A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I thought you said you read Chapter Two. If you did, then why can't you tell me what you gained from it (it's not that difficult to do)? I know I know, the burden is on me to explain this discovery but I want to know what you understand about the chapter, so I would know where to start. Please be honest with me. Did you read it, or did you not?

I've already answered that. Are you calling me a liar? And have you forgotten again that I've already repeatedly given you a full summary of the core argument of Chapter Two (as well as identified for you the key unsupported presuppositions it contains)?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I've already answered that. Are you calling me a liar? And have you forgotten again that I've already repeatedly given you a full summary of the core argument of Chapter Two (as well as identified for you the key unsupported presuppositions it contains)?

I told you that your summary was incomplete. His observations support his conclusions. There were no presuppositions in his demonstration whatsoever. I gave this example earlier: If I observe that apples fall down from trees, and I want to explain this observation to you, who has not observed this because you don't live near any trees, all I'm doing is describing what I see. What am I presupposing here?

[LadyShea]

If I observe that apples fall down from trees, and I want to explain this observation to you, who has not observed this because you don't live near any trees, all I'm doing is describing what I see. What am I presupposing here?

How did he see the workings of human conscience in an environment that has never existed the same way one can see an apple falling off a tree?

Are you really that deluded to think these are at all comparable?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Are you really that deluded to think these are at all comparable?

She probably is, are you surprised?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How did he see the workings of human conscience in an environment that has never existed the same way one can see an apple falling off a tree?

Are you really that deluded to think these are at all comparable?

That's not the point LadyShea. His was an observation just like apples falling from trees, and as such, it was a description of what he saw. There were absolutely no presuppositions. He used the word "presupposition" in his own book. I think he knew what the word meant.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How did he see the workings of human conscience in an environment that has never existed the same way one can see an apple falling off a tree?

Are you really that deluded to think these are at all comparable?

Of course they're comparable. He made an observation just like apples falling down from trees (although it was not as easily seen) and, as such, he was describing what he saw. There were absolutely no presuppositions. He used the word "presupposition" in his own book. I think he knew what the word meant.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He used the word "presupposition" in his own book. I think he knew what the word meant.

Lessans may have known what he thought he meant by the word 'presupposition' but he certainly did not know what everyone else meant by it.

[LadyShea]

lol he used scientific and mathematical to mean undeniable, who knows what he meant when he used presupposition

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course they're comparable. He made an observation just like apples falling down from trees (although it was not as easily seen) and, as such, he was describing what he saw. There were absolutely no presuppositions. He used the word "presupposition" in his own book. I think he knew what the word meant.

Are you serious? It cannot be directly observed, as an apple falling to the ground can be directly observed, because the no blame environment does not exist and has never existed. How could he possible be describing what he saw? The only way to see something that has not existed and does not exist is in one's imagination.

Stop drinking.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that your summary was incomplete.

Summaries are incomplete by definition. That is why they are summaries.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His observations support his conclusions.

In this case, his 'observations' are unsupported presuppositions within the context of his book.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There were no presuppositions in his demonstration whatsoever.

Yes there are. I've already given them to you. Unless you can show me where he gave support for them they remain presuppositions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I gave this example earlier: If I observe that apples fall down from trees, and I want to explain this observation to you, who has not observed this because you don't live near any trees, all I'm doing is describing what I see. What am I presupposing here?

I see you still haven't learned the difference between an observation and a conclusion inductively inferred from observations.

No-one ever directly observes that all apples fall downwards, because no-one ever observes all apples. The most one can do is probabilistically infer that all apples fall downwards on the basis of specific and particular observations of a finite number of specific falling apples.

What you are trying to pass off as Lessans' 'observations' about conscience are universal claims (like the one about all apples) which can never be directly observed. They can only be more or less reliably inferred as probable on the basis of specific direct observations of conscience (equivalent to the observations single specific falling apples).

If Lessans had any such specific direct (rather than inferred) observations that he based his claims about conscience on, then he never shared them. That means no-one has any reason to think that they are correct. And it means that these 'observations' remain presuppositions in his book.

If you tell me all apples fall downwards, I can ask how you know that. Telling me you observed it doesn't work, because you can't observe all apples. But you can tell me you have observed x number of specific apples, all of which fell downwards, from which you reasonably inferred that all apples probably fall downwards.

