Cleric K wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 11:04 am
Apanthropinist wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 9:46 am
Cleric K wrote: ↑Sun May 02, 2021 10:41 pm
My posts to you point attention to something very concrete.
I would agree, they contain a lot of fallacies. You must address the fallacies before we can go anywhere because all an argument needs to fail is one bad premise. No one needs to do anything else after that. The burden is yours as it is you who have made the claim and must either defend it or abandon it.
A false premise exposes an unsound argument.
Cleric K wrote: ↑Sun May 02, 2021 10:41 pm
OK, I'll not call it 'spiritual' activity, as this seems to produce sparks.
You don't know what it produces in me, you are assuming it must be because I have challenged it. This is philosophy, it doesn't matter whether I have sparks or lightning bolts or fits of weeping. It's about argument. So it would be wise for you to abandon implied attempts at Psychogenic Fallacy (If you learn the psychological reason why your opponent likes/dislikes an argument, then he's biased, so his argument must be wrong.
It is irrelevant.).
You must also define your terms clearly and stick to them, your terms must be valid. You simply cannot change the words to suit what you want, "OK, I'll call it something else." because then it is something else. What you must not do is equivocate. Your term must mean what it means, not mean something else. You must demonstrate why it means what it means and cannot mean something else.
It may be annoying but those are the rules and methods of philosophy. If you wish for your argument to succeed then you must apply and follow them.
So perhaps if you tidy up your essay, define your terms properly first and then do all the other necessary things to ensure your argument ends up with valid premises and a conclusion that follows, then you may have a valid and sound argument. One of the best ways to do that is to stand back from your opinion, try to disinvest yourself, and become your own worst opponent and see where you can attack your premises and the logic of your argument. Mercilessly.
What you cannot do, if you wish to succeed, is insist that people see it your way or that there is something faulty with people's view or their understanding. It's irrelevant, a valid and sound argument succeeds in its own right. What is important about a sound argument is that you have no choice but to agree with it. Sound arguments put an end to all possible debate and discussion. They are the ultimate debate-stoppers.
Then you can move forward. Rather than going round in circles as is happening presently.
OK. I take note of everything you said. Can we now consider the
actual argument from my previous post?
Cleric K wrote: ↑Sun May 02, 2021 10:41 pm
The point is that according to direct observation, when we trace the roots of what we call knowing, we reach thinking. Thinking is the activity of knowing. All philosophical or any other judgment is already application of thinking. Subject, object, inner, outer world, mind, matter, etc. - all these are already products of thinking. None of these are given as hard truths of reality. What is given is an amalgamation of perceptions that are being confronted and worked upon by thinking. Only then we begin to recognize the spectrum of perceptions, we sort them into domains, one we call color, other sound, yet others feeling, will, smell, we divide the world into inner and outer, etc. Through thinking we make these distinctions by attaching the corresponding concepts and investigating the relations and interactions. For example if I visually see a pin pressing into my finger I also experience the feeling of pain. I can grasp this relation with thinking as the idea for the connection between sharp objects pressing in my body and pain.
I would encourage you to take further note of what I said at the end of my prior post to you, as it is fairly unequivocal: '
Then you can move forward. Rather than going round in circles as is happening presently.'
What can then be legitimately considered, is that anyone on this forum, who chooses to do so, can read your amended essay which adheres to
philosophical rules, principals and methods. The same rules, principals and methods that Kastrup or any other philosopher and the claims they make, adhere to. Otherwise it is a disingenuous attempt to insulate and immunise your claims from
legitimate philosophical criticisms or attacks.
Please remember "
What is important about a sound argument is that you have no choice but to agree with it. Sound arguments put an end to all possible debate and discussion. They are the ultimate debate-stoppers."
Naturally you are under no obligation whatsoever and if you choose to let your essay remains
as is, then your essay is essentially theologically oriented and that is a different domain to rational metaphysics philosophy.
There isn't anything else than
can be said without adding to yet more Argument Ad Nauseam.