wasn't circular in some sense?
| Thomas Knierim
Ponderer
Posts: 25
(4/2/04 3:34)
Reply
| Re: Circular reasoning
Kevin, you don't have a case here. Your definition of circular reasoning digresses from the commonly accepted definition of circular reasoning, therefore it is wrong. It is wrong for a good reason, namely because the description "reasoning that goes in a circle" is ambiguous. It can mean circularity and it can mean tautology. You are confusing these two notions. All formalized arguments are -in a strict sense- tautologies, but they are not circular.
Kevin: All reasonings (ie, circular reasonings) are used to dispel ignorance. For that reason alone they are not "invalid" or "non-arguments".
To what end an argument is used is beyond the argument itself. That's on a meta-level. An argument -whether valid or wrong- can as well be used to conjure up illusions which is what you and David seem to engage in here.
Kevin: Nevertheless, an argument can't be fallacious if it is true, and useful.
This is not so. In formal logic, fallacy is an erroneous argument structure, which is independent of the truth values of the conclusion and the premise. For example, I can say "Weininger died young because he shot himself." This argument is fallacious, although it is true that Weiniger died young and that he shot himself.
Thomas
| ksolway
Inductee
Posts: 4
(4/2/04 4:15)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Circular reasoning
Quote:
Your definition of circular reasoning digresses from the commonly accepted definition of circular reasoning . . . All formalized arguments are -in a strict sense- tautologies, but they are not circular.
An argument that ends at the same place where it began is circular in anyone's language.
Quote:
Kevin: All reasonings (ie, circular reasonings) are used to dispel ignorance. For that reason alone they are not "invalid" or "non-arguments".
To what end an argument is used is beyond the argument itself.
Not true. An argument has an end inherent in the argument itself - namely, a conclusion, and hopefully a truth. All arguments are used to arrive at truth, and hence to dispel ignorance.
Quote:
Kevin: Nevertheless, an argument can't be fallacious if it is true, and useful.
This is not so. In formal logic, fallacy is an erroneous argument structure, which is independent of the truth values of the conclusion and the premise.
Yes, but I was talking about a true argument. A true argument is not fallacious, has true premises, and arrives at a true conclusion.
|
- The Ponderers’ Guild - Courtyard -
| | | | | | | | | | Author | Comment | DavidQuinn000
Ponderer
Posts: 25
(4/2/04 4:22)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
It looks like I'm going to have provide commentary on my own comments . . . .
Opto Ergo Sum wrote:
Quote:
First shot out of the box, David makes some obscure historical comments about Robert visiting another forum, and whose idea this was, blah, blah,...; then something to do with Enlightenment; then some attacks on Robert about ideas and methodology that haven’t been presented yet. Yawn
I don't think you've made the effort to understand the arguments I presented, which were very tight and very deep. There was no hint of an attack on Robert in my opening statement. I simply articulated the logic involved in being unenlightened - which is that one has no means of comprehending what enlightenment is and no means of judging which parts of the scriptures are valid, if any. In light of this, the phrase "dubious, second-hand joke methods" was not referring to any specific method that Robert might employ, but to the fact that any method of validation which is performed by the unenlightened mind is, by definition, a dubious, second-hand joke method.
--
Naturyl wrote:
Quote:
It is intended chiefly to entertain an audience of community participants.
Just for the record, this is not why I am here. Any entertainment that the audience experiences is merely a spin-off, and not the chief purpose of the debate.
| ksolway
Inductee
Posts: 4
(4/2/04 7:03)
Reply | Edit
| Re: Comment on Robert's opening entry
Robert begins his argument by stating that he doesn't know whether enlightenment exists, shooting himself in the foot from the word go . . . but earning one point for honesty.
Robert then argues that David, when in discussion with others, and when asked directly whether he is enlightened, should not reveal the truth. But Robert fails to provide any reason why this truth should be deliberately hidden.
I happen to know that Robert himself goes out of his way to ask enlightened people whether they are enlightened, and when they answer in the affirmative, Robert then accuses them of "boasting".
Robert then made the highly dubious claim that "the literature is reasonable evidence and it ought to be considered.". Although heaven knows why he would make such an uncalled for and wild claim.
Robert then made the curious claim that "circular reasoning cannot prove itself." And why can't circular reasoning prove itself? Answer: because it's circular!
