runner

No I am not blinded to the anti-humanity of the socialists and equalitarians, as anyone who has read my posts here will know.

But that doesn't mean that Christianity did not retard intellectual progress for a thousand years, does it?

Dear Jardine,

OK, so if I argue and deny that I argue then I am incorrect, this is pure mathematical logic.

Then you exclaim, «QED»: what exactly have you proven? A mathematical theorem? How is this related to ethics?

«Okay, how about this one: “man acts”?»

Yes, this is an axiom, but not a rational axiom. Indeed some schools agree with it, but others don't. Not only that, those other schools can bring quite convincing and rational arguments against this axiom.

Never mind, suppose we accept this axiom - how can you derive an ethical system from it?
Are you claiming perhaps as a second axiom that action is better than inaction (and therefore it is good to preserve society because then acts will continue)?
Such a claim would be irrational because you cannot find any particles (or waves or dimensions or forces, etc.) of "better" (or goodness) in nature, so you can count (or weigh) them in action, then count them in inaction, then say "based on my measurements, here there are more of it than there".

The bible states: "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good". You could accept it on faith, or you could accept something else on faith in something else. What I am saying is, that either way, it will remain irrational. I am not ashamed in being irrational.

'But that doesn't mean that Christianity did not retard intellectual progress for a thousand years, does it?'

I suspect Jardine the Roman Catholic church (if that it what you mean by Christianity) retarded a lot of things. You would not have to look very hard to see that many of the scienitific advances were achieved by men of the Christian faith. Compared with much of the pseudo science of today these men would be considered a genius. The likes of Dawkins and gw high priests are pygmy's. Look at the twits many with phd's who speak on Q &A. They repeat socialist dogmas as if somehow proven.

“OK, so if I argue and deny that I argue then I am incorrect”

If you argue and deny that you argue, you perform a self-contradiction, which is logically incoherent.

Therefore we are entitled to conclude that it is wrong to argue that one cannot argue, because
a) You had to argue in order to do so
b) we are agreed that it’s incorrect to the extent you say it is incorrect.

“this is pure mathematical logic.”

1. What’s wrong with that?

“Yes, this [‘man acts’] is an axiom, but not a rational axiom.”

2. Why isn’t it rational?

“Indeed some schools agree with it, but others don't.”

3. How do you know they disagree, if not from their actions?

“Not only that, those other schools can bring quite convincing and rational arguments against this axiom.”

4. Can they do that without taking action :-)?

“Never mind, suppose we accept this axiom - how can you derive an ethical system from it?”

I can try, and you can show me where I’m wrong, if you can.

Could you please answer my above questions first?

Posted by Ponder, Saturday, 25 March 2017 8:14:30 PM
As the classic line from Inviticus recounts: "I am the captain of my fate, I am the master of my soul".

Kindly indulge the petty imperatives of an inveterate pedant and trivia fanatic when I write to correct an error of minor consequence on your behalf.
The last verse of a brief poem written by British poet and critic William Ernest Henley [1849-1903] is...

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate,
I am the captain of my soul.

Henley was diagnosed with tubercular arthritis at age 12 in 1861 and his father died the following year. Later, one of William's legs was amputated below the knee. His other leg was saved by many years of radical surgery by famed medical pioneer Joseph Lister. In 1875, at the age of 26 during his confinement for surgery, he wrote the poem as untitled. It was unpublished until 1888 when his publisher, Cornish editor and author Arthur Quiller-Couch, gave it the title INVICTUS [Latin for "unconquered"]
A.Q-C, himself a prolific author, wrote under the pseudonym Q and his monumental OXFORD BOOK OF ENGLISH VERSE was a favourite quote source of John Mortimer's fictional lawyer Horace Rumpole.

As for the christian bible; Even as fiction it has serious faults. Despite its several millennia of constant publicity [favourable and unfavourable], a campaign unprecedented in publishing history and probably never to be repeated, today it would struggle to find a mainstream publisher as a new work of literature from a new author.
I find Greg Clarke to be something of a fraud and hypocrite. Asserting obliquity is a literary device that puts him in the same advocacy class as a car salesman or a real estate agent.

Dear Jardine,

«Therefore we are entitled to conclude that it is wrong to argue that one cannot argue»

Wait... we agree that arguing that one cannot argue would be incorrect, but we haven't established that it would be wrong! Normally it's justified to say that "telling a lie (or otherwise saying something that isn't so) is wrong" because we already have an agreed system of ethics... but here we're still trying to establish a foundation for such a system, so we cannot use it yet.

1.

Mathematics is not wrong, but it's like a world of its own: it doesn't automatically say anything about the real world. For example, the following logical-mathematical statement is correct: "If all men can speak and Socrates is a man, then Socrates can speak". However, it cannot tell us that Socrates can speak until and unless we can ascertain (in non-mathematical ways) that all men can speak and Socrates is a man (both incorrect, because some men are dumb and Socrates is now a corpse, not a man).

2.

Because you cannot prove that "man acts" in a rational manner. You see a man, you see action, but that the action is performed by the man relies on a leap of faith. In fact, some schools of thought do not take this leap of faith and instead claim, for example, that the action is performed by nature or by God.

3.

You are right, I don't know, I only know what they say, so they could in fact agree, but lie to me. My assumption that they say what they actually believe, is irrational.

4.

Well by definition, if they do it then they do it, but maybe they don't? Maybe it's an illusion? maybe someone/something else produced those arguments? maybe it was created in my own mind, maybe it wasn't done at all?

Suppose someone played a piece of music, so you think, but then you discover that they were sleep-walking and had no idea that their body produced this music, then who actually produced that music? Or could it be your own dream?