Posted by reptylinin [12.238.219.14 - 12-238-219-14.client.attbi.com] on 14 December 2001 at 06.08.28 ZuluTime:

In Reply to: Fallacy posted by meta_human on 13 December 2001 at 16.17.05 ZuluTime:

How cute that you are so far 'beyond' humanity but cannot structure a philosophical argument without falling into pseudo-intellectualism. I.e., if you knew the definitions of the words you were using, you wouldn't look so fucking ignorant! Both Gremlin and Hunter have *thoroughly* covered the topic, however, I will humbly attempt to analyze your argument from a different perspective. In so doing, I hope to show you why you're not in the "philosophical world" as you so arrogantly claim.

from what i have gathered, from her highly defensive apologium(Two problems: 1) In the grammatical world, this is called a redundancy, and 2) I don't remember seeing, from her transcript, Hunter attempting to a) be "highly defensive," nor b) offer any sort of an apologia), Hunter's metaphysical (and that was...?) (and inescapbably, existential[do not equivocate the words: 'choosing' and 'accepting;' oh wait, you already did!]) disposition entails("entails?" Are you quite sure that the following points are necessarily contigent on Hunter's "metaphysical disposition?" Or rather, the lack of, from what I've gathered) the following...

1. that Faith (and strangely, "belief") requires irrationality(if I say, "I have *faith* that an invisible pink unicorn will come down from Heaven and give me the perfect blow-job because I *believe*," then I am being *quite* irrational) ; or at least an unjustified supposition(same model: I assume that this particular unicorn exists. Well, yes, that *is* unjustified, isn't it?). {and there was something in there about she herself having no faith - quite the presumptuous little hoodlum)("hoodlum?")

2. that she does not hold to anything not based on "evidence"(seems reasonable) (what type of evidence i could not extrapolate from her).(the kind that is testable, i.e., that which can be verified seems fitting)

and 3. religiosity, or indeed anything mystic(the two don't follow. A highly religious person is not necessarily mystical), necessarily requires fallaciousness(asserting that beliefs and/or spirituality is wrong, and finding no reason to accept them, are two different statements), because "everyone is really an agnostic" since "nobody knows for sure"(do you? If so, can you please enlighten all us morons out here?).

and so here is the inherent contradiction that comprises Hunter's [highly structured] worldview: "i have no faith, yet i have faith that God/s haven't made it a condition of my existence that i seek the truth"; in other words, Hunter sits back, supposedly dispassionate (though very emotional) and supposedly objective (yet of very selected interest), in a state of epistemological nihilism(philosophically speaking--and that *is* your language, isn't it?--she is NOT in a "state of epistemological nihilism, for she is not a) radically skeptical about anything, so as I can tell from her transcript with you; and b) she is not deconstructing the value systems or cultural basis of religion and/or mysticism. She is merely asking you for evidence!) - claiming that her very consciousness does not require access to truth(you're asserting, now, that Hunter must dabble into idealism when she is clearly a realist--now you are simply being intellectually dishonest). yet (!) at the same time, she claims that this position is true!(what position was that? That she doesn't know the 'truth?' And what is the 'Truth' with a capital "T?" Seems as though you are the one with the problem, not Hunter)

nevertheless, her actually ontology(strawman: when did she assert *anything* about the nature of being?!)is that of [what is called in the philosophy world] Strong Agnosticism. not surprisingly, there are very few strong agnostics left, because such agnosticism (in the tradition of Hume and others) requires that one rejects as a surety the existance of other minds(please don't make Hume out to be a solipsist--he wasn't). a rationalist empiricst such as Hunter, rejects all that which is not conclusively proven via demonstration(how else might you 'prove' something, without 'demonstrating' it?). but alas, one can not demonstarte the existence of other minds, only infer(I can't "demonstarte" anything, however, as you rightly state, yes, we can "infer" other minds. For, as Bertrand Russel tells us that we must assume that the sun will rise tomorrow, so too would Hunter--I can assume :)--assume that there are other minds. This has NOTHING to do with the argument). even the existance of the brain organ, is based upon a whole series of prejudices which the strong agnostic must rejectcf. Wittgenstein's "On Certainty"--you might learn something. Oh, and what the hell *is* the "series of prejudices which the strong agnostic must reject?" Do you mean 'accept?') (such as the reliability and unprovability of the senses)(doesn't follow. Did you mean to type "yet" instead of "and?" And further, the senses may or may not be reliable, but it is clear that we have them).

i could just as easily enter into an entire monograph refuting Hunter's dogmatic materialism/monism/atheism(I'll look for it in the "Journal of Abstracts and Dissertations"). but i'm sure this is not the appropriate venue - and such a designation would surely not be appreciated by the individual at whom this is dedicated.(nor, would it be appreciated by anyone with any sense)

so, let me just close with a short succinct(usually, when one wishes to be succinct, one does not become redundant)refutation of strong agnosticism.

Hunter, you have faith that the logical conclusions you have reached are correct.(false dichotomy: obviously you don't have to have "faith" in order for something to be conclusively "logical") you were not born with the conclusions you now cling to at the exclusion of all others.(a child, however, *might* be "born" with the amount of intelligence that you presently have)

Hunter, you have obviously not sought metaphysical truth(oxymoron. By definition, metaphysics cannot be verified, therefore it cannot be known to be true--unless, of course, you're talking about that crazy Truth with a capital "T" again. To which I'll simply say: Bah!) to any great extent, therefore, it is quite unfair and hypocritical of you to judge those who have as somehow mistaken.(like you? Your transcript didn't even allude to any good metaphysical arguments!)

Hunter, your belief in the existance of other minds is not based on evidence, or reason, but inferential intuition(of course it is. But again, there is reason to believe that others have minds--well, accept for you it seems). Likewise, i would be bold enough to venture that you hold sundry BELIEFS(I haven't seen one belief, much less scattered beliefs); namely, an objective morality(what is the foundation of her morality system--if it is truly "moral" and "objective" than it MUST have a foundation, by definition), an ultimate reality(I have no idea where you're going here), the order of the universe and the subsequent existance of the thing we call 'truth', and many othersI still don't know where you're going, but it seems as though you are making a false dichotomy again: what does the "order of the universe" and "truth" have to do with each other?).

Hunter, to claim that we are all agnostic concerning ontology is patently false(Again, she never gave an ontology). for example, any sentient beings KNOWS, if nothing else, that she exists(okay, Descartes) furthermore, have you investigated every person who claims to "know for sure" before you summarily dismiss them?(by this statement you must be implying that Hunter made an hasty generalization somewhere; however, I haven't found it) of course you haven't - more errancy, more hypocrisy, more contradiction.(I believe it is *you* who are in error, for you erred in representing Hunter's argument. It is *you* who are delving in hypocrasy, for you claim that Hunter should speak to "every person.." yet, you yourself haven't. And furthermore, I believe it is *you* who is a walking contradiction, given the fact that you dismiss Hunter for not excepting certain beliefs that you hold, while you yourself, do not except the fact that she is not willing to except things without evidence)

as such, i can only conclude that Hunter is mistaken in her metaphysical propositions(she made none), and has achieved a level nothing more, than [at least in terms of philosophy] intellectual adolescence(it's this phrase that *really* made me want to respond...*chuckle*).

and finally, a pertinent quotation: "Reason's last step is the recognition that there are an infinite number of things which are beyond it." (Pascal, 'Pensees')(sure, but to allow yourself to appeal to ignorance seems like a personal problem to me)

Follow Ups: