FDRers Discuss Whether or Not it is Beneficial to Debate UPB

Guest

Laird wrote:

If I'm reading you right, you're saying the argument is that because someone prefers to debate (an individual preference), they are demonstrating universal preference. Wow, I almost hope that isn't really the argument...

Yeah... that's the argument.

Well, at least you don't have to do all that hard philosophical work to refute such an argument. It practically refutes itself!

_________________
[INSERT MEME HERE]

Number of posts: 234 Registration date: 2008-05-21

ReIgNoFrAdNeSs wrote:

people arguing anxieties in order to avoid abstractions.

Bullseye.

"I'm feeling axious." is not a refutation.

Dude A wrote:

I was slightly irritated ...

Dude B wrote:

I've sensed irritation in your last two posts

Remember the psychic in "Team America"?

And on attempt to clarify the undeniable truth of UPB within a debate:

Doubter: "I don't see how this UPB thing fits together, the logic seems flawed"

Acolyte: "So logical validity in necessary for something to be true? Is that universally true?"

Doubter: "Yes."

Acolyte: "And people have preferences, correct? Such as your preference for determining valid truth?"

Doubter: "Yes"

Acolyte: "So this is a preferance which is tied to a universal standard of truth, therefore preferances can be said to be objectively true or false."

They don't quite state it this way, for obvious reasons. Instead they just leave this gap between "universal truth of facts" and "universal truth of preferences"which you are meant to hop accross without noticing it. It works best when listening to a stream of words from a skillful and flowing speaker such as Stef.

Number of posts: 640 Location: NOLA Registration date: 2007-10-24

I like that layout BAL, all he says if You argue by using a preference for truth then everyone has that preference. Where it only shows that I have it in this case (but not always) and I think the person I am arguing with does too in this case. To prove him wrong all you need to do is show that people lie all the time and use logical fallacies all the time to show it false. One assignment in my logic class was to find 5 logical fallacies in one newspaper. There were more than that. Now I can prove the non-rational preference person wrong by many other ways and I prefer them when arguing with some people as does Stef after reading much of his arguments. So how is it universal?

Number of posts: 1202 Location: Boston, MA Registration date: 2008-04-02

I like how Ned thinks that a person might not have enough empathy to argue with his pet theory of ethics.

Stewart wrote:

I like how Ned thinks that a person might not have enough empathy to argue with his pet theory of ethics.

i think in Ned's book you just disqualified yourself!
But yeah. God, they can be such total idiots

_________________
My Blog

Number of posts: 640 Location: NOLA Registration date: 2007-10-24

Stewart wrote:

I like how Ned thinks that a person might not have enough empathy to argue with his pet theory of ethics.

thats UPB errr ummmh isn't it? To perfer empathy with the arguee.

Number of posts: 640 Location: NOLA Registration date: 2007-10-24

Wait empathy falls under aesthetics and not ehtics but universal truth is a preference. So If they irritate you but you love truth you will listen to them is UPB. If empathy is a preference and truth is a preference then when both are not present it is a preference to not prefer one and thats universal but each one is not universally prefered. Contradiction again.

Phlogiston wrote:

Stewart wrote:

I like how Ned thinks that a person might not have enough empathy to argue with his pet theory of ethics.

thats UPB errr ummmh isn't it? To perfer empathy with the arguee.

Empathy is a one-way street for FDR'ers though

_________________
My Blog

blackacidlizzard wrote:

They don't quite state it this way, for obvious reasons. Instead they just leave this gap between "universal truth of facts" and "universal truth of preferences"which you are meant to hop accross without noticing it. It works best when listening to a stream of words from a skillful and flowing speaker such as Stef.

good point.

is this what Danny identifies here?

Quote:

In the weak sense of the term, we can say that breathing is universally preferable for living without life-support, since anyone wanting to do that would need to breathe. And since we're only using the weak sense of the term, we acknowledge that if the suicidal person doesn't want to live, it won't be necessaryfor her to breath: it's only preferable to breath in order to achieve the end in question, and she doesn't want to achieve it. So this makes sense.

But in the next paragraph, Stefan writes:

Thus when I talk about universal preferences, I am talking about what people should prefer, not what they always do prefer.

Now if we were using the strong sense of the term "universally preferable," this would make sense: because everyone shares the end in question, we can say that everyone should do what is universally preferable. But in this example, we're forced to use the weak sense, since it's not the case that everyone shares the end in question. Accordingly, it simply isn't true that by this line of thinking, we would arrive at the conclusion that the suicidal person should breath. In fact, the suicidal person's goal is to suffocate: for people with that end, it is actually universally preferable (in the weak sense) not to breathe.

_________________
My Blog

Number of posts: 628 Registration date: 2009-02-09

Victor

Joined on 01-11-2008
Dominican Republic
Posts 529

Re: Is debating philosophy obsolete?
Reply Quote Contact
I really would like to hear richer debates on UPB from people stablished or more mainstream in and around phylosophy. Maybe screaning the people who claim to have something to say on UPB would be helpful. I'm sure it's being done, but it would be good if it was not labled as a debate, but as an exploration of psycological barriers to productive debates.

Debating against UPB is great for testing the validity of the theory and for finding ways to overcome rejections to it; to help promote the theory and to further train the debating muscle. I can certainly forsee nearing the point where there would be too much debating on the same arguments; specially the one that you cannot disprove UPB without rellying on UPB. I'd like to see people using the framework for coming up with moral theories and listen to debates about it. I don't have any yet, but I would be willing to enter in one such debate for the fun of it. Just let me know.

Number of posts: 628 Registration date: 2009-02-09

(Just copied this from the same thread that we've been looking at. I think it's interesting).

Number of posts: 191 Registration date: 2007-10-12

That's why Stef deletes threads. Victor could have found what he was looking for in the threads from/about Danny's Molyneaux Project. But since they have been deleted, the UPBites are free to psychologize this guy into believing that outside philosophers just don't understand the deep concepts that Stef conveys in UPB.

_________________
I philosophize, therefore I evangelize

They're so ignorant yet so certain, tis unbelievable.

_________________
My Blog

Number of posts: 124 Registration date: 2009-02-24

Ned is not so certain. Here's the latest post to the thread, after Molyneux has asked him what prompted his chain of thought. I am highlighting, as is the custom, the parts I find most interesting:

NED

Quote:

Yeah I think so too. I'm not sure exactly what it was, it popped into my head for sure. I had listened to the recent premium casts and connected with your own observations about recent debates. A few weeks ago I was thinking about how there's been an increase in debates and a decrease in psychology in the podcasts. I have also felt emotionally dissatisfied with the recent debates so I was trying to figure that out as well.

Also, i was thinking recently about your suited savages podcast and how another interpretation is the suited child: how most people are replaying their emotional lives from before the age of 8, just now with the mighty strength and power of an adult. When you deal with defenses, you come face to face with children, not savages.

Debating seems to me to be about force of logic. I think for logic to be most powerful it doesn't need the force behind it. Defenses are almost by definition hinderances to logic and are inevitably triggered by debate. To continue or force the logic in the face of defenses only strengthens them. I don't think debating has room or method for dealing with defenses as they arise. As a tool at this level of philosophical discovery I think it is begining to show some wear. Thoughts?

I know what he means, but I'm not sure what he's driving at. I mean, I know what he's driving at--he is deciding that debate and logic are not good ways to settle arguments that in the end are about feelings--but he is essentially saying that feelings trump knowledge. Fine, whatever. But if feelings trump knowledge at FDR, they lose all their high ground and moral authority. They will not be able to spread their message to anyone else ever. No wonder the debates of late are leaving him unsatisfied.

» Antioxidant Fruit and Vegetable Powder Drinks: Beneficial or Not?
» Choice for June 2010 : Niqab: The seal on the debate by sister Kamillah Khan
» TOPICAL DELIVERY OF L-ARGININE TO CAUSE BENEFICIAL EFFECTS
» Spirit of PN Reincarnation Debate
» Paltalk Traditional Catholic Chat Debate room

FDRers Discuss Whether or Not it is Beneficial to Debate UPB

FDRers Discuss Whether or Not it is Beneficial to Debate UPB

Similar topics

Similar topics