RoR: Forum

These rules should be posted somewhere permanently on this forum.

On a side note, I'm extremely heartened by the high standards of discourse I've seen on this board. I'm no professional philosopher by any means (surprise!) but witnessing such clarity of writing from my fellow posters is an inspiration.

Bravo SOLOists!

Post 1

Monday, May 17, 2004 - 9:19am

Thanks Eddie!

I agree. I've found that an exceptionally wonderful aspect of this forum (SoloHQ) is that, while the level of critical analysis is high (which is something other sites also offer), so too is the level of passionate, benevolent curiosity and ongoing acknowledgement of virtue and value (it would be surprising for me to find another site that equalled SoloHQ in this regard).

What strikes me as particularly unique here is the simultaneous tolerance of diversity over-arching an undertone of passionate engagement with adversity. I'd call it a "passionate balance," something which is, at first glance, counter-intuitive (ie. Aristotle's Golden Mean - on steroids!).

Ed

Post 2

Monday, May 17, 2004 - 7:51am

Mr. Thompson,

Excellent article! Since having been introduced to the works of Ayn Rand/Objectivism and becoming a 'born again' rational individual, I have longed to improve my debating/persuasion skills. Consequently, I found your article to be both promising and encouraging in that endeavor. I particularly liked your humorous yet apt description of a 'precision junkie'. My only suggestion, or to be more accurate, request, would be to observe your method of persuasion/debating in action perhaps by members of this forum on a current or relevant topic. Topic suggestions anyone?

Matt

Post 3

Monday, May 17, 2004 - 3:26pm

Matthew,

Thanks for the kind, appreciative words! As for your request for a demonstration, there actually already is an application of said treaty pending (if David should sign/accept it) on the Freedom vs Government thread. I appealed to the treaty in response to a deadlock in discussion on the environmental issue. As this is an issue that I am quite familiar with, I will plan to carry out the debate as an exercise (in David's absence), should David fail to respond within a week, or should he fail to commit to the unforgiving stipulations set out by the treaty. Because I'm familiar with both sides, I will argue for both sides - utililizing the steps dictated by the treaty - and we will let the best man win!

Ed

Post 4

Monday, May 17, 2004 - 5:36pm

Ed,

The problem is, everyone is too damn nice to you. Well I intend to fix that.

Regarding Rule #3: particularly this: Appeals to �absolute proof beyond a shadow of a doubt� are rejected outright as a denial of human fallibility ....

In the first place, the purpose of proof is not to convince others, especially in a debate. The purpose of proof is to insure one's own reasoning is correct. I need to understand the nature of proof so I can check my own reasoning, and it does not matter if anyone understands or agrees with my proof, so long as it is correct. (Even if it is incorrect, other's opinions still don't matter.)

More importantly, human fallibility does not exclude proof, "beyond a shadow of a doubt." (What exactly the difference would be between "absolute proof" and plain old vanilla proof I cannot imagine, unless we're talking about the alcohol content of vodka.)

If my honey asks me, "have you seen the cat," and I say, " I think she got into the armoire again. And, as might be expected, she asks, "are your sure?" Without answering, I open the armoire door and out jumps puss. Though my honey is unimpressed, that is proof, "beyond a shadow of a doubt."

The fact is, proof is ubiquitous. We live in a world surrounded and saturated with things proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. It is so common we do not notice. Consider the following list of things, the possibility of which were all once hotly debated by scientists and philosophers--heavier than air flight, painless (anesthetic) surgery, wireless communication, men on the moon, heart transplants, genetic manipulation, sex-changes (which is odd, because birds do it spontaneously), traveling over sixty miles per hour, 100 miles per hour, faster than sound, curing infection with a pill (antibiotics), preventing disease with an injection (vaccination). These are now all proved "beyond a shadow of doubt."

We are constantly proving things to ourselves. Every time we guess we left something somewhere, and find it there when we check, we prove our guess was correct; every time we write a program that we expect to perform a certain way, if it runs that way, we prove it correct; every time we think we have the check-book balanced, the proof is in the next bank statement (one way or the other).

This idea that nothing is ever proved always amazes me. Certainly there are more things we do not know than there are that we do, and certainly there are more things that have not been proved, or even answered tentatively, than there are that have been proved--but in this world, more things have been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt than any individual will ever know.

