My Participation on the Forum

[James N. Dawson]

I feel that before being able to comment and participate on this forum any further I really need to clarify some things about my general philosophy and thinking style.

I am not a rationalist, atheist or "Science" advocate, at least in the sense most people who identify with these labels are.

Science and "evidence" may ultimately be social constructs that aren't fundamentally different than any other social construct, whether they be found in religion, art, or philosophy. Although I haven't read their books yet, I've read enough about them to see myself as leaning toward Feyeraband, Kuhn, Sheldrake, and a number of other Science-skeptics. That doesn't mean I think Science is total bunk or that it hasn't been extremely useful to man through the technology that developed from it, but I don't see it as answering the "Big Questions".

Logic has its limitations too. I'm familiar with "fallacies"---there are formal and informal---but no, I haven't memorized every single one of them and I don't even necessarily acknowledge that they really are "fallacies". I'll research the question as I have time. We'll see.

Besides leaning toward science-skepticism I suppose I also lean toward "epistemological anarchy". But again, I have yet to fully explore this concept, and it may take years. I'm not on anybody's clock. I'll explore it as leisurely as I please. I also see my thinking as much more heuristic and dialectical than rationalist or empiricist. I'm interested big pictures, not so much hairsplitting and punctilious logical procedures.

As I believe I wrote in an earlier post, I'm not into "debate". I'm not into games of one-up-man-ship and "winning" arguments. This is just my impression, and no, I can't "prove" it, but the type of discussion I see on the Internet tend to be very rushed and aggressive, both sides needing to "defeat" the other in some contest. I have neither the time, energy or interest to play such games. I think ethical and social questions are very nebulous, and possible answers to them very elusive. I explore, not debate. What theories I do come up, I don't claim are "proved". They're just the best model I see at present.

So, from the first guideline of this forum it doesn't seem like I can really follow the rules of this forum in either letter or spirit. I'm not doing this to be contrarian or uncooperative. Just trying to follow the main rules of this forum would be too inauthentic, laborious and rigid for me. Maybe I'm just too sloppy and lethargic for it. If I seem to ignore anybody, don't take it personally. There's a remote possibility I'll pick up the thread, but by no means any guarantee.

I hope to try to comment a little more often on this forum, but I welcome feedback to this post. I also feel the Vegan Atheist has a right to ban me if he wants. As a libertarian, I believe in private spaces, and I try to respect the spirit and letter of the rules of those spaces and the person who created them. Also, if you feel it'd be pointless to engage me, with my sloppy, "irrational" epistomology, I take no offense if you ignore. No need to respond out of mere politeness.

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

Hello friend.

I think this ought to be posted into the introduction forum.

I am interested in why you are an anarchist. How can you believe society can function without the government? Who would build the roads? I would love to hear your thoughts.

Thank you and nice to meet you.


( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[brimstoneSalad]

This is only something you need to worry about if you engage in some kind of discussion. Like you only have to worry about the rules of chess if you sit down to a game. Even if you may not agree with logic, if you engage in a discussion here you should follow it for argument's/discussion's sake.

TheVeganAtheist started the forum, but he doesn't administrate it anymore. Don't worry, you'd receive a reminder and a warning if you were to break the rules by accident. You won't be banned unexpectedly, and if you're reminded and you don't want to continue a conversation because you don't like the implications of logic, you can politely concede it on those grounds and move on to something else.

[James N. Dawson]

I think "logic" may be more controversial among those who study it academically than either you or I realize.

I'd suggest maybe somebody change the name of the forum to "Rationalist Vegan" or "Atheist Vegan" or "Scientific Vegan" or something like that, because philosophy is MUCH larger and more nuanced than "rationalism" and "logic". There are two large branches----Western Analytic, and Continental. I may lean toward or have marked affinity for Continental.

I'll post in good faith and let the moderators act as they see fit.

[brimstoneSalad]

I think "logic" may be more controversial among those who study it academically than either you or I realize.

It is not. It's pretty much the least controversial thing in the world. Particularly the foundation, the law of noncontradiction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction
As part of the laws of thought: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought

There are a few quacks who advance supposed alternatives, like diaetheism, but these are inconsistent and useless to discussion (there's no means by which to make claims).
If you are to assert something, that only has any meaning in discussion if you are not asserting its negation too.
This is a discussion forum. Illogical nonsense may be personally important to you, but it doesn't convey any meaning that can be discussed so it doesn't belong in a discussion.

I'd suggest maybe somebody change the name of the forum to "Rationalist Vegan" or "Atheist Vegan" or "Scientific Vegan" or something like that,

We are not limited to science here, we discuss at length ideas without direct connection to empiricism, and we are welcoming of theists who respect reason and logic in discussion. We're happy to discuss metaphysics and other issues.

because philosophy is MUCH larger and more nuanced than "rationalism" and "logic".

All legitimate philosophy, which gives us meaningful knowledge or consideration, relies on logical consistency.
You have probably misunderstood the law of noncontradiction. People often think ideas are contradictory which are in fact not.
It is possible to be and not to be, for example, in different ways.
It's possible to be inside and outside the room if you're standing in the doorway.

There are two large branches----Western Analytic, and Continental. I may lean toward or have marked affinity for Continental.

As far as we're concerned here, there is one philosophy which is not easily or particularly meaningfully divided into branches with the exception of the kinds of questions asked; "western" vs. "Continental" is not a very meaningful division. The important distinction is only philosophy vs. pseudophilosophy, and there are many forms of pesudophilosophy (which you can find among both self described Western and Continental philosophers).

You might expect a science forum to involve the equal promotion and discussion of pseudoscience too, but I would not. Once you understand the difference, it's like night and day; the subjects are not properly related.

We're not drawing arbitrary lines here, we require discussions to be discussions; without some basic common regard for logic there just nothing to discuss.

I'll post in good faith and let the moderators act as they see fit.

As if you were sitting down to a game of chess and followed the rules for the sake of the game, please just make your best effort to be mindful of logic, particularly noncontradiction and the fundamental laws of thought.
If you misstep you won't be suddenly banned or anything like that. You may be asked to retire from certain discussions, though.

[James N. Dawson]

It's clear from your reply that our philosophical views are too divergent to have a fruitful discussion on this forum, so I've decided against further participation. I don't concede your refutation nor do I accept the rationalism as you assert it as the only valid epistomology or exploration of truth and morality, so I will not submit to it. However, I recognize your ownership of this forum and don't want to be disruptive.

If possible, I'd like to delete my account or unregister. If you could let me know if this is possible, and if so, how to do it, I'd appreciate it.

Thank you.

[Red]

It's clear from your reply that our philosophical views are too divergent to have a fruitful discussion on this forum, so I've decided against further participation. I don't concede your refutation nor do I accept the rationalism as assert it as the only valid epistomology or exploration of truth and morality, so I will not submit to it. However, I recognize your ownership of this forum and don't want to be disruptive.

If possible, I'd like to delete my account or unregister. If you could let me know if this is possible, and if so, how to do it, I'd appreciate it.

Thank you.

If I may throw in my two cents, I would say that's awfully close-minded of you. You don't seem interested in knowing of you're wrong, nor are you interested in discussing the opposing side.

I'm not sure if there are many forums out there that encourage actual debate, and you're just kinda throwing it out. You have some things that can be brought to the table for discussion, and we'd all be pleased to hear them. If you're wrong on something, you're not breaking any rules (as long as you're able to admit you're wrong). We would all be happy knowing that you have learned something, rather than continuing being wrong.

And hey, for all we know, you may change our minds on something. Maybe by some chance you may convince brimstone here, for all we know. Don't just drop out because you disagree with one person on one issue.

[James N. Dawson]

I don't necessarily accept your dichotomous concept of "right" and "wrong", I see various theories/ideologies/etc. has having varying degrees of explanatory value and utility---and you're reply is very patronizing.

[Red]

I don't necessarily accept your dichotomous concept of "right" and "wrong", I see various theories/ideologies/etc. has having varying degrees of explanatory value and utility---and you're reply is very patronizing.

I have not made any philosphical standpoint in my post to you; how do you know this 'right or wrong' concept automatically applies to me because I am a user to this forum?
And explain why you believe my reply is patronizing.

[James N. Dawson]

I'm sure there are plenty of people on this forum who enjoy playing your game. I don't have time for it.