You can't do the same for Lessans' claims about conscience. He made no real observations, and settled instead for assumptions which he merely asserted as 'undeniable' facts, and presuppositions which he relied upon without even being aware of.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

lol he used scientific and mathematical to mean undeniable, who knows what he meant when he used presupposition

Why are you always being sarcastic? You really are missing out but you're so myopic that you just cannot see the trees from the forest. Your stubborn resistance is not helping you; it's actually preventing you from getting any clarity whatsoever. I will give you the sentence and you'll see he used it correctly. For once, can't you admit you were wrong?

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Five: Premarital Relations pp. 137-138

Premarital relations will come to
a permanent end as well as all adultery and divorce not because this is
morally wrong and man has decided at last to obey the Ten
Commandments, but only because we will be shown how to prevent
our children’s hearts from being broken by love that is not returned.
To have loved and lost may be better than never to have loved at all,
but this is the lesser of two evils and presupposes that there must
always be a contest wherein someone loses and gets hurt.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not the point LadyShea. His was an observation just like apples falling from trees, and as such, it was a description of what he saw. There were absolutely no presuppositions. He used the word "presupposition" in his own book. I think he knew what the word meant.

So what happens if I observe something different?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But there is evidence. You just don't see it yet. So please refrain from turning this into a joke until the verdict is in, which I've politely asked people to stop doing time and again. That isn't asking too much, is it?

I didn't turn anything into a joke. You told the joke. I was just laughing at it. I think that it is asking to much that I should not laugh when you make a funny.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please hear me. If life was so extremely satisfying that we were filled with bliss, could we desire to find a better, more satisfying life somewhere else? The only reason people kill themselves is because something in this world is dissatisfying and to live under the present circumstances is worse, even if it's to sacrifice one's life so that someone else may live. Let me put it another way. If there was heaven on earth, would we need to look to heaven, or some other ethereal place, by killing ourselves, in the hope of finding that happiness that we can't find here?

Your response presupposes facts that are not in evidence. You presuppose that those who commit suicide expect to find a "more satisfying life somewhere else". You offer no evidence to support this claim. You presuppose that those who commit suicide do so not only because they are dissatisfied with some aspect of life, but because that dissastisfaction is so great that they no longer desire to live. Once again, no evidence is offered. You completely ignore the possibility that some of those who commit suicide as an act in the furtherence of some cause may, despite their willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice, still enjoy their lives and have a strong desire to prolong them. Certain moral and ethical considerations may lead some individuals to commit suicide without regard to how they feel about the conditions of their own personal existence.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The only way to see something that has not existed and does not exist is in one's imagination.

You forget that Lessans considered that the ability to imagine some future condition was sufficient evidence for the truth of that future condition. According to Lessans we can demonstrate for ourselves the truth of certain propositions simply by imagining how things would be if those propositions were true. You can test this for yourself. Simply try to imagine yourself striking a first blow in a world where there is no blame.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you always being sarcastic? You really are missing out but you're so myopic that you just cannot see the trees from the forest. Your stubborn resistance is not helping you; it's actually preventing you from getting any clarity whatsoever. I will give you the sentence and you'll see he used it correctly. For once, can't you admit you were wrong?

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Five: Premarital Relations pp. 137-138

Premarital relations will come to
a permanent end as well as all adultery and divorce not because this is
morally wrong and man has decided at last to obey the Ten
Commandments, but only because we will be shown how to prevent
our children’s hearts from being broken by love that is not returned.
To have loved and lost may be better than never to have loved at all,
but this is the lesser of two evils and presupposes that there must
always be a contest wherein someone loses and gets hurt.

Regardless of whether or not Lessans used 'presupposes' correctly, he was incorrect with regard to what the phrase it is better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all actually presupposes. The phrase itself does not presuppose "that there must always be a contest wherein someone loses and gets hurt". That is an egregious misreading. Rather, it presupposes that in those instances where one is faced with the possibility of an unsuccessful outcome it is better to take the chance and lose than it is to not take the chance at all. The point being that when one takes a chance there exists a possibility of achieving one's goal. Whereas, refusing to take a chance guarantees that the goal will not be achieved. Furthermore, the phrase implies that, with regard to love, the value of the experience outweighs both the pain of failure and the lingering sense of regret that may result from the failure to have even made the attempt.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Are you serious? It cannot be directly observed, as an apple falling to the ground can be directly observed, because the no blame environment does not exist and has never existed. How could he possible be describing what he saw? The only way to see something that has not existed and does not exist is in one's imagination.