However, in a discussion or a debate, for anyone to demand, "proof," is bit disingenuous. Even if proof is provided, it does not mean the one demanding it will understand it, or, if they understand it, that they will not just refuse to accept it. If you can provide the proof for something, by all means provide it, but do not expect or assume your proof will be accepted by anyone else, even if it is correct.

Human infallibility only means we are capable of making mistakes; it does not mean we can only make mistakes. The fact that humans are not omniscient only means we cannot know everything, it does not mean we cannot know anything. In fact, important mistakes are rare (with the exception of governments, which only get things right, if ever they do, by accident) and the accumulated knowledge of humans cannot even be calculated.

As regards rules, for discussion or anything else, I personally have no use them. Rules are fine, for other people.

A more serious question, Ed. Do you really think discussion in a debate should really be syllogistic? I may be wrong, but I suspect that would make debaters on SOLO very scarce. Maybe there should be a poll question, "do you know what a syllogism is?" How about a "minor premise?" a "major premise?" What is a "term?" how many are there in a syllogism? and why must the middle one be distributed (but not appear in the conclusion)?

I do know one thing, learning formal logic will improve the quality of anyone's reasoning. For one thing, they will know what the word, "truth," means. It is amazing how many, "Objectivists," don't.

Regi

Post 5

Monday, May 17, 2004 - 7:51pm

Regi,

First of all, thanks for your response. I realize that Rule 3 is not currently acceptible to you. In retort, you use a reasoning style grounded in common-sense and understanding; and I must applaud you for that.

You may notice that this style, this: "C'mon man, can't you see the larger picture?"-style happens to be the very same style that I used on you regarding the issue of pandering to "precision-junkie" pseudo-philosophers who cry that if you don't have a complete mechanistic understanding of the process of perception, then perception is not unquestionably valid (ie. that anything not completely understood yet, must necessarily be not completely justified as true yet, or not even real yet!).

Before I address your criticisms more specifically, I would like to specify the context a little with a paraphrase from M Adler (to help you to identify my train of thought here):

"Wisdom is understanding first principles and final ends"

With this in my mind, that one needs to understand the purpose of something before one can evaluate that thing as a good or a bad "thing," I am now confident that I can address your criticisms without muddying the waters even more (you now know explicitly, although not yet precisely, that what I was aiming at - my end in mind before the pen hit the paper - is the ultimate justification for the specific actions that I took).

I need to understand the nature of proof so I can check my own reasoning, and it does not matter if anyone understands or agrees with my proof, so long as it is correct. (Even if it is incorrect, other's opinions still don't matter.)

Yes Regi, I agree with the first sentence (that proof establishes the facts of reality, which hold regardless of the beliefs, desires, and limited perspectives of others). However, there is illuminative value in keeping in mind that part in my essay where I noted that it was made to be accepted by the common reasonable man (who - after seeing reason's power, but not before doing so - may come to think as you do).

Your second sentence in parentheses brings up a word that sheds light on my final end or purpsose for issuing a treaty in the first place - ie. opinion. This is a word that deserves to be understood more adequately as far as it's origin and validity as a concept in general is concerned, an also as concept with specific uses, as of when we speak of someone's reasoning as being an opinion, or not an opinion.

Overall, I notice that your quote above uses the words "proof" and "reasoning" when you are talking about your side of the argument, and then, when talking of the "another's side" of the argument - you use the word "opinion." This word and it's use by you here is not inconsequential to your criticism of my essay - indeed, it's central to it!

Regi, is there something in reality that you can refer to with evidence-based reasoning(besides several cases where you were reasoning and others were opining) to justify this inference of yours that opponents in debate with you will necessarily be using opinion while you are necessarily utilizing keen and flawless reasoning?

Regi, this is my purpose: if you are indeed justified in this distinction in any given case, then let's make it transparent to all reasonable persons by dissecting the anatomy of the argument down into pieces and parts that all reasonable persons can digest. While you seem happy to be right, even if not understood; I would prefer to be both right AND understood (I admit I have much to gain from the rationality of others). This is what I meant with my world-changing prophetics: "world peace, lasting joy..." This treaty can serve as a bridge between objectivist principles and the common reasonable person, making Objectivist principles more contagious in society.

