Deontological Egoism vs Naive Altruism

Argotitan
Posts: 88
Joined: 2013-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Deontological Egoism vs Naive Altruism

Let us say there are good and bad people in the world. Human nature is gray, and you can't tell the good from the bad until after experience.

In turn, let's say we have a duty to ontology. That is good people recognize how reason, understanding, imagination, perspective, and judgment define who we are, and because these abilities enable everything else, they deserve respect. Likewise, some people use these abilities for worse, not better, so we have to recognize this diversity. Free will is out of our control, so we cannot compel bad people to do good things.

Now let's say we have a naive altruist who doesn't acknowledge this. Instead, the altruist believes people are necessarily good, and eagerly helps others. This includes helping bad people. The naive altruist also believes it's socially responsible to compel others to be universally helpful.

What should the deontological egoist do?

 


Teralek
Teralek's picture
Posts: 620
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
I don't believe in

I don't believe in determinism. Starting with the fact that it does not seem to be fasifiable when defended by it's proponents. So... I don't believe that free will is out of our control completely.

The deontological egoist should do everything in it's power to better him/her self if that is him/her desire. Whether DO means helping otheres to collect dividends or kill without being caught as long as one can live with the annoyance of a heavy conscience. 

edition.cnn.com/2013/01/07/justice/illinois-lottery-death

Money related crimes are increasing because we are losing our moral boundaries given before by religion to the masses, and it's being replaced by atheistic moral nihilism


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Argotitan wrote:What should

Argotitan wrote:

What should the deontological egoist do?

Spend a lot of time gazing at their own navel and ignoring reality. 

 

 Hi Teralek, good to see you back. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 Someone's been reading

 Someone's been reading Voltaire...

 

I see you're using the scattergun approach with this question:

 

http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?t=182465&p=2397871

http://www.debate.org/debates/Deontological-Egoism-Is-Preferable-to-Naive-Altruism/1/


Teralek
Teralek's picture
Posts: 620
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 Someone's been reading Voltaire...

 

I see you're using the scattergun approach with this question:

 

http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?t=182465&p=2397871

http://www.debate.org/debates/Deontological-Egoism-Is-Preferable-to-Naive-Altruism/1/

 

This last paragraph says it quite well:

"The preference of DE (deontologial egoism) to NA (naive altruism) comes from understanding the sustainability and purpose of rightfully thoughtful personalities. DE is a self-respecting and self-preserving lifestyle that takes the time, energy, and attention to reliably associate with others instead of rushing into things. NA, on the other hand, is asking for trouble, and is only sustainable on a socially Darwinist basis. Only those who can endure encountering wrongfully thoughtful personalities can afford to be universally helpful. Those who lack endurance will become exploited and hurt."

 BeyondSaving


Argotitan
Posts: 88
Joined: 2013-01-18
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 Someone's been reading Voltaire...

What does Voltaire have to do with this?


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Arg

Arg,

Your logical fallacy of choice is begging the question. You do this over and over and over again like a pirot craves booty.

Perspective is unique to empiricism. Empiricism is a false way to attempt a working epistemology and has been refuted by the modern founders/fathers of empiricism itself. This includes Hume, Logical positivists, and even classical empiricism via Aristotle. This is also a logical fallacy of slippery slope.

You also beg the question of freewill without documenting, defining, or defending it. Freewill is a secular notion invented by the Greek Stoics. Christianity opposes freewill fiercely.

Human nature being gray is extremely ambiguous. What does this mean? Since I would argue that human nature is completely and totally evil to the core, I would argue human nature is black!.

We have a duty to ontology (being). What??? Basically, you're saying we have a duty to reality whether you realize this or not. This makes no sense.

Your post is so bad in logical fallacies, any answer would only result in further absurdity.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Argotitan wrote:Let us say

Argotitan wrote:

Let us say there are good and bad people in the world. Human nature is gray, and you can't tell the good from the bad until after experience.

In turn, let's say we have a duty to ontology. That is good people recognize how reason, understanding, imagination, perspective, and judgment define who we are, and because these abilities enable everything else, they deserve respect. Likewise, some people use these abilities for worse, not better, so we have to recognize this diversity. Free will is out of our control, so we cannot compel bad people to do good things.