Stop drinking.

He was describing how conscience works IN A FREE WILL ENVIRONMENT LADYSHEA. You are on probation for that last comment. I'm tired of your little digs. And believe me, I don't care whether we talk again or not.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You forget that Lessans considered that the ability to imagine some future condition was sufficient evidence for the truth of that future condition.

No, that's not what he was saying. He was not saying to imagine some future condition as proof of his knowledge. The truth of our nature was already uncovered. But in order to see this truth, he wanted people to recognize it for themselves. Because we are all part of this law, we can actually see it for ourselves if we place ourselves (in imagination) in the new world environment. There are those who might not be able to imagine how they would feel under changed conditions, but that doesn't change the fact that they would have no choice but to change their ways (if they were acting unscrupulously), once they became citizens of this new world.

This is why he wrote this passage. Maybe reading it again will help you better understand what he meant by "there is a dragon for each person." Do you understand what he means by "fiery dragon"?

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place: pp. 45-46

“That’s just the point. Once it is discovered through
mathematical reasoning that man’s will is definitely not free, then it
becomes impossible to blame an individual for what he is compelled
to do; consequently, it is imperative that we discover a way to prevent
his desire to do the very things for which blame and punishment were
previously necessary, as the lesser of two evils.”

“This new world which looks good, sounds good, and seems
theoretically possible in its blueprint form so far (since you haven’t
shown me yet how to rid the world of war and crime — two most
important items), it may be just another dream, and even if it isn’t,
it took the Greeks two millennium to convince mankind that the
earth was a sphere. Even today, there are still some people who don’t
believe it, so how do you expect people to listen to something that not
only sounds impossible, but is so far removed from contemporary
thought?”

“This is the stumbling block I am faced with.”

“Are you telling me that this discovery, whatever it is, will prevent
man from desiring to commit murder, rape, start a war, annihilate 6
million people, etc., is that right?”

“That’s correct. The corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, when it
is extended does not mean that we will be forced to condone what
hurts us, but we will be shown how to prevent these evils by
mathematically extending the corollary. And the amazing thing is
that both sides of this equation are correct. Christ said, “Turn the
other cheek” and Durant said, “This is impossible.” Just think about
this for one moment. Would you believe that both principles are
mathematically correct?”

“How is that possible?”

“God made the reconciliation of these two principles the time
when He would reveal Himself to all mankind. But to get here you
can see what had to be done first since the paths leading up to this
understanding were camouflaged with layers upon layers of words that
concealed the truth.”

“Is proving that man’s will is not free the key to open the door and
your second discovery?”

“Of course not; I just told you that the fiery dragon must be killed
to get the key. First, I must prove that man’s will is not free so we
can come face to face with the fiery dragon (the great impasse of
blame), and I will prove it in a mathematical, undeniable manner.
Then I shall jab him in the right eye, then the left, then I shall cut
out his tongue. I took fencing lessons for the job. And finally I shall
pierce him in his heart. Then when I have made certain he is dead.”

“I thought you killed him already.”

“I did, but there was a dragon for each person, so instead
of giving everybody a sword; steel is high these days, I shall slay him
so the whole world can see he is dead.” (He was making a joke
about steel being high these days. He did have a sense of humor)

“Do you mean to tell me there is absolutely no way all evil can be
removed from our lives without knowledge of your discovery?”

“That’s absolutely true.”

“Then your discovery must be the most fantastic thing ever
discovered.”

“It truly is because God is showing us the way at last. However,
before I show how it is possible to resolve the implications, it is
necessary to repeat that I will proceed in a step by step manner. This
dragon has been guarding an invisible key and door for many years,
and this could never be made visible except for someone who saw these
undeniable relations.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

According to Lessans we can demonstrate for ourselves the truth of certain propositions simply by imagining how things would be if those propositions were true. You can test this for yourself. Simply try to imagine yourself striking a first blow in a world where there is no blame.