A lot of Robert's argument centres on David's supposed desire to have his enlightenment taken on faith by all. But this "claim" seems to have been taken from thin air, as nowhere in David's essay did he say that no-one should question his enlightenment, and nor did he state that people should take his enlightenment on faith. Indeed, David's enlightenment would seem to be irrelevant to David himself, but is highly significant only to Robert.
Robert then proceeds to criticize David for basing his philosophy on his own reason. Another shot, this time in the other foot . . . but again, this earns one more point for honesty.
Robert then quotes some words, written by somebody else, about enlightenment. But as Robert has already honestly admitted that he doesn't know whether enlightenment exists, this would seem to be doubly pointless.
All of a sudden, Robert seems to know what enlightenment is, and claims, in his own words "Enlightenment is quite simply ineffable." Go figure.
Robert then claims that "words are not true". So what are we to make of those very words? . . .
Having consumately defeated his own argument (shooting himself in the foot a third time?), Robert then claims that David's conception of enlightenment is inhumane. But does he provide any reasons or evidence for this claim?
None.
It seems to me an act of compassion that David is even participating in the discussion with Robert, but Robert is not appreciative.
On the positive side, it wasn't badly written from a technical standpoint, and showed some spirit.
Overall score: 2 points for honesty Edited by: ksolway at: 4/2/04 9:03
| lbartoli
Posts: 1
(4/2/04 9:07)
Reply | Comment on Robert's opening entry
Well, that's pretty much how it appears to my mind (K Solway post), as it would to anyone with a high degree of rationality.
But i don't see this fellow being so honest, not really. For instance, i dont think his challenge was sincere-- ie. I dont think he went into it with the belief that anything substantial would or could be accomplished. Let me explain:
I think his intention was simply an egotistical desire to strut his stuff amongst friends and aquaintances, knowing well in advance that in this place at the end of it all HE will be awarded the victory, and not just over any man, but over a self-proclaimed genius of geniuses--none other than the mighty Quinn himself! Thereafter, Mr Larkin could expect to be held in high esteme.
Quite immature, it is, and rather sickening, earning Robert -2 points.
If i were David i would not be forced by any rules or person to continue this useless exercise beyond the point where he feels any benefit could be derived by any honest man.
Leo
| Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 1953
(4/2/04 9:40)
Reply
| Re: Debate Comments
biggier,
Quote:
My MO respecting philosophy revolves around the extent to which an idea can be attached to something that can, in turn, be reasonably embedded in actual human social discourse.
I agree, but I think you have too myopic a view of what considerations can be embedded in human social discourse. Today's abstract meanderings might be tomorrow's policy-setting principles. It's like with science -- a lot of 'pure science' has no imaginable practical applications now, but similarly apparently useless pure science of yesteryear is the basis of most of our modern technology.
Quote:
If someone isn't saying something that allows me to understand human interactions more or less existentially then, in my view, they are not saying much at all that is relevent TO human transactions.
So you see, you reject something as useless because it's not obviously useful to you -- and not obviously useful at this time. You might as well hop into the time machine and tell Maxwell that his electro-magnetism unification is a waste of time... it was certainly seen thusly back then.
The position that i take is that much of philosophy is indeed crap, but we have no way of telling which part until it plays itself out; so let philosophers do their thing, and see what develops out of it down the road.
Quote:
The debate, in my view, is, thus far, mental masturbation of the worst sort.
I agree; but you seem to be drawing parallel between this debate and actual philosophy, which i find to be, at minimum, deeply misguided attempt to create guilt (of philosophy) by association (with this debate).
Quote:
I have, in fact, been going back and forth with David in the Genius Forum and I find he is positively allergic to anything that could not be wholey construed by a someone who never left his house---ever.
Quinn is pretty much explicitly rationalistic -- just like Aristotle, he believed that the greatest truths can be derived by thought alone, without reliance on the sensible world.
Quote:
Robert [again, thus far] appears to have gone out on the back porch and perambulated around the yard a few times but I don't see sort of thinking that would lead me to believe he is not just one more Academic Scholar. That may change down the road, of course.
I don't know whether he is a scholar, but his contribution thus far has had basically no philosophical component. Quinn has tangentially touched upon a couple of ideas, but I think he is too ignorant to recognize the truly interesting topics he merely bounced off of.
Quote:
Intellectuals run the philosophy departments of the world.