My injunction would be: Show them what it means to have a solid argument about something. Everybody will ultimately want the peace of mind and lack of fear that only come from understanding who you are, where you are, and what to do - but only after they discover the value of rationality, only after witnessing it before their very eyes. In sum, the propagation of the value of rationality was the purpose of the treaty. The treaty is like a magnifying glass that allows even the most short-sighted individuals to identify the value of rationality.

Even if proof is provided, it does not mean the one demanding it will understand it, or, if they understand it, that they will not just refuse to accept it. If you can provide the proof for something, by all means provide it, but do not expect or assume your proof will be accepted by anyone else, even if it is correct.

Regi, I understand that thinking errors are ubiquitous - but that's the very reason for a formal "equalizer" or a standard of "right thinking." Also, I would like to criticize you for taking a somewhat nihilistic view regarding the essence of idea trading, discovery, and learning from others. People can learn to be better idea-traders, Regi. As reservoirs of unique mixtures of knowledge, they represent a potential value to us (as long as they learn to be rational in dealing with us).

And if - like you say - some will not bend their will to reason and reality, then all the better that we've exposed them by verifying that they either do indeed understand the issue (because the treaty commits them to understanding both sides) and simply choose not to care about truth, understanding, and human progress; or that they are not willing to expend effort in virtue of the truth, understanding, and human progress that is possible in the context. In both cases, it helps for rational people to know how "resistant to reason" incalcitrant others actually are (it allows us to know exactly where they stand in the hierarchy of our values).

A more serious question, Ed. Do you really think discussion in a debate should really be syllogistic? I may be wrong, but I suspect that would make debaters on SOLO very scarce.

Regi, I acknowledge the entertainment value of using glib, colorful language and what I call "roller-coaster reasoning" and I would never suggest that we do away with them for the majority of rational discourse (c'mon Regi, you yourself have commented on how I sometimes tend to spice-up my reasoning with flavorful verbiage - not foliage! - to make it more palatible or interesting!).

In short, the treaty is the antidote for deadlocked discussions, and that is where (and ONLY where) its value lies. You yourself commented on its need with the following quote:

I do know one thing, learning formal logic will improve the quality of anyone's reasoning. For one thing, they will know what the word, "truth," means. It is amazing how many, "Objectivists," don't.

No offense taken or meant,

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 5/17, 8:00pm)

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 5/17, 8:06pm)

Post 6

Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 6:08am

Regi,

Further clarifications:

Regarding absolute proof/truth (invariant truth - free of context)
Regi, I recognize that knowledge (including axiomatic concepts) is invariant truth, and therefore, true beyond the shadow of a doubt. This differentiates knowledge from opinions - which are only probably true or false. And most importantly, the context determines whether what one is talking about is a matter of fact or a matter of opinion (and it makes no sense to argue for your opinions when the issue is not a matter of opinion, but instead a matter of fact).

Perhaps I should have been more clear: Recognizing that many arguments are merely about a matter of fact - and only masquerading as a matter of opinion - all the while leaving room for those discussions regarding actual matters of opinion, I opted for the standard suitable to EITHER type of argument. However, after reading your retort, I fear I may have sown my own seeds of destruction (have I shaken the psycho-epistemological foundations of truth and proof with Rule 3?).

I am open to suggestions for revision, but please keep in mind the grand purpose of the treaty (it was not meant merely to be a review of the "Syllogisms chapter" from a philosophy textbook).

Also, one further point. Human motivation requires 3 ingredients: Confidence, Utility, and Value. I said something contradictory in my post above. Either the the value of the treaty is found in promoting rationality or resolving deadlocked disputes (I can't have it both ways). The solution that resolves these apparently contradictory views is this:

-The Value aimed at is Rand's view of conflict-free interests due to widespread propagation of rationality in society. And of course recognizing that this will only come from the INDIVIDUAL successes that INDIVIDUALS witness.

The Utility (the "perceptually-evident instrumentality" that provides the "Confidence" needed for one to be thus motivated) is found in the resolution of formerly deadlocked disputes. Depending on a given level of evidence and reasoning, different disputes are considered by different folks to be at a current impasse. Some of us can look back on past disputes that we've found real resolution to - but notice that less-experienced others still struggle with it ($64,000 question: what is one to do about this?).

The Confidence stems from above (from recognizing utility because you've witnessed it).

Ed

Post 7

Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 9:27am

Hi Ed,

I'm through with not being nice. Thanks for being so reasonable with my unreasonableness.

The only "objection" I actually have is to the specific phrase, "Appeals to 'absolute proof beyond a shadow of a doubt' are rejected outright as a denial of human fallibility ...," even though I know your intention was in the context of an argument, and means demands for proof are unreasonable. I have a strong aversion to anything that casts doubt on certainty and proof.

Personally, I do not care about "rules of engagement," but have no objection to anyone else using them if it will help them enjoy or find more useful whatever their rules pertain to.

Some very brief comments, and I'll get off your thread before someone accuses me of "hijacking" it.

I use the word opinion only to mean whatever view one holds, true or untrue, right or wrong. There is no reason why someone's opinion cannot be based on "keen and flawless reasoning."

With regard to my "nihilistic view regarding the essence of idea trading," and your contention, others represent, "reservoirs of unique mixtures of knowledge, they represent a potential value to us ...:" you may be right. But in the market of ideas, I am very old fashioned. I am not interested in buying, or even looking at, merchandise that "might" be of value--it is buying a "pig-in-a-poke," who knows, it might be of value. My resources are limited, I only buy what I already know is of value, and it is not my business in the market to make sure all the vendors are successful.

On syllogisms: Even syllogisms can be couched in rhetoric. My point was, must people do not even know what a syllogism is. Your rules of engagement are not going to be much use to those who do not even know the essential principles of sound reason.

You went back to opinions: "This differentiates knowledge from opinions - which are only probably true or false." Why can one's opinion not be based on knowledge?

[Curious--what is the source of, "Human motivation requires 3 ingredients: Confidence, Utility, and Value." I certainly do not agree with it. Does it mean "human motivation should require... or, without these there is no human motivation?]

Thank you for making your reasoning and intentions clear. I wish you success.

Regi

Post 8

Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 3:59pm

Regi,

"The only "objection" I actually have is to the specific phrase, "Appeals to 'absolute proof beyond a shadow of a doubt' are rejected outright as a denial of human fallibility ...," even though I know your intention was in the context of an argument,� and means demands for�proof are unreasonable."

Well, perhaps a wording change - or a qualification - is in order to address this. I'll work on this. Again, thanks for criticizing it!

"On syllogisms: Even syllogisms can be couched in rhetoric. My point was, must people do not even know what a syllogism is. Your rules of engagement are not going to be much use to those who do not even know the essential principles of sound reason."

Regi, Regi, Regi ... can I call you "Regi the Realist"? You sure are a sober fellow! In retort, while syllogisms can be couched in rhetoric, mutual evaluation and the comparative analysis of alternative syllogisms will make rhetoric transparent and educate the opponents of the debate (this is like a free market educating the individual). In sum, people will eventually learn to play by my rules! ;-)

"You went back to opinions: "This differentiates knowledge from opinions - which are only probably true or false." Why can one's opinion not be based on knowledge?"

Answer: Opinions can be based on knowledge. When probability enters the picture (because a rational mind focused on it), then some opinions will be rightly judged as better opinions than other opinions.

For instance, I invented a game called the 2-Headed Monster: you flip a coin twice; and if you get heads twice, I'll double your money (you lose your bet on all other outcomes). If you were of the opinion that you could make a lot of money off of me by playing my game, then I could say (before witnessing any outcomes) that you have a wrong opinion on the matter.

My opinion is the right opinion - and I can prove it because of indirect knowledge - repeated play will converge on [25% wins] vs [75% losses] for you (note: direct knowledge here would be witnessing outcomes). If you were insistent on "proving me wrong" by repeated playing my game, then I would simply slip away to put a downpayment on a brand-new Ferrari - and then come back and let you work this thing out of your system!

"[Curious--what is the source of, "Human motivation requires 3 ingredients: Confidence, Utility, and Value." I certainly do not agree with it. Does it mean "human motivation should require... or, without these there is no human motivation?]"

Regi, this theory of motivation (which qualitatively encompasses other theories, by the way) is attributed to Victor Vroom. An overview is available at (cut & paste if hyperlink doesn't work):

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/1650/htmlexpectancy.html

Regi, if - after viewing the page above - you are still not convinced, please feel free to "hijack" this thread and tell me why (my understanding of motivation supports the validity of my essay above - it is, in fact, a crucial aspect providing a standard of evaluation for its potential value).

Ed

Post 9

Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 10:36pm

Matt,

When I was younger and much more naive (last year), I attempted to use a preliminary version of this treaty in debate with the intelligent and articulate Mr Stolyarov. It is found in the article archive as Stolyarov's first submission. His title for the article was: An Objectivist Condemnation of Abortion.

-The relevant posts for an introduction are 60, 61, and 79. The relevant page corresponding to these 3 posts (see very top and very bottom of page) is:

http://www.solohq.com/Forum/ArticleDiscussions/0310_3.shtml

[may need to copy & paste]

Stolyarov's direct replies are 83 and 84 (next page forward)

My somewhat indirect, but colorful retorts - found on next page forward - are 111 and 119 (again, I was 'much' younger then, and had less discipline in my thinking! - also keep in mind that we are over 100 posts; enough to break the spirit of debate for most thinkers)

http://www.solohq.com/Forum/ArticleDiscussions/0310_5.shtml

P.S. I would welcome comments on this evidence regarding the treaty's utility in debate.

Post 10

Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 6:22am

Ed,

Regi, Regi, Regi ... can I call you "Regi the Realist"?

Oh yes, you may call me anything you like. It's certainly a lot more benign than other things I've been called. Being called names is like being talked about--as Oscar Wilde observed, the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about--the only thing worse than not being called names is to be considered so insipid, innocuous, and uninteresting, you are called nothing.

You sure are a sober fellow!

I admit, I've never been called that before. It is pretty much precluded by my fondness for martinis, ale, and bonded bourbons, not simultaneously, of course, but frequently in series.

I did look at your resource on "motivation." It is a kind of "workplace" idea of motivation, not a theory of motivation itself, it seems to me. Even at that, it is simplistic. For example, it leaves out entirely those very frequent motivations of people who just enjoy an activity for its own sake, and would do it without any other reward.

Sometime we can discuss my own interpretation of the Objectivist theory of motivation, which begins with desire. It is not simple, however, and I do not have time for that now. It is an interesting and large subject and possibly deserves a thread of its own.

Regi

Post 11

Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 1:59pm

Regi,

First of all, I've solved the conundrum with regard to Rule 3 (by spotting my own miscommunications above in post 6 - regarding absolute / invariant truth). The problematic "appeal" in Rule 3 is actually worded correctly (it's the context that allows for misconception).

The issue is between the word "absolute" and what I was "implying" by using it where I did (by not-not leaving it out; e.g. ~ ~ P). In this statement of irrational appeals, I was deliberately omitting that "proof beyond doubt" that IS relative to context (I had forgotten that I "hadn't forgot" to do this!).

So, for clarification: what is absolute is not relative to context (although we can be absolutely sure about how a truth-value tracks within a context!). When folks are demanding "absolute" proof (e.g. the opposite must be "unthinkable" to them), they commit themselves to either solipsism or mysticism, 2 extremes that are fundamentally irrational.

To my knowledge, only axioms appear to be absolutely true (invariant - free of context).

It is pretty much precluded by my fondness for martinis, ale, and bonded bourbons, not simultaneously, of course, but frequently in series.

So, you admit that these drinks are at least temporally related to each other! Just don't forget about the Conceptual Common Denominator (hint: it must be present in SOME quantity, but may be present in ANY quantity - in all of the above)! Failure to integrate this point could result in obnoxious behavior. Perhaps a drink could be named after you: the FireHammer (sounds like a drink with a little zip to it)!

Sometime we can discuss my own interpretation of the Objectivist theory of motivation

A thread on motivation sounds good.

Ed

Post 12

Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 1:24pm

Ed,

Thank you for the links and references to your debate with Mr. Stolyarov last summer. Indeed, I appreciated being able to read and see various aspects of your "rules of engagement..." in an actual debate. I particularly liked your "best" and "worst" case scenarios for the furturistic year 2050. They were quite clever, and of course by 100 posts or more for a particular thread/debate a certain degree (or would it be a futuristic potentiality?) of humor is desired and arguably necessary to stay sane.