He wanted you to use yourself as a guinea pig in order to see how powerful this law really is. But in order to do this, you must imagine living in a world where you would not be blamed or be held responsible for hurting others even when you know you would be responsible. He wanted you to see how it is impossible to move in this direction; in fact, the very thought of this makes you want to stay as far away from this type of situation as you possibly can (and this applies to everyone) because it can give you no satisfaction whatsoever to hurt others with a first blow when you cannot justify your actions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Regardless of whether or not Lessans used 'presupposes' correctly, he was incorrect with regard to what the phrase it is better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all actually presupposes. The phrase itself does not presuppose "that there must always be a contest wherein someone loses and gets hurt". That is an egregious misreading. Rather, it presupposes that in those instances where one is faced with the possibility of an unsuccessful outcome it is better to take the chance and lose than it is to not take the chance at all. The point being that when one takes a chance there exists a possibility of achieving one's goal. Whereas, refusing to take a chance guarantees that the goal will not be achieved. Furthermore, the phrase implies that, with regard to love, the value of the experience outweighs both the pain of failure and the lingering sense of regret that may result from the failure to have even made the attempt.

That's all true, but there is a presupposition that in order to find love, there is always a risk involved of getting hurt. Sure it's better to have loved and taken the chance of getting hurt than never to have loved at all, but right there is the presupposition that in order to find that love there is always this possibility of having one's heart broken.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was describing how conscience works IN A FREE WILL ENVIRONMENT LADYSHEA. You are on probation for that last comment. I'm tired of your little digs. And believe me, I don't care whether we talk again or not.

What are you talking about? You just moved the goal posts weasel.

"Conscience won't allow us to..." is clearly a future prediction of how conscience will work in the no blame environment.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's all true, but there is a presupposition that in order to find love, there is always a risk involved of getting hurt. Sure it's better to have loved and taken the chance of getting hurt than never to have loved at all, but right there is the presupposition that in order to find that love there is always this possibility of having one's heart broken.

Of course that's always a possibility. Unless you were not heartbroken when your dad died. Or your mom. The poem was written as a requiem for the poet's friend, after all.

There's always the possibility of people making mistakes, of people changing, of diverging paths.

People aren't robots remember?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

People aren't robots remember?

No, in Lessans world they are sex-crazed robots who sleep in seperate beds.

Oh, I just had a thought about the 'Golden age' and Lessans preocupation with sex, this really puts a whole new meaning on Spagetti and meatballs. Oh yuck, now I've got to wash those dirty thoughts out of my mind.

[LadyShea]

And why I am not surprised that neither Lessans nor peacegirl knew or bothered to look up the context of that Tennyson quote.

Grief for a dead friend does not imply, at all, that "there must always be a contest wherein someone loses and gets hurt".

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Your response presupposes facts that are not in evidence. You presuppose that those who commit suicide expect to find a "more satisfying life somewhere else".

Not necessarily Angakuk. Someone may commit suicide because there is some dissatisfaction with the here and now, and they are moving away from this dissatisfaction. It doesn't necessarily mean that they think they will find a more satisfying life somewhere else. It could be one of the motivating factors if this person is miserable. It all depends on the motive of the individual.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You offer no evidence to support this claim.

Because that was not the claim.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You presuppose that those who commit suicide do so not only because they are dissatisfied with some aspect of life, but because that dissastisfaction is so great that they no longer desire to live. Once again, no evidence is offered.

The evidence offered is that the dissatisfaction of living this life (for whatever reason) is greater than the satisfaction of being here. It could be that to save a life is more important than to be in this life, even though being here is not so terrible according to this person, but it still is a movement away from a dissatisfying position, which is to have this person die rather than me.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You completely ignore the possibility that some of those who commit suicide as an act in the furtherence of some cause may, despite their willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice, still enjoy their lives and have a strong desire to prolong them. Certain moral and ethical considerations may lead some individuals to commit suicide without regard to how they feel about the conditions of their own personal existence.

That's absolutely true, but it is done due as that alternative which makes more sense to them. The alternate alternative, which is to live and have others die, is not as satisfying as the choice they are now making, even if it's to end their own life.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And why I am not surprised that neither Lessans nor peacegirl knew or bothered to look up the context of that Tennyson quote.

Grief for a dead friend does not imply, at all, that "there must always be a contest wherein someone loses and gets hurt".

What the hell are you talking about LadyShea when I was referring to a contest where someone loses in love, not friendship.