Originally posted by PalynkaCool!
No, we cannot agree. 😵 I think it's quite the contrary.
For example, you keep restating that it's a great tool for discussion, but do not explain what it is. You say it's criteria are healthy and fool-proof, but what are these criteria? Also, how does it enforce elenchus if it only answer questions by assertion. It has the common sense stamp, ergo it mus ...[text shortened]... the opposite of a honest and constructive debate and so the opposite of elenchus.
I already explained what common sens is -and Aristotle did it better: when you are able to hover between Reason and reasonableness and you understand their nature, you are using science and philosophy in order to avoid the false interpretations. The tool that enables us to use these pieces of information accurately, is common sens. And this is a uniformity.
Our cultural semiotic production varies on the level of languages, music, dance, artistic styles etc, however it remains uniform in its essence, and BTW this is the reason why a Chinese can understand and enjoy in his respective language the works, say, of the noble author that is displayed at your RHP profile. This uniformity enables us to be really in touch with the other people, to share our different ethical precepts and imagery, to understand the other person who passes the same cultural way from the non common sens status (barbarism) to the common sens status (civility).
This is the reason “why” methinks this attitude is “common sens”.
Furthermore, the contradictions you described are existent because every person is different. Mind you, what is “good” for the Black is “bad” for the White; this is purely a product of common sens according to my prenous definition.
So, my good friend Palynka, I think appealing to common sens is not the opposite of a honest and constructive debate, and furthermore that it is not the opposite of elenchus although our personal procedures of elenchus are different due to our different personalities.
😵
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 32473
Originally posted by PalynkaSo you're claiming an absolute? Explain to me why murder is so popular? Note I said popular and not usual! We know it is usual because greed and selfishness are likewise usual. I will clearly claim that morality can be justified by popularity. I think that is what the beetle is hinting at by talking about common sense. I am easily able to claim that most people I have ever meant find murder repulsive not because of some "absolute" code but because they have never encountered enough people who provided justification for it. Why do pre-teen soldiers so easily take to it - because they are in an environment where the the local majority does.
A "quantitative comparison". What's that? 99%? 85%? A majority? Those are but empty words. Unless universality is meant absolutely, then it's only a measure of popularity. Of course, people would laugh at you if you invoked popularity to justify core moral values.
I didn't post Bill O'Reilly just because he's an individual who seems to disagree, he repr ...[text shortened]... le part of the population. A part that you can find many vocal defenders in these forums.
As for O'Reilly, I totally agree that some people are just stupid and will fall for any half-baked charlatan that drags their belly past on the way to the trough. What else is new? He no doubt advocates "absolutes" too without any justification aside from personal attacks.
Originally posted by TerrierJack[i]I[i] am claiming an absolute? 😵
So you're claiming an absolute? Explain to me why murder is so popular? Note I said popular and not usual! We know it is usual because greed and selfishness are likewise usual. I will clearly claim that morality can be justified by popularity. I think that is what the beetle is hinting at by talking about common sense. I am easily able to claim that ...[text shortened]... no doubt advocates "absolutes" too without any justification aside from personal attacks.
Usual is a measure of frequency and so is popular.
Originally posted by TerrierJackNope my friend, methinks morality cannot be justified by popularity although this is a common procedure; in my opinion morality can be justified by our intelligence alone, and a serious part of our intelligence is the uniformity I defined as “common sens”.
So you're claiming an absolute? Explain to me why murder is so popular? Note I said popular and not usual! We know it is usual because greed and selfishness are likewise usual. I will clearly claim that morality can be justified by popularity. I think that is what the beetle is hinting at by talking about common sense. I am easily able to claim that ...[text shortened]... no doubt advocates "absolutes" too without any justification aside from personal attacks.
I do not see common sens as a specific perceptual capacity but as a description of the individual senses in certain contexts -and this means that the different products of each person’s common sens are not a contradictory sign the way Palynka offered earlier. During a good day my thoughts, my variations etc. are the product of four distinct functions of the (Aristotlean amongst else) common sens (namely: simultaneous perception, perceptual discrimination, control of senses and monitoring of senses), and also the product of implied accurate scientific and philosophic pieces of information carefully stitched together with intuition. If I see that these final ideas of mine are not falsifiable after having them checked properly, I accept them, otherwise I discard them. So I understand common sens as a mental faculty that is triggered whenever I remain under conceptual awareness.
