How that is a response to my post is unclear to me . .. perhaps you could elaborate.

Thoughts are conveyed in words here. Individual responses are based on what those words prompt in each particular responder's thoughts. How the exchange of thoughts will roll from then on is up to the participants. "Groundless" to me may actually be the result of a foreign concept I simply cannot comprehend in my scope of thought process. I may state this as "groundless", yet I do not give my reasoning of my own inability to comprehend. To some, I may be insulting their thought process with my mere wording. Hence a shoe has been thrown. If I had simply said, I cannot wrap my brain around the thought you are trying to convey at this time. Another poster may come in and describe this foreign concept from another angle, one my brain recognizes, then understanding will become clear to me.

AD infintium ad nauseum.

Ab...



Do I really need to elaborate?

Nobody in particular was addressed, but creative took it upon himself to catch that particular shoe, asking to prove that it fits.

Jeremy, I was asking this question to Creative in order to confirm if this is the way he felt. IN AN ATTEMPT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT HE IS FEELING AND SAYING.



I don't think that there is any such rule and if there is, I don't see how it can be policed since everyone makes judgments. I believe the rule is against flaming and attacking a person. WHICH I HAVE NOT DONE-- PERIOD.

Having an opinion cannot possibly be against the rules and could not possibly be policed. I do not see where I have broken any of these rules. Creative is ultra sensitive to anyone making any assessments, or assumptions about him or about anything he says.

He appears to me to be attempting to create a wall of protection around himself so that no one dare speak their mind to him lest they be accused of assuming something or making some wrong assessment of what he is trying to say or why he is saying it or about him personally And yet he has implied that I am just not intelligent enough to understand him and he could find someone else to talk to who would understand.

I am trying to understand him. I keep trying. I have not been successful yet. I feel he is just playing mind games and word games.

Secondly, if there is indeed a rule that tells me I cannot assess the person behind the words... you can count me out of this forum. I will not be controlled to that extent.

Words come from people. People have agendas. People have egos. People have feelings. You cannot ignore all of those things and play a game of words that insult others and then claim innocence and misunderstanding and start spouting rules about getting personal. Human communication and interaction does not work that way. If you want to debate go to a debate site that is judged and moderated.

This whole conversation has gone from absurd to ridiculous.

That is a good response. "I cannot wrap my brain around the thought you are trying to convey."

Other responses would be:

I don't understand your point.
That went way over my head.
That does not make any sense to me.
That does not seem logical to me.
Would you please explain what that means to you?


etc etc. etc.

I agree wholeheartedly.

There is nothing wrong with saying 'I don't understand, please explain'.

But here it is mostly 'You are wrong because I see it differently'.

IMHO that is not the way it works now, and never will.

If we don't open our minds to different concepts we will be stuck in a rut for all our lives.

I have tried that on occasion, but the explanation was often harder to understand than the original statement.

Exactly.

Let's face it. The whole thing boils down to one person who demands that everyone provide "proof" that their shoes fit.

He demands that no 'groundless thoughts' be permitted.

I'm not out to prove anything.

Just like in his thread on "Is thought unspoken language?"

My response to the question was simply no, I don't feel that it is. He questioned that, and then demanded that all thought must be language.

So I attempted to give him my 'grounds' for my view simply becasue he was rejecting my view and asserting that only his answer to the question can possibly be true. So I was attempting to share my reasoning. My grounds for coming to a different conclusion.

Then he rejects my very reasoning as being invalid reasoning telling me that I'm only kidding myself.

He continues to demand that only his conlclusions make any sense.

He's trying to PROVE that his view is absolutely correct, and my view is utterly groundless.

I should have just walked out of that thread right then and there is what I should have done.

It all came down to him trying to prove that only his assertions hold water and all other views are 'groundless'.

I finally did give up and leave the thread.

What does he do?

He starts a thread requesting a forum rule be made that no 'groundless thoughts' be permitted because they aren't valid philosophy.

As far as I'm concerned he never made a sound or convincing case for his own views. It appeared to me that his arugments just deteriorated into the semantic mumbo jumbo that Feynman suggested they would.

I never told him that his views are invalid. All I did was suggest that they don't hold water for me and I prefer to have a different view. I even tried to explain why I felt this was a sound view to take as well.

I wasn't denying him his view. I was never demanding that he had to accept my view. I wasn't trying to 'prove' my view to him.

I was simply attempting to justfiy the 'grounds' for my view that he was demanding were 'ungrounded'.

But he kept rejecting my grounds as being 'invalid' and only kidding myself.

Well, pee on him.

That's all I can say.

I hope that's not considered to be a personal attack. It's just how I feel at this point.

I don't care what he wants to believe. I don't demand that he accept my views. But he seems to be demanding that I accept his. He wants to claim that his assertions cannot be logically denied because they are so "well-grounded".

Well, I disagree. I think his logic fell all apart and was entirely dependent on semantics that he couldn't even get to work.

That's my view.

I never asked him to prove his view in the first place. All I was trying to do was offer why I don't feel the same way. I have a different answer for the question he posed and I like my answer. If no one else wants to accept my view that's fine with me. I'm not out to prove that it's absolutely true. I never even claimed any such thing.

But it's totally wrong of him to claim that my view is 'groundless' and that his view is somehow built on irrefutable logic. I didn't see his irrefutable logic. All I saw was a bunch of empty semantic mumbo jumbo that didn't appear to even hold water from my perspective.

But if that's his view, then more power to him. I never asked him to prove his view to me. All I tried to do was give him the reasons for my views, which he kept rejecting as being invalid and impossible.

Check out unified-universe.com It may add further insight to a logical or illogical universe.

While I have some opinions which I have shared privately, I emphatically agree with Bushido's comments here:



The arguments that ensue are contrary to the purpose of the forums, they don't contribute to the discussion of ideas, they create antagonism and... they feed the trolls.

There are many things being said which I agree with, but which do not belong in the forums.

My last post was not intended as criticism directed at an person or people - I'm just expressing my opinion about 'how things ought to be'.

(I am very sympathetic to the frustration which motivates some of the comments which Bushido or others may perceive as inappropriate).

You are right invisible...

This is beyond laughable.

Invisible,

Over the past two years I have received many private emails from people who express opinions/feelings/experiences very similar to some of those you express in this thread.

You are not alone, and by speaking up as you are, I believe you are speaking up for many others.

There are so many who want to tell their side of the story here, some who want to tell another's side for them, and among other things of which I am surely unaware, some - like me - who just want to talk about the importance of logical grounds in a philosophy forum/discussion.

If a claim makes logical sense then let us show how, if not then let us show why...

This has turned into a free-for-all for self-justification of personal judgement.

It is a disgrace.

I am quoting my own post from PAGE 1...

it seems to fit on page 8 as well...but I am very tired tonight so maybe I am wrong...

lighthouse...

That is a good response to what is going on, and it could further a discussion about grounds...



I so like that.

It is so relevant here. In order to understand anything, one must know something, or at least think that they do. The accuracy of the understanding depends completely upon the accuracy of that which grounds the understanding.

In order for one to truly understand their own thoughts, they must be able to get to the underlying grounds from which those thoughts have grown.

That's fine to a point!

It's perfectly fine to offer reasons why you feel your claims make logical sense to you.

It's perfectly fine to allow others to give their reasons why they feel their views make logical sense to them (or maybe they perfer intutive reasons or personal experience over logic. That shouldn't be shunned either).

Where the line is crossed is when you demand a resolution.

You want to take it to an END. You want to resolve the conversation into a showdown (or logical debate) where someone's view is shown to be "logically correct" and the other person's views is shown to be "logically false" in some utterly absolute fashion.

Now you're probably going to accuse me of claiming to know what you want.

But if that's not what you're saying by demanding that no 'groundless thoughts' be permitted in the philosophy forum, as well as by your very quote above, then exactly what are you trying to say?

Because it sure sounds like you are demanding that all views must ultimately be 'logically proved or disproved'.

No opinions permitted on the forums if they can't be proved by irrefutable logic.

You're out to PROVE your views.

I don't think anyone else is out to prove anything.

I'm certainly not. At least not in philosophy. I can be pretty nasty when it comes to discussing certain religious doctrines though. But that's a different situation altogether the people who push those doctrines are demanding that they are the word of God.

People who voice views on a philosophy forum aren't holding their opinions out as irrefultable truths. They're just personal views. There's no need to prove or defend them. Just share them.

Explaination of logic, intuition, or experience are fine. But those explanations shouldn't be held out as irrefutable absolute truths. Just personal views.

Why...

When I mow my lawn I don't take the lawn mower apart first!

If it ain't broke... Don't dig around in it lookin... Ya just might break it.

I guess I don't really understand philosophy or science and I'm not religious, so there is no forum for me.