• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 12:40
CEST 18:40
KST 01:40
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202560RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16
Community News
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams10Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension4
StarCraft 2
General
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings What tournaments are world championships? RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2) Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond)
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava
Brood War
General
BW General Discussion Dewalt's Show Matches in China [Update] ShieldBattery: 2025 Redesign Ginuda's JaeDong Interview Series BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues CSL Xiamen International Invitational [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance [BSL 2v2] ProLeague Season 3 - Friday 21:00 CET
Strategy
Does 1 second matter in StarCraft? [G] Mineral Boosting Simple Questions, Simple Answers
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
Russo-Ukrainian War Thread US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Post Pic of your Favorite Food! The Games Industry And ATVI
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2025 Football Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Eight Anniversary as a TL…
Mizenhauer
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 924 users

Critical Thinking and Skepticism - Page 22

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 20 21 22 23 24 41 Next All
Gnosis
Profile Joined December 2008
Scotland912 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-05-06 14:25:16
May 06 2010 14:16 GMT
#421
On May 06 2010 23:09 tinman wrote:
mira, friend, it's not that words don't exist (well i mean they do not exist in the sense that it would be very silly to reify the word "word" but that's a discussion for a different thread). it's that, as a very wise man said two posts ago, words "do not truly refer to anything." it's that all language is ad hoc. and i do have a lot of fun riddling with this as it turns out. it's like what linguists do. which i admit is far less glamorous than participating in the blatantly magical thinking of most philosophers.


I'm wondering, if all words "do not truly refer to anything," then what is being referred to? (what do you mean by the word "refer"?) It seems inescapable that in some sense, this is in reference to some case that is true of reality, but that seems self-contradictory, does it not? How are we able to talk about things which hold true in reality, while not actually talking about them? Although I suppose this would constitute a denial of the correspondence theory of truth? Are you familiar with the distinction between "words" and "terms"?
"Reason is flawless, de jure, but reasoners are not, de facto." – Peter Kreeft
MiraMax
Profile Joined July 2009
Germany532 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-05-06 14:22:41
May 06 2010 14:18 GMT
#422
On May 06 2010 23:09 tinman wrote:
mira, friend, it's not that words don't exist (well i mean they do not exist in the sense that it would be very silly to reify the word "word" but that's a discussion for a different thread). it's that, as a very wise man said two posts ago, words "do not truly refer to anything." it's that all language is ad hoc. and i do have a lot of fun riddling with this as it turns out. it's like what linguists do. which i admit is far less glamorous than participating in the blatantly magical thinking of most philosophers.


Oh, tinni, my friend, had I just known earlier that you are a linguist, I would have immediately stopped arguing and instead just agreed with you about everything right from the get go. Since all language is adhoc, I would have just stated the opposite of everything to everybody else and you would have congratulated me on my profound understanding of the dialectics of language! I thus stand corrected and bow to the might of words, while laughing at their impotence. Let me depart by saying that I enjoyed this confusing trip through the dim forests of language and could not have wished for a better guide than you! Thank you!



Edit: Corrected grammar. If you find more mistakes Tinni, please keep them for me!
tinman
Profile Blog Joined May 2007
United States287 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-05-06 14:28:27
May 06 2010 14:26 GMT
#423
On May 06 2010 23:16 Gnosis wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 06 2010 23:09 tinman wrote:
mira, friend, it's not that words don't exist (well i mean they do not exist in the sense that it would be very silly to reify the word "word" but that's a discussion for a different thread). it's that, as a very wise man said two posts ago, words "do not truly refer to anything." it's that all language is ad hoc. and i do have a lot of fun riddling with this as it turns out. it's like what linguists do. which i admit is far less glamorous than participating in the blatantly magical thinking of most philosophers.