Not the sorts of intellectuals who hold debates such as these... Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him. | ParadiseChild
Postulator
Posts: 326
(4/2/04 10:19)
Reply | Re: Debate Comments
As a long time "student" of enlightenment myself, I found Quinn's 2nd discourse particularly cogent and well balanced. I give Quinn an 8 for his efforts so far. I place 800 units of "currency" on him to win (and 200 on Robert).
I've found Robert's contribution so far dubious-- that is to say, weak and unfocused, as though he really hasn't decided what point(s) to make, and is just sniping at Quinn, hoping for a lucky shot. I give him a 4, and look forward to his second salvo.
I've found the comments thread more interesting than the debate so far, and do appreciate all the fine minds at work here. Jolly good fun.
For the record, I pretty much agree with Quinn's stance on enlightenment (though this is the first I've read him).
| Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 1954
(4/2/04 11:31)
Reply
| Re: The Play-By-Play
Solway,
Quote:
According to the definition of "tautology" ("a needless repitition" , they never can.
Dude, check out the logic definition of tautology -- that's the one which is relevant in philosophical debate.
Any purely deductive argument is a tautology. Any mathematical theorem is a tautology. Pythagorean theorem for example is such -- but the fact that a^2 + b^2 = c^2 in Euclideanspace is a useful fact, despite it being implicit in the axioms of Euclidean geometry.
This is yet another case where your ridiculous refusal to understand logic bites you in the ass.
Quote:
There are three statements of truth here. Let's take each one individually. "All men are mortal". Why are all men mortal? Because a characteristic of men is being mortal
Now this is pure useless circularity. You are restating the same phrase without producing anything actually userful. 'a characteristic of men is being mortal'. Yeah, a profound improvement on 'all men are mortal'.
Quote:
Once again, both circular and "tautological".
it's tautological, but not circular, because its conclusion is different from its premises. This syllogism takes the information which is implicit in the premises, and makes it explicit. it's tautological, but not circular, and in explicating the implicit information, it's useful -- just like the Pythagorean theorem.
Quote:
You might claim that these statements are not "circular", but they are certainly circular - it's just that they make a very tight circle.
You can take any statement and make a circular argument out of it, but that doesn't mean that the statement is itself a circular argument. usually, it's just a premise, asserting a relation -- an assertion, a postulate, not an argument.
You could really benefit from studying elementary logic -- actual logic, the real thing, not your silly genius bellybutton lint that you pretend is useful for more than stroking your egos.
Quote:
Let's examine "Hate is not conquered by hate".
Actually, it's not possible to break this down any further, as it is already in its simplest state.
It is like saying "You can't refrain from eating, by eating", or "Not eating is not the same as eating".
No, it's not. You are implicitly asserting that the original relationship -- 'conquered' -- is the same as inequality. So, let's call this relation, 'conquered', C.
Hate = Hate
simple identity. However, this doesn't imply:
^(Hate C hate)
and I gave you examples which explicitly demonstrate that relation C is not the same as inequality (e.g. you can conquer fire with fire).
Quote:
Once again, both circular and "tautological".
it's neither. Your claim is based on implicitly asserting certain characteristics of the relation C ('conquerable').
And once again, you demonstrate exactly what I was talking about -- that you abuse logic, claiming that you use it to arrive at ultimate truth, when in fact you use a veneer of logic (rather bad one in fact) to lend undue credibility to your assumptions.
Quote:
In the case of "Socrates is mortal", the word "Socrates" contains the information "mortal".
This is the case with all deductive arguments -- the conclusion is implicit in the premises. The point of the argument is to make it explicit.
Quote:
My definition can't be wrong, as no definition can be wrong
Yes, it can. In using English language, you implicitly consent to a set of common definitions which make the very communication possible. Your habit of redefining terms is simply one more instance of the intellectual dishonesty you rely on for your arguments. Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him.Edited by: Victor Danilchenko at: 4/2/04 11:34
| voce io
Inductee
Posts: 44
(4/2/04 12:16)
Reply | ...
Based on various sutras and texts, a person can get the idea that "enlightenment doesn't inherently exist to an enlightened person", which makes nearly all of David's second post false.
| Bene Tleilax
Poet Laureate
Posts: 958
(4/2/04 12:44)
Reply
 | Re: ...
I agree that Robert made a silly mistake. He should have developed his own opposing, positive assertion rather than simply a negative assertion angled at breaking down David's opening comments. There is something to be said for this being the first debate here of this kind though. Can you really blame him for mussing the rules a bit?