Matt

Post 13

Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 3:37pm

Hi Ed,

Just out of curiosity, do you think absolute certainty, with the exception of axioms, is only possible within a specific context? (Sounds like logical positivism to me.)

(I started a long comment here, but decided to save it for another discussion.)

So, you admit that these drinks are at least temporally related to each other! Just don't forget about the Conceptual Common Denominator (hint: it must be present in SOME quantity, but may be present in ANY quantity - in all of the above)! Failure to integrate this point could result in obnoxious behavior.

I could only accept a statement like that if you can provide absolute proof.

Perhaps a drink could be named after you: the FireHammer (sounds like a drink with a little zip to it)!

Sadly, there already is one, and it's an insipid girly drink. (I don't mean to offend the girls, I'm rather fond of them; my honey happens to be one. She'd probably like this drink.)

Firehammer
Ingredients:

1 1/2 jigger Vodka
1/2 oz Amaretto
1/2 oz Triple sec
1 splash Lemon juice, freshly squeezed

Mixing instructions: combine with ice in shaker strain into cocktail glass

I think I should sue someone for that insult.

A thread on motivation sounds good.

Good. I would be interested. Maybe we can get Don to start it (and then hijack it).

Regi

Post 14

Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 8:58pm

Matt,

Thank you for the links and references to your debate with Mr. Stolyarov last summer. Indeed, I appreciated being able to read and see various aspects of your "rules of engagement..." in an actual debate.

No problem. I still intend to provide another example however. As you could tell (you apparently read from post 60 onward!) even I had trouble sticking to my guns regarding that earlier version of the treaty.

I plan to "run" both sides of the environmentalist debate through the process first, and see what it "spits out" (using SOLOs archives for empirically existent premises from both sides). Then I have something even bigger planned ... ;-)

by 100 posts or more for a particular thread/debate a certain degree (or would it be a futuristic potentiality?) of humor is desired and arguably necessary to stay sane.

Yes, that outta' be an axiom! Thanks for your interest in the capacity for rationality to change currently-difficult things, Matt - it's a pleasure and an inspiration.

Ed

Post 15

Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 10:06pm

Regi,

Just out of curiosity, do you think absolute certainty, with the exception of axioms, is only possible within a specific context? (Sounds like logical positivism to me.)

First of all, it's positively not positivism (I can't believe it, I'm actually offended by that integration!). You know as well as I do (just 'psychologizing' there - and here...) in fact, you know darn well that LPs (Logical Positivists, Lost Philosophers, whatever!) evade the certainty inherent to a substantial metaphysics. You were s'posed to integrate without contradiction, Regi! Gee-whiz, and I had thought that you knew that simple fact!

More seriously, please re-state your question above as a statement aimed at linking positivism to the words that you used (I really don't follow your reasoning as stated).

Failure to integrate this point could result in obnoxious behavior.

I could only accept a statement like that if you can provide absolute proof.

Regi, do I have to remind you that I am a part-time pedantic (have you ever locked horns with a pedantic before - they are tough as nails!)? Fine here's your absolute proof:

1. the statement is characterized as a "particular affirmative" (single example needed for absolute proof) due to the use of the word "could" and

2. my example is my own failure to read the drink menu and to subsequently experience a "One and You're Done" (a drink containing 9 shots of hard liquor) as my 4th (and final) drink of the night ... or was it day ... alas, the moment escapes me!

A thread on motivation sounds good.

Good. I would be interested. Maybe we can get Don to start it (and then hijack it).

Regi, no official comment (but I did laugh so hard that it made my eyes water).
Ed

Post 16

Thursday, May 20, 2004 - 9:23pm

Ed,

I yield! You are ruthless and implacable. Do you have no compassion at all?

First of all, it's positively not positivism (I can't believe it, I'm actually offended by that integration!).

Of course it isn't. I do not recall the hour when I wrote that ridiculous accusation (it makes a difference--its a function of the "proof" matter, time vs. quantity, or something.) But, maybe it is not certain you "can't" believe you are offended by the integration; maybe you only doubt it, by 2%, which would mean you are actually 98% certain [which would be 196 proof].

You know as well as I do (just 'psychologizing' there - and here...) in fact, you know darn well that LPs (Logical Positivists, Lost Philosophers, whatever!) evade the certainty inherent to a substantial metaphysics.