I'm wondering, if all words "do not truly refer to anything," then what is being referred to? (what do you mean by the word "refer"?) It seems inescapable that in some sense, this is in reference to some case that is true of reality, but that seems self-contradictory, does it not? How are we able to talk about things which hold true in reality, while not actually talking about them? Although I suppose this would constitute a denial of the correspondence theory of truth? Are you familiar with the distinction between "words" and "terms"?


whoa whoa whoa there trigger.

see the case is that speech is just a physiological phenomenon among many. we recruit various words and intonations and shit to try to communicate something to someone else at a specific point in time. it's much closer to a monkey flinging shit than most people would feel comfortable admitting.

in saying words to not refer to anything. i am referring to the fact that words are only different from some howler monkey's cacaphonization by degree and not by nature. like i said language is intractably ad hoc. but i am not truly referring to anything. just trying like some neanderthal to reproduce what i think i saw on the walls of this here cave.
"Politics is an extravagance, an extravagance about grievances. And poetry is an extravagance about grief. And grievances are something that can be remedied, and griefs are irremediable."
tinman
Profile Blog Joined May 2007
United States287 Posts
May 06 2010 14:27 GMT
#424
On May 06 2010 23:18 MiraMax wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 06 2010 23:09 tinman wrote:
mira, friend, it's not that words don't exist (well i mean they do not exist in the sense that it would be very silly to reify the word "word" but that's a discussion for a different thread). it's that, as a very wise man said two posts ago, words "do not truly refer to anything." it's that all language is ad hoc. and i do have a lot of fun riddling with this as it turns out. it's like what linguists do. which i admit is far less glamorous than participating in the blatantly magical thinking of most philosophers.


Oh, tinni, my friend, had I just known earlier that you are a linguist, I would have immediately stopped arguing and instead just agreed with you about everything right from the get go. Since all language is adhoc, I would have just stated the opposite of everything to everybody else and you would have congratulated me on my profound understanding of the dialectics of language! I thus stand corrected and bow to the might of words, while laughing at their impotence. Let me depart by saying that I enjoyed this confusing trip through the dim forests of language and could not have wished for a better guide than you! Thank you!



Edit: Corrected grammar. If you find more mistakes Tinni, please keep them for me!


see man that's the kind of shit that pisses me off. what in the fuck makes you think i give a fuck about grammar.

that's an unfair linguistic stereotype.
"Politics is an extravagance, an extravagance about grievances. And poetry is an extravagance about grief. And grievances are something that can be remedied, and griefs are irremediable."
MiraMax
Profile Joined July 2009
Germany532 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-05-06 14:36:43
May 06 2010 14:32 GMT
#425
On May 06 2010 23:27 tinman wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 06 2010 23:18 MiraMax wrote:
On May 06 2010 23:09 tinman wrote:
mira, friend, it's not that words don't exist (well i mean they do not exist in the sense that it would be very silly to reify the word "word" but that's a discussion for a different thread). it's that, as a very wise man said two posts ago, words "do not truly refer to anything." it's that all language is ad hoc. and i do have a lot of fun riddling with this as it turns out. it's like what linguists do. which i admit is far less glamorous than participating in the blatantly magical thinking of most philosophers.


Oh, tinni, my friend, had I just known earlier that you are a linguist, I would have immediately stopped arguing and instead just agreed with you about everything right from the get go. Since all language is adhoc, I would have just stated the opposite of everything to everybody else and you would have congratulated me on my profound understanding of the dialectics of language! I thus stand corrected and bow to the might of words, while laughing at their impotence. Let me depart by saying that I enjoyed this confusing trip through the dim forests of language and could not have wished for a better guide than you! Thank you!



Edit: Corrected grammar. If you find more mistakes Tinni, please keep them for me!


see man that's the kind of shit that pisses me off. what in the fuck makes you think i give a fuck about grammar.

that's an unfair linguistic stereotype.


I am deeply sorry and apologize. :-( Can we still be friends?
Motiva
Profile Joined November 2007
United States1774 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-05-06 14:38:36
May 06 2010 14:36 GMT
#426
On May 06 2010 23:26 tinman wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 06 2010 23:16 Gnosis wrote:
On May 06 2010 23:09 tinman wrote:
mira, friend, it's not that words don't exist (well i mean they do not exist in the sense that it would be very silly to reify the word "word" but that's a discussion for a different thread). it's that, as a very wise man said two posts ago, words "do not truly refer to anything." it's that all language is ad hoc. and i do have a lot of fun riddling with this as it turns out. it's like what linguists do. which i admit is far less glamorous than participating in the blatantly magical thinking of most philosophers.