I think the problem with David's proposed notion of self-validation is not it's circularity, but rather it's own general incredibility. In order for any method of validation to be reliable there need to be some sort of non-subjective criteria on which to base the validation. Becoming aware of your own enlightenment should require more than just "feeling like" you're enlightened. The method for validating one's own enlightenment is only meaningful if it can be used to validate the enlightenment of others. If there is no meaningful way of validating the enlightenment of others, then there is no meaningful way of validating one's own enlightenment. Be warned: Understand nothing. All comprehension is temporary.
- Mentat Fixe (Adacto)Edited by: Bene Tleilax at: 4/2/04 12:44
| samadhim7
Guru
Posts: 654
(4/2/04 14:00)
Reply | Re: comments on commentary
Nat,Quote:
Robert's response is what debate should be about.
Except that Robert did not address the argument which happens to be the existence of enlightenment.
Quote:
Additionally, he is careful to supply a great deal of reference material to back up his statements.
All of which was irrelevant, not to mention antithetical to his position that enlightenment does not exist.
Quote:
In summary, it is clear that Robert went to considerable effort in formulating his entry, and it is the opinion of this commentator that he was thorough, effective, and incisive. He took full advantage of all the material David left for him to work with, and he presented the appearance of a well-informed, realistic person with no interest in self-aggrandizement. Overall, I give his entry a nine.
I think you're an apologist. You completely miss the fact that he didn't even state, much less argue his own position
Quote:
Samadhim, aren't you the guy I pistol-whipped about naturalism a few months ago?
Uh, no. After a discussion, we agreed that the difference in our positions was a matter of emphasis rather than substance. We can always go to the thread if your memory fails.
Quote:
Regardless, the two of you are both looking at this thing all wrong. It is a contest, a duel, a fight. It is intended to produce a winner and a loser, and we, the audience, get to watch the fireworks. The two of you need to stop complaining and enjoy the show.
I am enjoying the show, thus my commentary. Nevertheless, I have a real interest in the topic and if it is poorly presented, I will point that out.
| WolfsonJakk
Inductee
Posts: 10
(4/2/04 14:41)
Reply | Re: ...
Bene wrote,
Quote:
In order for any method of validation to be reliable there need to be some sort of non-subjective criteria on which to base the validation.
Which of course would be impossible to find. First of all, there must be a definition of "enlightenment" on which all could agree. Secondly, using non-subjective methods of testing a state that is entirely subjective might be hard to achieve.
Essentially, we are left with the fact that anybody can claim enlightenment. Using David's definition, could any claimant be said to be completely free of delusion? What if they are lying? What constitutes delusion on a granular level? All of these issues would be significant hurdles to overcome in developing non-subjective criteria for the term "enlightenment."
Tharan Edited by: WolfsonJakk at: 4/2/04 14:46
| Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
-Courtyard Moderator
Posts: 1959
(4/2/04 15:37)
Reply
| Re: ...
... All of which is why you can't really talk about enlightenment. Quinn pays lip service to ineffability of enlightenment, its purely experiential quality, but he doesn't practice what he preaches.
The ultimate issue here is that if we take buddhism at face value, then we can rationally determine what enlightenment isn't, but not what it is; to which end Larkin is employing the available sources, to show that Quinn is wrong about enlightenment, while not claiming to have the correct answer himself. Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
--
Victor Danilchenko
A monster lies in wait for me,
a stew of wounds and misery,
fiercer still, in life and limb,
is me that lies in wait for him. | Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1489
(4/2/04 15:40)
Reply
ezSupporter
| Re: ...
Samadhim,
I am not arguing there is no enlightenment. One of the problems in this debate is that David Quinn and I are both supporters of various eastern views although we understand them differently. Consequently some of the elements of David's conception I would not ordinarily oppose at all - this is an inherently difficult debate in that respect and it is also part of why I am intentionally making David Quinn part of the debate, since he has claimed to be enlightened. It would have been easier to have argued there is no enlightenment but since I do not know that the assertion is true I have chosen not to be a weasel.
David gave an unsupported interpretation which being unsupported cannot stand on its own. While the argument 'enlightenment is ineffable' might seem negative it is still a positive assertion and one which is backed by Buddhist authority. I might not be able to win every issue here, especially since to be thorough would exhaust me and probably bore the reader, but I'll be satisfied with winning sufficiently and I hope I can adequately communicate.
| Robert Larkin
sui generis
Posts: 1490
(4/2/04 15:53)
| | | |