Of course I understand Palynka; me too, I cannot deny the dualist reality of our physical world -I can see the black chessmen and the white chessmen in front of me. However I see monism too, and this means that I can walk in Black’s shoes when I am the White, and vice versa. Since everything at every given second is unique due to the fact that the Position is unique, Black is the (ever changing) Truth herenow and White is the (ever changing) Truth herenow -and these Truths could well be different or identical or everything else within this spectrum, simply because the Black and the White collapse differently the wavefunction. These Truths provide the Synthesis and they do not have own-being, as you already know well. But the common sens remains: both players accept the rules
😵
Originally posted by black beetleIt's still too vague for me to accept it as authority. "A is true because it's common sense" would still be an argument that solves nothing. Even if I admit there is some sort of tool like that, it is one that is too different across individuals to be communicable.
Cool!
I already explained what common sens is -and Aristotle did it better: when you are able to hover between Reason and reasonableness and you understand their nature, you are using science and philosophy in order to avoid the false interpretations. The tool that enables us to use these pieces of information accurately, is common sens. And this is ...[text shortened]... though our personal procedures of elenchus are different due to our different personalities.
😵
Whereas you see it as enabling understanding across cultures and a variety of semiotic production, I see it as a poor substitute for true, unbiased open-mindedness. The person using the tool you describe as "common-sense" will see things under that light and bring its own personal biases which can do more harm than good when communicating in those diverse environments. We call these "cultural differences", which are basically the clash of different conceptions of what is "common sense". So common sense is definitely a very poor measure of anything supposed to be "universal" and the only situation where I concede it might serve a social function constructively is when the communication happens within homogeneous environments.
Originally posted by PalynkaFine! I would like to see that rare bird, the "true, unbiased openmindness". I believe that such a thing exists not. For example, I cannot think of, say, a GM with "true, unbiased openmindness", however I can think of many GMs who are playing like gods simply because they spent their youth on studying and playing the Immortal Game so fervently and in such an intense awareness that finally they became able to overcome dogmatism and create their own rules over the board. If the "true, unbiased openmindness" exists, I would be thankful if you could demonstrate it to me.
It's still too vague for me to accept it as authority. "A is true because it's common sense" would still be an argument that solves nothing. Even if I admit there is some sort of tool like that, it is one that is too different across individuals to be communicable.
Whereas you see it as enabling understanding across cultures and a variety of semiotic prod ...[text shortened]... on constructively is when the communication happens within homogeneous environments.
The person using the tool I describe as "common sens" sees things solely according to his own intelligence. "Common sens" is the agent that forces the individual to admit that a fact is indeed a fact within a specific frame regardless of one's own taste -the traffic light is red, so I will stop/ my blacksquared B will move solely on the black squares etc etc. So I claim that you cannot have a consensus without commmon sens.
Therefore methinks common sens is definitely a solid measure of anything supposed to be "universal", and furthermore it serves a social function constructively when the communication happens within homogeneous (and even within not homogeneous) environments😵
Originally posted by daniel58Of course I do but not the way you do...Hell as well as sheol is another word for the grave we get burried in when we die. Heaven is for spirit creatures only and for only a few chosen humans, "The Little flock" that will be resurrected to be the Kings and Priest that will rule with Jesus that he talked about many times, over humans that will survive armegeddon and for ones that will be resurrected later from the grave.
So you don't Believe in either?
Have you forgotten all the discussions we've had about this in other forums?
Originally posted by galveston75Have you read The Bible? What about the beatitudes? The wheat and cockle?
Of course I do but not the way you do...Hell as well as sheol is another word for the grave we get burried in when we die. Heaven is for spirit creatures only and for only a few chosen humans, "The Little flock" that will be resurrected to be the Kings and Priest that will rule with Jesus that he talked about many times, over humans that will survive arm ...[text shortened]... rom the grave.
Have you forgotten all the discussions we've had about this in other forums?
Originally posted by daniel58Yes I have. But as we've had extensive discussions on the Trinity and you have been shown more then enough proof on the paganism of the Trinity belief, I see no need in starting this again with you.
Have you read The Bible? What about the beatitudes? The wheat and cockle?
God is called the "Father" and Jesus is called the "Son". This simply truth is all thru the Bible and these words are there for a reason.
Going on vacation now and will be back in a week..........