Oh yes! Of course I know it as well as you do. I know all about that stuff, like, ah, substantial metaphysics. But what about insubstantial metaphysics, huh? You forgot about that, didn't you?

And, BTW, I do not mind your psychologizing there, but when you start doing it here, that gets to be a little personal, and personally I would rather leave personalities out of these discussion--assuming you run into someone who actually has a personality.

More seriously, please re-state your question above as a statement aimed at linking positivism to the words that you used

I"m sorry...well not really sorry, but I had to say something; anyway, I'm not very good at taking orders. My question is, ARE YOU REALLY SERIOUS?

(I really don't follow your reasoning as stated)

That makes two of us.

Failure to integrate this point could result in obnoxious behavior.

Well, speak for yourself, Ed. Personally, I am perfectly capable of obnoxious behavior without any special conditions being met.

Regi, do I have to remind you that I am a part-time pedantic

Well, to be precise, and we must always be precise, you cannot remind me, because I never knew it before. And you know, as well as I do, there is no such thing as a "part-time," pedantic. I mean, you are one are you are not. A is A. Did you ever hear of a "part-time kangaroo?"

(have you ever locked horns with a pedantic before - they are tough as nails!)?

What a lovely metaphorical stew; but of course, you are right. If you've eaten your stew, you can't have your cake too.

Now for your "proof":

1. the statement is characterized as a "particular affirmative" (single example needed for absolute proof) due to the use of the word "could" and

2. my example is my own failure to read the drink menu and to subsequently experience a "One and You're Done" (a drink containing 9 shots of hard liquor) as my 4th (and final) drink of the night ... or was it day ... alas, the moment escapes me!

I have not doubt that your proof is correct. I just don't care one way or the other.

Several years ago, my wife and I used to go to this marvelous Pizzaria Uno in Raleigh, North Carolina. There was some particular day when they featured Long Island ice tea for four bucks. Those drinks must have included at least 10 shots of hard liquor. They were served in glasses you would expect a milk-shake in.

[Long Island Ice Tea

1 part Vodka
1 part Tequila
1 part Rum
1 part Gin
1 part Triple Sec
1 1/2 parts Sweet and Sour Mix
1 splash Coca-Cola]

My wife and I both ride hogs. North Carolina is ideal for motorcycles, but when we went out in the evening, my wife preferred to ride on the back of my bike, and that is how we always went to Pizzaria Uno, which was just about once a week, on the night they featured Long Island ice tea.

I can recall every one of those marvelous rides in the cool of the Carolina evening, the smell of the honeysuckle heavy in the air and the wonderful times we had, relaxing and enjoying our meals and drinks, which almost always included a large draft ale (served in a huge pilsner glasses) with some appetizer, followed by Long Island ice teas with our meal. Funny thing is, I remember everyone of those wonderful rides to the restaurant, but I don't remember any of the rides home.

[Oh yes, that particular Pizzaria Uno went bankrupt.]

Since you seem to be hot on integrating things, you might be interested in these important philosophical facts:

The comedian, Joey Brown, used to say (when he was alive), "I feel sorry for people who don't drink. They know when they get up in the morning, that is the best they are going to feel all day."

Ayn Rand did not drink, because, according to her friends, she did not like the way it made her feel.

It has always seemed to me, there must be some profound philosophical truth hidden in these obviously contradicting subjective opinions, but I have never been able to integrate them in a way that would reveal that truth. Perhaps one more Wild Turkey will provide the inspiration.

By the way, my wife and I no longer drink Long Island ice tea. We are 98% [186 proof] certain, they make us feel much too well. Besides, Manhattans are much more elegant than anything that comes form Long Island.

Regi

Post 17

Friday, May 21, 2004 - 8:08pm

Regi,

You have proven 3 points beyond reasonable doubt:

1) You are an exceptional pedant.

2) You have an uncanny ability to operate a 2-wheeled motor vehicle while your reflexes and reasoning skills are seriously hampered.

3) You are a hard man to integrate without contradiction (rest assured I'll let you know if I'm ever successful in this endeavor)!

Ed

Post 18

Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 7:47pm

Regi,

Would you please review the changes made to Rule #3 above (re: final appeals) and then let me know what you think? I'd appreciate your input on this matter.

P.S. Feedback from others is welcomed, as well.

Ed

Post 19

Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 6:05pm