Now let's say we have a naive altruist who doesn't acknowledge this. Instead, the altruist believes people are necessarily good, and eagerly helps others. This includes helping bad people. The naive altruist also believes it's socially responsible to compel others to be universally helpful.

What should the deontological egoist do?

 

I'm not even sure what a moral paradigm a deontological egoist would subscribe to.  I would venture to say that term is an oxymoron.  A consequentialistic paradigm would much better suit an egoist.

Beyond that, your question is very muddied and prone to logical fallacies.  If you'd like to clarify your question in any sort of formal logic, I would gladly take a shot at it.

Take the first sentence, if you set a false dichotomy with good and bad people, and then admit that human nature is gray, how can you tell the good from the bad from experience in a deontological paradigm?

If your first premise invalidates the question, how is this a logical statement?

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Arg,Your

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Arg,

Your logical fallacy of choice is begging the question. You do this over and over and over again like a pirot craves booty.

Perspective is unique to empiricism. Empiricism is a false way to attempt a working epistemology and has been refuted by the modern founders/fathers of empiricism itself. This includes Hume, Logical positivists, and even classical empiricism via Aristotle. This is also a logical fallacy of slippery slope.

You also beg the question of freewill without documenting, defining, or defending it. Freewill is a secular notion invented by the Greek Stoics. Christianity opposes freewill fiercely.

Human nature being gray is extremely ambiguous. What does this mean? Since I would argue that human nature is completely and totally evil to the core, I would argue human nature is black!.

We have a duty to ontology (being). What??? Basically, you're saying we have a duty to reality whether you realize this or not. This makes no sense.

Your post is so bad in logical fallacies, any answer would only result in further absurdity.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

lol, for the first time, I actually agree with everything you wrote in a post Smiling 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:lol, for the

Ktulu wrote:

lol, for the first time, I actually agree with everything you wrote in a post Smiling 

Kinda creepy when that happens isn't it ?  Laughing out loud

It happened to me the other day with another one of the posts that "Arg" had started.

I was wondering if someone had either doped my coffee or if I was asleep and dreaming.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
it's as impossible to

it's as impossible to formulate a solid, working epistemology as it is to justify a solid ontology.  logic is tentative.  pretty much everything about human perception is tentative.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Ick.

Your reply is indeed a false dichtomy of ignorance. Perspective is unique to empiricism, and while I would agree an ontology and episteomology are impossible via this means, to imply this is the only way begs the piper to play only his tunes.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Your

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Your reply is indeed a false dichtomy of ignorance. Perspective is unique to empiricism, and while I would agree an ontology and episteomology are impossible via this means, to imply this is the only way begs the piper to play only his tunes.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

now you show your ignorance.  "perspective" is not unique to empiricism.  the jaina darshana of indian though is based on perspective (anekantavada), and it was formulated millennia before the notion of empiricism began to be discussed.  since jains also take shabda (verbal testimony, i.e., the scriptures) as a valid source of knowledge (pramana), anyone who would accuse the jains of being empiricists would be a moron.

ontology and epistemology are both impossible because neither being nor consciousness can be perceived objectively.

go retake your intro to philosophy course.  if you've finished it yet, that is.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:now you show

iwbiek wrote:

now you show your ignorance.  "perspective" is not unique to empiricism.  the jaina darshana of indian though is based on perspective (anekantavada), and it was formulated millennia before the notion of empiricism began to be discussed.  since jains also take shabda (verbal testimony, i.e., the scriptures) as a valid source of knowledge (pramana), anyone who would accuse the jains of being empiricists would be a moron.

ontology and epistemology are both impossible because neither being nor consciousness can be perceived objectively.

go retake your intro to philosophy course.  if you've finished it yet, that is.

I gotta admit, you do know your stuff.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Peggotty
atheist
Peggotty's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2012-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Argotitan asks 'what should

Argotitan asks 'what should the deontological egoist do' as a student of human nature?

Let’s not complicate things and for the purpose of this problem we’ll use a thought experiment and to make it easy let’s assume the deontologist is you.

1) As you’ve already indicated there’s no way of telling whether someone is good or bad because even if they seem to be one thing, very often, much later we find they were really something else and they were just using us for their own purposes or gain.