I'm wondering, if all words "do not truly refer to anything," then what is being referred to? (what do you mean by the word "refer"?) It seems inescapable that in some sense, this is in reference to some case that is true of reality, but that seems self-contradictory, does it not? How are we able to talk about things which hold true in reality, while not actually talking about them? Although I suppose this would constitute a denial of the correspondence theory of truth? Are you familiar with the distinction between "words" and "terms"?


whoa whoa whoa there trigger.

see the case is that speech is just a physiological phenomenon among many. we recruit various words and intonations and shit to try to communicate something to someone else at a specific point in time. it's much closer to a monkey flinging shit than most people would feel comfortable admitting.

in saying words to not refer to anything. i am referring to the fact that words are only different from some howler monkey's cacaphonization by degree and not by nature. like i said language is intractably ad hoc. but i am not truly referring to anything. just trying like some neanderthal to reproduce what i think i saw on the walls of this here cave.


I find this interesting. As Such:

Is it not a bit of an assumption to say that a monkey flinging shit isn't referring to something?

Isn't language as it is ad hoc still in reference to something? albiet indirectly?

Somewhat like saying that it's not possible to be objective, but an objective truth exists, it's just not possible to know, perceive, or understand it.

I agree w/ what your saying definitely, but this subject is largely foreign to me

edit: it almost feels like your saying that it isn't possible to -truly- refer to anything. Would this be the case?
tinman
Profile Blog Joined May 2007
United States287 Posts
May 06 2010 14:39 GMT
#427
On May 06 2010 23:32 MiraMax wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 06 2010 23:27 tinman wrote:
On May 06 2010 23:18 MiraMax wrote:
On May 06 2010 23:09 tinman wrote:
mira, friend, it's not that words don't exist (well i mean they do not exist in the sense that it would be very silly to reify the word "word" but that's a discussion for a different thread). it's that, as a very wise man said two posts ago, words "do not truly refer to anything." it's that all language is ad hoc. and i do have a lot of fun riddling with this as it turns out. it's like what linguists do. which i admit is far less glamorous than participating in the blatantly magical thinking of most philosophers.


Oh, tinni, my friend, had I just known earlier that you are a linguist, I would have immediately stopped arguing and instead just agreed with you about everything right from the get go. Since all language is adhoc, I would have just stated the opposite of everything to everybody else and you would have congratulated me on my profound understanding of the dialectics of language! I thus stand corrected and bow to the might of words, while laughing at their impotence. Let me depart by saying that I enjoyed this confusing trip through the dim forests of language and could not have wished for a better guide than you! Thank you!



Edit: Corrected grammar. If you find more mistakes Tinni, please keep them for me!


see man that's the kind of shit that pisses me off. what in the fuck makes you think i give a fuck about grammar.

that's an unfair linguistic stereotype.


I am deeply sorry and apologize. :-( Can we still be friends?


hahahaha, yeah dawg stop by for drinks anytime.
"Politics is an extravagance, an extravagance about grievances. And poetry is an extravagance about grief. And grievances are something that can be remedied, and griefs are irremediable."
Gnosis
Profile Joined December 2008
Scotland912 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-05-06 14:42:13
May 06 2010 14:40 GMT
#428
On May 06 2010 23:26 tinman wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 06 2010 23:16 Gnosis wrote:
On May 06 2010 23:09 tinman wrote:
mira, friend, it's not that words don't exist (well i mean they do not exist in the sense that it would be very silly to reify the word "word" but that's a discussion for a different thread). it's that, as a very wise man said two posts ago, words "do not truly refer to anything." it's that all language is ad hoc. and i do have a lot of fun riddling with this as it turns out. it's like what linguists do. which i admit is far less glamorous than participating in the blatantly magical thinking of most philosophers.


I'm wondering, if all words "do not truly refer to anything," then what is being referred to? (what do you mean by the word "refer"?) It seems inescapable that in some sense, this is in reference to some case that is true of reality, but that seems self-contradictory, does it not? How are we able to talk about things which hold true in reality, while not actually talking about them? Although I suppose this would constitute a denial of the correspondence theory of truth? Are you familiar with the distinction between "words" and "terms"?


whoa whoa whoa there trigger.

see the case is that speech is just a physiological phenomenon among many. we recruit various words and intonations and shit to try to communicate something to someone else at a specific point in time. it's much closer to a monkey flinging shit than most people would feel comfortable admitting.

in saying words to not refer to anything. i am referring to the fact that words are only different from some howler monkey's cacaphonization by degree and not by nature. like i said language is intractably ad hoc. but i am not truly referring to anything. just trying like some neanderthal to reproduce what i think i saw on the walls of this here cave.


If questions get you this excited, just imagine if I had made assertions

Are you saying that words "do not refer to anything" or that words "do not truly refer to anything"? There is that one word - "truly" - that is missing, I'm wondering if that's significant. You see, if words "do not refer to anything," then they really do not and our discussion seems rather absurd (actually I think this would be a self-defeating position). If words do not truly refer to anything, then I can see how this means that words refer to things in reality as we perceive them, but not as they actually are. Conversation is still possible, though again, verges on the absurd. If you are not truly referring to anything, then your position, that language doesn't truly refer to anything, is not actually true (or we could not know it to be true). I don't see how this is avoidable unless you have some sort of linguistic gymnastics up your sleeve, or I'm misunderstanding you.

I asked you about the difference between words and terms, because as I understand it, a "word" is an arbitrary set of intonations (among other things) which attempt to communicate something true about the world. A "term" is some thing that actually exists in reality. There might be 13 different words for "tree," but they all refer to the same term (i.e. trees). So language does, in fact, refer to things (truly refers to things).

So what exactly are you saying?
"Reason is flawless, de jure, but reasoners are not, de facto." – Peter Kreeft
MiraMax
Profile Joined July 2009
Germany532 Posts
May 06 2010 14:42 GMT
#429
On May 06 2010 23:39 tinman wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 06 2010 23:32 MiraMax wrote:
On May 06 2010 23:27 tinman wrote:
On May 06 2010 23:18 MiraMax wrote:
On May 06 2010 23:09 tinman wrote:
mira, friend, it's not that words don't exist (well i mean they do not exist in the sense that it would be very silly to reify the word "word" but that's a discussion for a different thread). it's that, as a very wise man said two posts ago, words "do not truly refer to anything." it's that all language is ad hoc. and i do have a lot of fun riddling with this as it turns out. it's like what linguists do. which i admit is far less glamorous than participating in the blatantly magical thinking of most philosophers.


Oh, tinni, my friend, had I just known earlier that you are a linguist, I would have immediately stopped arguing and instead just agreed with you about everything right from the get go. Since all language is adhoc, I would have just stated the opposite of everything to everybody else and you would have congratulated me on my profound understanding of the dialectics of language! I thus stand corrected and bow to the might of words, while laughing at their impotence. Let me depart by saying that I enjoyed this confusing trip through the dim forests of language and could not have wished for a better guide than you! Thank you!



Edit: Corrected grammar. If you find more mistakes Tinni, please keep them for me!


see man that's the kind of shit that pisses me off. what in the fuck makes you think i give a fuck about grammar.

that's an unfair linguistic stereotype.


I am deeply sorry and apologize. :-( Can we still be friends?


hahahaha, yeah dawg stop by for drinks anytime.



Aaaaawwwwwlright! Keep it up, bro' and peace out!

<pounds chest with fist twice, then gives peace sign>
tinman
Profile Blog Joined May 2007
United States287 Posts
May 06 2010 14:49 GMT
#430
dearest motiva,

i am saying that people, by the strategical recruitment of words, attempt to refer to things. but there is no magical property of words that makes them different from any other attempt in the natural world to communicate something.

dearest gnossis,

all conversations are absurd. you are trying to create some contradiction in the position that "words don't refer to anything." of course there's a contradiction there. i'm using the phrase "words don't refer to anything" to try to refer to the phenomenon that words don't refer to anything. a general goes to war with the army he's got.

personally i'm alright with this contradiction being inherent. it folks like you (you gnostics you) who feel the need for conversations to be some means of approaching (divine) truth.
"Politics is an extravagance, an extravagance about grievances. And poetry is an extravagance about grief. And grievances are something that can be remedied, and griefs are irremediable."
Motiva
Profile Joined November 2007
United States1774 Posts
May 06 2010 14:54 GMT
#431
On May 06 2010 23:49 tinman wrote:
dearest motiva,

i am saying that people, by the strategical recruitment of words, attempt to refer to things. but there is no magical property of words that makes them different from any other attempt in the natural world to communicate something.

dearest gnossis,

all conversations are absurd. you are trying to create some contradiction in the position that "words don't refer to anything." of course there's a contradiction there. i'm using the phrase "words don't refer to anything" to try to refer to the phenomenon that words don't refer to anything. a general goes to war with the army he's got.

personally i'm alright with this contradiction being inherent. it folks like you (you gnostics you) who feel the need for conversations to be some means of approaching (divine) truth.



Aightz Thanks, makes sense. yes yes
Manit0u
Profile Blog Joined August 2004
Poland17255 Posts
May 06 2010 14:59 GMT
#432
I have to say I'm rather skeptical about this critical thinking...
Time is precious. Waste it wisely.
Gnosis
Profile Joined December 2008
Scotland912 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-05-06 15:03:04
May 06 2010 15:00 GMT
#433
On May 06 2010 23:49 tinman wrote:
dearest gnossis,

all conversations are absurd. you are trying to create some contradiction in the position that "words don't refer to anything." of course there's a contradiction there. i'm using the phrase "words don't refer to anything" to try to refer to the phenomenon that words don't refer to anything. a general goes to war with the army he's got.

personally i'm alright with this contradiction being inherent. it folks like you (you gnostics you) who feel the need for conversations to be some means of approaching (divine) truth.


Gnosis* but that's okay And interestingly enough, a name I've only used here.

If you admit the contradiction, then simply, you aren't describing anything, so what are you talking about? Not even your contradiction exists, so the general may as well leave the battlefield. Thus I find it curious that you admit the contradiction at all. One other thing...

...From correspondence theory to divine truth, quite the jump you've made (I believe I only referred to the former). I'm a theist yes, a gnostic, no. I might have been, if I felt the need to insulate myself against all reason and critique. Or I might have simply chosen to believe in true contradictions

If the contradiction is inherent, then the system is destroyed, ifj hafw elfoid jvhoa wietl dotih eyad e
"Reason is flawless, de jure, but reasoners are not, de facto." – Peter Kreeft
tinman
Profile Blog Joined May 2007
United States287 Posts
May 06 2010 15:08 GMT
#434
of course "the system" is destroyed. it's silly to think of language as a system anyway. old hat.
"Politics is an extravagance, an extravagance about grievances. And poetry is an extravagance about grief. And grievances are something that can be remedied, and griefs are irremediable."
Gnosis
Profile Joined December 2008
Scotland912 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-05-06 15:13:18
May 06 2010 15:12 GMT
#435
On May 07 2010 00:08 tinman wrote:
of course "the system" is destroyed. it's silly to think of language as a system anyway. old hat.


No, it can't be destroyed. It only functions (or operates) dissimilarly to how we would like or expect it to.
"Reason is flawless, de jure, but reasoners are not, de facto." – Peter Kreeft
tinman
Profile Blog Joined May 2007
United States287 Posts
May 06 2010 15:13 GMT
#436
well however you would like to put it. it's up to you man. you may fling poo in whatever direction and with however much velocity as you wish.
"Politics is an extravagance, an extravagance about grievances. And poetry is an extravagance about grief. And grievances are something that can be remedied, and griefs are irremediable."
Gnosis
Profile Joined December 2008
Scotland912 Posts
May 06 2010 15:14 GMT
#437
On May 07 2010 00:13 tinman wrote:
well however you would like to put it. it's up to you man. you may fling poo in whatever direction and with however much velocity as you wish.


There is still a reason behind the fling But it's okay, I see nothing more than sophism.
"Reason is flawless, de jure, but reasoners are not, de facto." – Peter Kreeft
XeliN
Profile Joined June 2009
United Kingdom1755 Posts
May 06 2010 15:17 GMT
#438
On May 06 2010 22:30 Motiva wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 06 2010 22:11 XeliN wrote:
Motiva if you do not consider Nihilism problematic then thats a fine response, I am more looking for someone who does not believe in objective morality - or at least accepts it as a possibility, but a remote one for which so far there is little reason to believe - and yet considers Nihilism to not be the logical conclusion.


Objective Morality? I don't really even believe in Objectivity. I do not believe a Human being experiencing life has the ability to be objective. By Obective Morality what exactly do you mean? Absolute Morality?


In my previous post. I thought this was what you meant, and I said that Nihilism isn't the issue because for me it makes unreasonable assumptions. Essentially, If you believe Nihilism you have no reason to live, and there is no reason to anything, as such, why not just commit suicide? The inevitable reason to not commit suicide would have to be some internal selfish reasoning or value and hence you don't actually believe in Nihilism for one. Not exactly my point, but this line of reasoning is found in Absurdism. Thus for me, while not believing in Objective Morality what-so-ever. Nihilism is not the logical conculsion because of the reasons stated in my previous post. Instead, Absurdism has been the logical conclusion for me. (If it must be called a "conclusion")

If i'm still misunderstanding, My apoligies....



“
Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that ought never to be violated.
Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the matter as to whether any given action is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance.
”

I kinda threw "Objective Morality" out there, but essentially I meant that there is a standard of right and wrong, that is objectively true and that morality is not simply the arbitrary leanings of society.

As far as I can tell Absurdism does not really solve the problem. I am assuming as you said that Absurdism is that it is not possible to know whether there is inherent meaning in our lives and the universe.

However, I do not think Absurdism "solves" it as, it leaves itself with two possibilites.

1) There is inherent meaning in the universe, an objective form of morality e.t.c

2) There is no such inherent meaning, moral objectivity e.t.c

Absurdism seems to sit between these two as the position is that either could correct we just cannot know.

However it seems to be the case that one of the positions is true and one not, and so my question is IF 2) is the case, then is Nihilism the only logical conclusion? or is the only way you avoid Nihilism by resting on the possibility of 1)?
Adonai bless
tinman
Profile Blog Joined May 2007
United States287 Posts
May 06 2010 15:26 GMT
#439
On May 07 2010 00:14 Gnosis wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 07 2010 00:13 tinman wrote:
well however you would like to put it. it's up to you man. you may fling poo in whatever direction and with however much velocity as you wish.


There is still a reason behind the fling But it's okay, I see nothing more than sophism.


of course monkies fling shit for a reason. that doesn't make their shit-fling a "system" that "operates." people use language (like i have been saying) to describe. that's the reason. but language doesn't suddenly become a system with the property of accurately corresponding to reality via the wizardly intercession of words.
"Politics is an extravagance, an extravagance about grievances. And poetry is an extravagance about grief. And grievances are something that can be remedied, and griefs are irremediable."
Motiva
Profile Joined November 2007
United States1774 Posts
May 06 2010 15:31 GMT
#440
On May 07 2010 00:17 XeliN wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 06 2010 22:30 Motiva wrote:
On May 06 2010 22:11 XeliN wrote:
Motiva if you do not consider Nihilism problematic then thats a fine response, I am more looking for someone who does not believe in objective morality - or at least accepts it as a possibility, but a remote one for which so far there is little reason to believe - and yet considers Nihilism to not be the logical conclusion.


Objective Morality? I don't really even believe in Objectivity. I do not believe a Human being experiencing life has the ability to be objective. By Obective Morality what exactly do you mean? Absolute Morality?


In my previous post. I thought this was what you meant, and I said that Nihilism isn't the issue because for me it makes unreasonable assumptions. Essentially, If you believe Nihilism you have no reason to live, and there is no reason to anything, as such, why not just commit suicide? The inevitable reason to not commit suicide would have to be some internal selfish reasoning or value and hence you don't actually believe in Nihilism for one. Not exactly my point, but this line of reasoning is found in Absurdism. Thus for me, while not believing in Objective Morality what-so-ever. Nihilism is not the logical conculsion because of the reasons stated in my previous post. Instead, Absurdism has been the logical conclusion for me. (If it must be called a "conclusion")

If i'm still misunderstanding, My apoligies....



“
Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that ought never to be violated.
Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the matter as to whether any given action is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance.
”

I kinda threw "Objective Morality" out there, but essentially I meant that there is a standard of right and wrong, that is objectively true and that morality is not simply the arbitrary leanings of society.

As far as I can tell Absurdism does not really solve the problem. I am assuming as you said that Absurdism is that it is not possible to know whether there is inherent meaning in our lives and the universe.

However, I do not think Absurdism "solves" it as, it leaves itself with two possibilites.

1) There is inherent meaning in the universe, an objective form of morality e.t.c

2) There is no such inherent meaning, moral objectivity e.t.c

Absurdism seems to sit between these two as the position is that either could correct we just cannot know.

However it seems to be the case that one of the positions is true and one not, and so my question is IF 2) is the case, then is Nihilism the only logical conclusion? or is the only way you avoid Nihilism by resting on the possibility of 1)?



Well, If logic was the king and that's how human's acted, I personally, I would say probably so.

However, no human will ever possess the ability to be a true nihilist, or at the least you won't ever meet anyone that does. rofl Obviously any true nihilist would snap suicide.

Given the lack of an objective form of morality, or any attainable greater truth, or any meaning or value in life or the universe. There are a few solutions. I'm not totally sure a solution is necessary.

The first, would be Nihilism, which would be suicide.
The second would be Theism, which is too much like nihilism for me.
Or you can sit on the fence, and admit to yourself that you're a human being, you're a slave to subjectivity and life is your career. Life is in itself, and you'll most likely be dead soon anyway (soon relative to the universe at the least), might as well milk it's for what it's worth even if you can acknowledge the vanity.

I dunno, this is how i perceive these things, I'm certainly not an expert.
Prev 1 20 21 22 23 24 41 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
OSC
14:00
King of the Hill #219
davetesta15
Liquipedia
Esports World Cup
11:00
2025 - Final Day
Serral vs ClassicLIVE!
EWC_Arena20873
ComeBackTV 4907
TaKeTV 1031
JimRising 789
Hui .752
3DClanTV 517
Fuzer 336
EnkiAlexander 297
Rex266
CranKy Ducklings155
Reynor151
SpeCial78
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
EWC_Arena21297
JimRising 787
Hui .740
Fuzer 336
Rex 266
Reynor 151
UpATreeSC 142
SpeCial 83
StarCraft: Brood War
Bisu 4367
Shuttle 2586
Larva 949
Mini 702
actioN 494
EffOrt 368
Soma 298
ggaemo 233
Rush 136
TY 130
[ Show more ]
Snow 87
JYJ84
sorry 77
Hyun 69
Shine 67
Aegong 27
JulyZerg 18
zelot 15
Terrorterran 12
soO 9
Sacsri 9
sas.Sziky 9
yabsab 7
NaDa 3
Dota 2
Gorgc7576
syndereN452
XaKoH 447
420jenkins395
XcaliburYe311
Counter-Strike
fl0m4367
sgares369
oskar210
Other Games
gofns6788
singsing1817
FrodaN1772
Beastyqt696
KnowMe126
ArmadaUGS116
Organizations
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• sooper7s
• intothetv
• Migwel
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
StarCraft: Brood War
• Michael_bg 3
• FirePhoenix2
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• WagamamaTV542
League of Legends
• Nemesis5006
Other Games
• Shiphtur362
Upcoming Events
CranKy Ducklings
17h 20m
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
21h 20m
CSO Cup
23h 20m
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 1h
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
1d 16h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 21h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Sparkling Tuna Cup
3 days
Online Event
4 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
4 days
[ Show More ]
The PondCast
5 days
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.