Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Calling for Great Debate: DominionSeraph
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 1 of 17 (358953)
10-26-2006 8:49 AM


Attention DominionSeraph
DominionSeraph:
Rob has posted a topic entitled The Humean Arguments in the PNT and he has requested that this discussion be a Great Debate between you and he.
Do you accept or decline? Upon acceptance the OP will be moved to the Great Debate Forum.
Please respond to this message.
--AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by AdminNWR, posted 10-27-2006 1:13 PM AdminPD has replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 17 (359302)
10-27-2006 11:10 AM


Bump - Calling DominionSeraph
See Message 1

AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 17 (359324)
10-27-2006 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by AdminPD
10-26-2006 8:49 AM


Addendum - this is on hold
Given the suspension of pop (see Message 128). Unless and until pop is reinstated, it seems pointless to discuss a Great Debate with him.
I'll close this thread for now. You can request reopen at the appropriate thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AdminPD, posted 10-26-2006 8:49 AM AdminPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by AdminPD, posted 10-27-2006 4:12 PM AdminNWR has replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 4 of 17 (359348)
10-27-2006 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by AdminNWR
10-27-2006 1:13 PM


Rob not pop - Hold Removed
This request is from Rob who is not suspended, not pop/Bob who is suspended.
See The Humean Arguments in the PNT.
The request is still on the table for DominionSeraph.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by AdminNWR, posted 10-27-2006 1:13 PM AdminNWR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by AdminNWR, posted 10-27-2006 4:16 PM AdminPD has not replied

AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 17 (359351)
10-27-2006 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by AdminPD
10-27-2006 4:12 PM


Re: Rob not pop - Hold Removed
Oops!
Sorry about that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by AdminPD, posted 10-27-2006 4:12 PM AdminPD has not replied

DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4755 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 6 of 17 (359389)
10-27-2006 7:53 PM


Not without some changes.
Hume needs to be dropped, and the position clarified.

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by AdminPD, posted 10-27-2006 8:09 PM DominionSeraph has not replied
 Message 8 by Rob, posted 10-27-2006 10:18 PM DominionSeraph has not replied
 Message 9 by Rob, posted 10-27-2006 11:54 PM DominionSeraph has replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 7 of 17 (359390)
10-27-2006 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by DominionSeraph
10-27-2006 7:53 PM


I will let Rob know you have responded and will have him respond in this thread where you two can hash out the specifics and decide if the debate will take place.
Thanks
AdminPD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by DominionSeraph, posted 10-27-2006 7:53 PM DominionSeraph has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 8 of 17 (359409)
10-27-2006 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by DominionSeraph
10-27-2006 7:53 PM


DominionSeraph wrote
Not without some changes.
Hume needs to be dropped, and the position clarified.
I don't know what changes you have in mind, but I would be more than happy to entertain them. It is my opinion that Hume really is the father of this issue. It pervades the thinking in the 21st century. We must understand if he is right or wrong and why.
I bring it up because in another thread (which I respectfully concede is not the place to hash it out) you made a simillar comment that knowingly or not, invoked Humean principles.
You said, And I paraphrase... 'Get this religious crap out of the science forum'.
Now my position is that the issue being discussed there (free will vs determinism) is not simply a scientific issue. The issue of free will or predetermination is patently metaphysical if we really seek to understand it. But Hume's position as a presupposition is that we cannot invoke the metaphysical. That tells me that many are discussing things that they admit beforehand are undiscussable. What would be the point?
I'm really not sure what you want to debate... I do not want to address the 'free will' debate now, as I want to deal with this area first. Until we can understand what tools are legitimate for discovery, we will never be able to begin a discussion on the other.
I would love to discuss this in detail as a debate in which we are seriouly and respectfully seeking the proper conclusions that can be reached. And that is the point... The Humean principle's presuppose there is no way to come to proper conclusions. And that beg's the question... how did he arrive at that conclusion, if conclusions cannot be arrived at?
He clearly invokes a metaphysical argument. If you do not understand why, I would love to discuss it in detail.
How would we procede without Hume? How would you state his position differently, that metaphysics is meaningless to the discovery of answers to these questions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by DominionSeraph, posted 10-27-2006 7:53 PM DominionSeraph has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 9 of 17 (359421)
10-27-2006 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by DominionSeraph
10-27-2006 7:53 PM


for clarity...
I said:
It is my opinion that Hume really is the father of this issue. It pervades the thinking in the 21st century. We must understand if he is right or wrong and why.
To make it as clear as possible, what I am calling for is a discussion on the assumptions that I think consume the dominant opinion today.
Kant, Nietzche, and Hume are all accepted without knowing them by name by millions. These rationalists were quite brilliant, and their philosophies have become unexamined in the postmodern ara. It's as though the issue is settled and we have moved on further into the pathos. But if these arguments are false, then the ether into which we travel in our minds is getting more incorrect all the time.
I think that there are enormous problems with the conclusions of these men, and I invite an overt discussion as to why. If you can keep an open mind, and do not have predetermined reasons for doubting all reasoning but 'these pillars' of philosophical thought, you may be suprised to learn how simple some solutions are.
But I can't explain something your not willing to hear. I am willing to hear anything. What do you say?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by DominionSeraph, posted 10-27-2006 7:53 PM DominionSeraph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by DominionSeraph, posted 10-28-2006 8:19 PM Rob has replied

DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4755 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 10 of 17 (359553)
10-28-2006 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Rob
10-27-2006 11:54 PM


Re: for clarity...
Oh please.
What we have is that you've taken an alternative position. You, however, won't put it out for consideration as that'll leave it open to attack. So instead you want to attack the established position, as any opening in it would allow room for yours -- which is the only excuse you need.
Sorry, but that won't wash with me.
If we're gonna debate, we're gonna be debating your position. For anything else, I don't need you around.
Edited by DominionSeraph, : No reason given.
Edited by DominionSeraph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Rob, posted 10-27-2006 11:54 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Rob, posted 10-29-2006 12:07 AM DominionSeraph has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 11 of 17 (359573)
10-29-2006 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by DominionSeraph
10-28-2006 8:19 PM


Re: for clarity...
What we have is that you've taken an alternative position.
I have no idea what you are talking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by DominionSeraph, posted 10-28-2006 8:19 PM DominionSeraph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by DominionSeraph, posted 10-29-2006 2:51 AM Rob has replied

DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4755 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 12 of 17 (359589)
10-29-2006 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Rob
10-29-2006 12:07 AM


Re: for clarity...
I may have been thinking of one of Faith's posts.
Regardless, Hume is irrelevant. He's dead, so I can't do anything with him. Find me someone I can actually debate, and I'll debate them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Rob, posted 10-29-2006 12:07 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Rob, posted 10-29-2006 10:24 AM DominionSeraph has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 13 of 17 (359633)
10-29-2006 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by DominionSeraph
10-29-2006 2:51 AM


Re: for clarity...
DominionSeraph, let's slow down a little here. I sense some nerves being frazzled again, and that has happened a lot here at EVC. In the past I contributed much to that end.
There are a lot of very intelligent people participating in this forum who have put a lot of thought into their positions. So when a disagreement comes along, and an unsensitive correction comes their way, it can be very offensive. I am trying very hard to respect the intelligence of everyone at this point.
We must be able to discuss the issues addressed in this forum as openly as we can because the outcomes have tremendous implications for us individually as well as for the community at large.
We must remember that it is often the smartest people in the world who lead us (by manipulation or ignorance) like lemmings, off the edge of cliff after cliff. Let's all try to put our pride aside and attempt to find some common ground.
I have no illusions that that is an easy task...
You said:
Regardless, Hume is irrelevant. He's dead, so I can't do anything with him.
Hume may be dead, but his ideas are not. It would be accurate to say that his ideas preceded him, but he really defined certain ideas in a way that is very difficult to unwind and examine objectively.
Most people do not even know how to challenge such an argument as Hume's, so they end up accepting it and moving on towards another cliff.
That is why I said:
It is my opinion that Hume really is the father of this issue. It pervades the thinking in the 21st century. We must understand if he is right or wrong and why.
I bring it up because in another thread (which I respectfully concede is not the place to hash it out) you made a simillar comment that knowingly or not, invoked Humean principles.
You said, And I paraphrase... 'Get this religious crap out of the science forum'.
What you said is the Humean argument (stated differently). That is why I wanted to explore the philosophical framework of this vein of thinking. I want you to understand why it is a logical contradiction that cannot be true.
Can we procede in the great debate thread? If not, feel free to send me a private email (address is in my profile) and we can discuss it without fear of public scorn.
ps. And ignore my avatar, I really need to find one that does not suggest that I am mocking anyone!(a picture speaks a thousand words you know...)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by DominionSeraph, posted 10-29-2006 2:51 AM DominionSeraph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by DominionSeraph, posted 10-31-2006 1:15 AM Rob has replied

DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4755 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 14 of 17 (360019)
10-31-2006 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Rob
10-29-2006 10:24 AM


Rob writes:
Hume may be dead, but his ideas are not.
Wrong.
Rob writes:
What you said is the Humean argument (stated differently). That is why I wanted to explore the philosophical framework of this vein of thinking.
I don't give a damn about your pattern matches.
You reference my framework, you reference ME.
Rob writes:
feel free to send me a private email (address is in my profile) and we can discuss it without fear of public scorn.
A true Seeker would recognize that image is nothing.
Edited by DominionSeraph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Rob, posted 10-29-2006 10:24 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Rob, posted 10-31-2006 1:20 AM DominionSeraph has not replied
 Message 16 by AdminPD, posted 10-31-2006 5:48 AM DominionSeraph has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 15 of 17 (360020)
10-31-2006 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by DominionSeraph
10-31-2006 1:15 AM


A true seeker deos not worry about image indeed!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by DominionSeraph, posted 10-31-2006 1:15 AM DominionSeraph has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024