2) More likely and this happens most often socially, they were just being fake or pretending in order that we might think they were nice so that we might like them even though they didn’t really feel nice at all (approval seeking).

Fact number one – A person’s presenting qualities don’t accurately identify who they are. Always assume therefore that people are going to be selfish no matter what. But, remember there’s nothing wrong with that - it’s just what we're programmed to do to enable us to survive. It’s also helpful to remember that you can’t change others. We might guide or advise them but the change is always their choice.  Imagine going to the beach and begging the sea not to come in that’s how futile it is to try and change reality.

Even altruism, which is to unselfishly care for the welfare of others is selfish in the end because it gives us great pleasure to be helpful and kind eg: giving up our seat for an old person or surprising someone with a present for no reason whatsoever.  And this is not even to mention the power of reciprocity but better not to complicate things.

Logically then it’s much wiser to be the bravely aware deontological egotist rather than the very disappointed naïve altruist who will have to keep knocking his head against the wall (pain) until he wake's up!

 

 

 

 

Oh, but Peggotty, you haven't given Mr. Barkis his proper answer, you know.
Charles Dickens


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote: I

harleysportster wrote:

 

I gotta admit, you do know your stuff.

 

i don't see myself that way.  if you notice, i never start throwing stuff like that around until someone starts being a dick of their own initiative.  i would never go around trying to school people, even in something like indian thought or marxism, because i know from experience, sooner or later, someone would promptly school me.  jean, on the other hand, has never shared this pov.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Peggotty
atheist
Peggotty's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2012-08-07
User is offlineOffline
I just noticed that your

Argo - I just noticed that your post is word from word from here as Mosquito pointed out and unless you want to get done for stealing someone else's words why not acknowledge in your post?

http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?t=182465&p=2397871 

Oh, but Peggotty, you haven't given Mr. Barkis his proper answer, you know.
Charles Dickens


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:i don't see

iwbiek wrote:

i don't see myself that way.  if you notice, i never start throwing stuff like that around until someone starts being a dick of their own initiative.  i would never go around trying to school people, even in something like indian thought or marxism, because i know from experience, sooner or later, someone would promptly school me.  jean, on the other hand, has never shared this pov.

Yes. I have noticed that. Probably one of the reasons that I respect your opinions so much. Well, that and a love of The Rolling Stones, Romero films, an affinity for the writings of Trotsky, Russia and it's history and um.....have I left anything out ? Smiling

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:Yes. I

harleysportster wrote:

Yes. I have noticed that. Probably one of the reasons that I respect your opinions so much. Well, that and a love of The Rolling Stones, Romero films, an affinity for the writings of Trotsky, Russia and it's history and um.....have I left anything out ? Smiling

uhhh, borderline alcoholic and haunter of shitty bars?

you seem to be a stand-up guy yourself.  you're definitely one of the most objective, fair-minded people i've ever met on the internet, and you know those kinds of people are rare as hen's teeth around here.  you've actually inspired me by your example to try to keep my temper in check, but it's slow going...

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:uhhh,

iwbiek wrote:

uhhh, borderline alcoholic and haunter of shitty bars?

Oh yeah, that too. Flannery O' Connor fan as well. I forgot that one.

iwbiek wrote:

you seem to be a stand-up guy yourself.  you're definitely one of the most objective, fair-minded people i've ever met on the internet, and you know those kinds of people are rare as hen's teeth around here.  you've actually inspired me by your example to try to keep my temper in check, but it's slow going...

Like you said above, I don't see myself that way, but I'll take the compliment and say thanks Smiling

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
AWWWWW true romance   

AWWWWW true romance Smiling 

 


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Ick

The subject of discussion was ontology and epistemology. Since Jaina is via the epistemololgy of mysticism, then perspective would not apply.

You can review this difference in the British Philosopher George Berkley. George believed perspective is reality and carried this to its logical conclusion in this area of empistemology.

Mysticism does not perspect or infer on what is observed, but what is felt, which via classification takes perspective out of the equation.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Ick

The subject of discussion was ontology and epistemology. Since Jaina is via the epistemololgy of mysticism, then perspective would not apply.

You can review this difference in the British Philosopher George Berkley. George believed perspective is reality and carried this to its logical conclusion in this area of empistemology.

Mysticism does not perspect or infer on what is observed, but what is felt, which via classification takes perspective out of the equation.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:The

Jean Chauvin wrote:

The subject of discussion was ontology and epistemology. Since Jaina is via the epistemololgy of mysticism, then perspective would not apply.

 

again, you show your ignorance.  jains are not mystics because they do not seek to get in touch with any sort of ground of being.  enlightenment for a jain means the attainment of omniscience, and jains have not even considered enlightenment possible for humans for nearly two millennia.  the raison d'etre of jain asceticism is not meditation or contemplative exercise but the wiping out of karma by following a strict behavioral code.

please don't talk about things with which you have no acquaintance.  jain epistemology can be called speculative (as all epistemologies are), but only the most naive 19th century western orientalist would called it "mystical."  jainism has a very real ontology (one could almost call jains physicalists because even karma for them is a substance) and an epistemology so developed it puts both the western world and most other indian speculative traditions to shame.

you are a tard.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Communism creates

Communism creates a society of complete ignorance as can be shown in history. Education is supressed an stupidity spreads giving the greedy government more control. As expected, your complete over confidence in matters has caused the learned to see the result of communistic "edcation" which in America is known as the Public School System.

Jains are absolutely 100% mystical in their epstemology. There are only 3 secular epistemologies.

Rational (capital R)

Empirical

Mystical

If you say that the Jains are indeed not mystical, then the burden of proof falls on you to demonstate that they are of the other two. Since you're a communist and since your government has trained you to be an idiot this may be hard for you.

I fall under neither of these three since I am not secular.

Come on over and try Christian Capitalism as understoo in the United States, our public schooling is not 100% communist yet so perhaps a nugget of something might fling your way.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote: Jains

Jean Chauvin wrote:

 

Jains are absolutely 100% mystical in their epstemology. There are only 3 secular epistemologies.

don't throw axioms at me as if they were some sort of "proof."  you might as well tell me about the spiritual and cardinal virtues.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

If you say that the Jains are indeed not mystical, then the burden of proof falls on you to demonstate that they are of the other two.

LOL you talk about "burden of proof" in an artificial construct.  i'm beginning to think you're on some third-rate high school's debate team.

you know nothing about jains.  you know nothing about mysticism.  without a positive ground of being, mysticism is not possible.  that's why buddhists cannot be called mystics either.  just because a person meditates does not make him or her a mystic.  you lose again.

go read about pramana theories, especially those espoused by the jaina, purva mimamsa, sankhya, and nyaya systems.  then you might really be able to talk about epistemology meaningfully--if you manage to understand anything, that is.  i recommend the first volume of surendranath dasgupta's history of indian philosophy, since you're obviously not competent enough to deal with the source material.  until then, you remain a dilettante and you should probably just stop talking to me, since you're only embarrassing yourself.

oh, and as i've said here countless times, i'm an american, you fucktard.  born and raised.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Communist Guy

Communist Guy!

Axioms are not proofs ever. Perhaps you flunked basic geometry. As a test, please demonstrate before the class why that is and determine what is "proof" or evidence within Euclid's modal. Good Luck!

The rest of your post was Ad Hominem Fallacies.

You also did NOT demonstrate within the 3 secular epistemologies which one the Jains fit into if not Mysticism. Logically, since there are only 2 other options you failed horribly.

Since you have not met the burden, did not indicate the other epistemology of the two since you exclude mysticism, and since you then resorted to ad hominem fallacies and thought axioms were proof statements (communist education - exhibit a lol), I am forced to say:

Check Mate!

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Communist

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Communist Guy!

Axioms are not proofs ever. Perhaps you flunked basic geometry. As a test, please demonstrate before the class why that is and determine what is "proof" or evidence within Euclid's modal. Good Luck!

The rest of your post was Ad Hominem Fallacies.

You also did NOT demonstrate within the 3 secular epistemologies which one the Jains fit into if not Mysticism. Logically, since there are only 2 other options you failed horribly.

Since you have not met the burden, did not indicate the other epistemology of the two since you exclude mysticism, and since you then resorted to ad hominem fallacies and thought axioms were proof statements (communist education - exhibit a lol), I am forced to say:

Check Mate!

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

ROFLMAO

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Communist

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Communist Guy!

Axioms are not proofs ever. Perhaps you flunked basic geometry. As a test, please demonstrate before the class why that is and determine what is "proof" or evidence within Euclid's modal. Good Luck!

The rest of your post was Ad Hominem Fallacies.

You also did NOT demonstrate within the 3 secular epistemologies which one the Jains fit into if not Mysticism. Logically, since there are only 2 other options you failed horribly.

Since you have not met the burden, did not indicate the other epistemology of the two since you exclude mysticism, and since you then resorted to ad hominem fallacies and thought axioms were proof statements (communist education - exhibit a lol), I am forced to say:

Check Mate!

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

enjoy basking in the universal acclaim...

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Peggotty
atheist
Peggotty's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2012-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:The rest

Jean Chauvin wrote:
The rest of your post was Ad Hominem Fallacies.

How is it that you haven’t noticed the equally fallacious belief that introducing a very impressive sounding latin phrase means that you get to disengage from the actual argument or even worse dismiss it offhand and therefore logically take the decisive edge. Real instances of argumentum ad hominem are rare unless you are a really delicate flower.

 

Oh, but Peggotty, you haven't given Mr. Barkis his proper answer, you know.
Charles Dickens


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Peg

Peg,

Real Ad Hominem Abusive falacies are not rare but are the most popular fallacy of them all, especially on here. In logic, when a Invalid argument (e.g. fallacy) occurs, no answer is required since they failed to make an argument where an answer is required. Thus my logical right to dismiss their absurdity.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:In logic,

Jean Chauvin wrote:

In logic, when a Invalid argument (e.g. fallacy) occurs, no answer is required since they failed to make an argument where an answer is required. Thus my logical right to dismiss their absurdity.

precisely!  thus my dismissal of your insistence on fitting a south asian system of thought into an arbitrary tripartite categorization posited by a dimwit who knows nothing about any south asian system except maybe what he read in some elementary school magazine two or three years ago, and who also seems to think when i point out that axiomatic statements are not proof, that i am somehow saying they are.

i sunk your battleship, kiddo.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Mr. Communist

lol, you indicated that I was throwing axioms around as proof. After correction you are trying to neatly cover your stupidity. I have yet to make any axiomatic state in this thread or any other thread for a while.

Thus your logical fallacy of Strawman. And thus my educating you on what an Axiom is. Now that you're educated by me, you correct yourself here.

As a communist, the State is your god. You revere men such as Stalin, Marx, Lenin, etc. Thus your "atheism" must be qualified.

You're just trying to recover my talent in placing you in a check mate.

Communism is slavery of the mind. Is suppresses freedom and individualism. It is the the complete elimination of the Civil Rights movement.

One would expect that your mind has been manipulted as a result in communism and thus your education below our public schooling. Mr. Communist would take delight in shooting Christians such as all the other communist countries did.

My point? You are ignorant of your own slavery and this includes your intellectual understanding on matters of men and things. Thus the reason why I schooled you.

Next Topic.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
"axiom" outside the world of

"axiom" outside the world of geometry is often used basically as a euphemism for any statement taken as a basic assumption or starting point of an artificial construct or abstract system.  spinoza himself used it this way (take a sec to google him so you know who i'm talking about).  this is because epistemology, like any branch of modern philosophy, be it continental or analytic, is basically the same type of system as mathematics, except of course mathematics has proved a useful predictor for scientific phenomena and epistemology, like the arts, is useless (to paraphrase oscar wilde).

i won't charge you for this lesson.

you're also a complete ignoramus when it comes to marxism, marxism-leninism, or any system that goes by those names.  since you want to get pedantic about terminology, i'll return the favor and point out that there is no such system of thought as "communism."  "communism" is a concept within marxism.  the state means all of jack-shit to marxists.  to marx and engels, the state was nothing more than a means of implementing socialism and would slowly lose power and disappear.  to lenin and his successors, the state had indeed lost almost all power (which is why the 1936 constitution was worthless even in theory).  what has power in a marxist-leninist society is the party vanguard, which lenin himself openly advocated, particularly in what is to be done? (again, take a google break).  there is a huge difference between state power and party power.  see hannah arendt's origins of totalitarianism for a good exposition of how precisely that looks.

on second thought, see any high school social studies textbook first.  i almost forgot who i was talking to...

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson