The Great Comments Contest
21/09/2005

Garnet, of Glittering Muse, has posted an article about a contest for the 90 best comments (why 90? No idea). I thought at first that I would not put any suggestions forward because most of the best comments on my blog are part of a larger conversation and so would not qualify.

On reflection, however, and as the result of some arm-twisting, I have decided that I will enter a few conversations and maybe a few stand-alone comments. If I offend against any rules, well, it wouldn't be the first time it's happened.

So here are some examples. The first comes from the comments on my post, A Thought on the Kingdom. It's a conversation that I selected because it illustrates how these can lead into other areas and that I don't have to be involved at all.

Quills
There are the very dour traditionalists who say that there is no such thing as free choice. Every man's path is set from before the beginning of time and he will not and cannot deviate from that path. I would call that a deterministic view point, rather than traditionalistic. We are what we are, and what will happen will happen because of what we do. What we do happens because of who we are.......causality may be a fallacy, according to some purists, but it seems obvious enough to me.
Date Added: 15/08/2005

Gone Away
Causality as described by you is fairly easy to accept, I think, Quills. I'm sure we can all think of occasions when we have made choices determined by what we are, rather than what might be more logical or moral. But I think Stuart is referring to something more like the moslem Kismet, the concept of all our histories being written down in a great, big book somewhere long before we were born, and that we cannot deviate from what is written there. And that is a concept that is not Christian.
Date Added: 15/08/2005

Kurt
Quills, are you familiar with the philosophical concepts of determinism and the arguments against it? There are some quite good nondeterminist arguments out there, although I'm at work and on deadline, so I can't fill in any details at the moment. If there's some interest, I'd be glad at carrying the free will and omniscience debate into my blog in the near future, though.
Date Added: 15/08/2005

Quills
Unfortunately, I am :) Philosophy 101 was a helpful introduction. My specialities tend to be metaphysicals/continental philsophy though. I'm still figuring out what I wish to believe, and which arguments work for me (applied personal philosophy!) but I would be happy to join a debate about it. Just expect some very juvenile arguments while I rejig my memory & brain back into thinking logically and not chaotically.

And yus Clive, I'm sure he was. I just couldn't resist interjecting. I'm annoying like that!
Date Added: 15/08/2005

Kurt
I'm only a semester out of Intro Metaphysics myself, but I had an absolutely top-notch professor who really explained a lot of things very well. I'll dig up my textbook one of these days for the subway ride to work and figure out something coherent to say about it.
Date Added: 15/08/2005

I don't know if Kurt ever got around to that but it's my point in a way; sometimes we don't see where tangential discussions end up and that's cool too!

The next selection is one of the three stand-alones I've found. There are many more, I'm sure, but the blog is pretty big and it takes time to look through everything. This one is from my post, Some Doom and Gloom:

Ken
History suggests to me that any imperialist culture which boasts of its own power has failed to understand that the seeds of its own mortality have already been sown. Leaders who define their ability to act in terms of the size of the budgets they wield rather than the social unity of their people have missed the point and have nothing to contribute except further ruin. Any society that reduces human life to an actuarial transaction designed to advantage those who already control the lion's share of the wealth is bound to destroy itself in the longer term. We are in the endgame and the outlook is bleak. The carnage in New Orleans and the recent bombings in London are merely symptoms of an underlying illness which takes in huge areas of the planet. I wrote a poem recently which I called "Earthspeak" and, having read your piece, I think I'll post it tonight.
Date Added: 02/09/2005

Ken did post the poem and it gives food for thought too.

Later in the comments section to Some Doom and Gloom, the following interchange takes place. It's a good illustration of the humor that can happen in comments.

Mad
.o0(Did I just get called a barbarian?)
Date Added: 03/09/2005

Josh
Yep. Take heart though, Bubs. Some of us are barbarians. All of them are geezers. :P
Date Added: 03/09/2005

Mad
So I'm not a geezer? But being a geezers a good thing surely?
Date Added: 03/09/2005

Josh
Okay, nevermind. This is like a baked potato trying to talk to a stalk of broccoli -- separated as we are by a common language and such.
Date Added: 03/09/2005

Mad
Am I the baked potato or the stalk of broccoli?
Date Added: 03/09/2005

Josh
Dunno. Which one would be more self-concious and paranoid about being called a vegetable?
Date Added: 03/09/2005

Mad
Dunno... too deep for me man. All I know is I hate broccoli. :p
Date Added: 03/09/2005

And here's a third example from the Doom and Gloom post, this one being the second of the stand-alone comments:

The Commentator
One of the more interesting posts I have read. It's free from the usual stuff we hear.

I have often argued that while many think they are being critical about Bush they reveal more about how the art of treating evidence and history is dead. What this post reminds me and should many Americans is that the problems we face are much larger than a Bush guided administration. This post restored my faith that some people respect the intricate value of history. So sorely missed in the postmodern and revisionist mind.

We all seem to be sitting on one side of the equation refusing to emerge from that space. One can not escape the fact that if you were to make a historical statement such as this that someone else will reconfigure it and pigeonhole it back to well, Bush. There have been many, many, many worse leaders than Bush, including within the Union, in world history. Let it go.
Date Added: 03/09/2005

The third and last of the stand-alone comments I'm submitting is one that adds useful information to the original post, England, My England:

Mad
*Struggles to suppress urge to join in -- fails*

Along with the slavery of feudalism the Normans also destroyed the place of women within society. In Anglo-Saxon England women had a respected role within society (they were considered the advisors to their men folk - in essence they were the power behind the throne of Anglo-Saxon life) and they could hold land and goods. After 1066 women in England were reduced to centuries of being virtual chattel. So I'd like to hazard that a female visitor from our time would have a far more pleasant visit in pre-conquest times.

Let us also consider the Witan; what's this? A democratic institution! The succession of the throne from father to son was not guaranteed, rather when a king died the Witan (a council of Earls and leaders from around the country) would meet to decide who should be the next king.

Given the choice I'd rather spend time pre-conquest than under the Normans any day.
Date Added: 12/05/2005

I have left the best till last, of course. Here's a long conversation that resulted from my post on The Absolute Truth. Nothing was setlled but we had some fun along the way!

Vanessa
ok, where to start.... I must admit I feel a might bit intimidated seeing as it appears I'm in a room full of theists/deists.... No matter, I've never been accused of *not* wanting to stir the shit before so why stop now... ;)
Date Added: 26/04/2005

Gone Away
Stir away, Vanessa. I'll hold the others off! ;)
Date Added: 26/04/2005

Vanessa
Firstly just let me say although I respect your opinions (and I do) I think for the most part, this particulary theory is a load of bunk. :) Oh and yes I do plan on backing that up in the near future... let's just continue on. It appears the apple doesn't fall far from the tree either LOL I've been accused of being a fence-sitter on more than one occasion by your charming son. He hasn't budged yet but I'm still working on him. I do make a compelling argument if I do say so myself:) Secondly, in circumstances such as this it's good to have clear definitions of what we are trying to define so I took the liberty of plucking these little gems: Absolute Truth - actual truth perceived without one's mental obscurations and fabrications Atheism - disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods agnostism - 1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge. 2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist. Let me also say that I am a firm agnostic and I'm sure you have something to say about that too - I'll try to go through this systematically....
Date Added: 26/04/2005

Gone Away
I wait with bated breath. ;)
Date Added: 26/04/2005

Vanessa
Absolute Truth. This is a sticky arena as it differs mildly depending on whom you are speaking to. To the philosopher absolute truth generally states what is essential rather than superficial. The scientist is usually doubtful as doubt has been cast on the notion of absolutes by theories such as relativity and quantum mechanics. In pure mathematics, however, there is said to be a proof for the existence of absolute truth and this is where I believe you sit Mr. Way, am I correct? To elaborate, a common tactic in mathematical proofs is the use of "reductio ad absurdum", in which the statement to be proved is denied as a premise, and then that premise is shown to lead to a contradiction. When it can be demonstrated that the negation of a statement leads to a contradiction, then the original statement is proved true. The logical proof of the statement, "There exists an absolute truth," is almost trivial in its simplicity. Suppose we assert the negation of the statement, that is, that there is no such thing as absolute truth. By making that assertion, we claim that the sentence "There exists no absolute truth" is absolutely true. The statement is self-contradictory, so its negation, "There exists an absolute truth," is true. However, (and this is a big one) this proof applies only to logic. It does not tell us whether any particular statement other than itself is true. It does not prove the existence (or non-existence) of God, the devil, heaven, hell, or little green people from another galaxy. Neither does it assert that we can always ascertain the truth or falsity of any arbitrary statement. Have I lost you yet? ;)
Date Added: 26/04/2005

Gone Away
So you must accept that, logically, there is such a thing as absolute truth. And this, as is the gist of my article, proves that there must be a God, since without God we have to believe that there is no absolute truth. You cannot have it both ways: either logic is believable because there is absolute truth, or it cannot be trusted and we might as well stop talking now, since logic is our only weapon. :)
Date Added: 26/04/2005

Vanessa
And pray tell, what proof would that be?
Date Added: 26/04/2005

Gone Away
There are several, the easiest to understand of which is the one I use in the article - reductio ad absurdam, as you said. Another is the moral argument but I find that atheists tend to lose concentration when I employ this one since it really goes against their grain to see that there are some moral values that cannot be the result of evolution. I have seen others but they are very complex and I've never bothered with them - just one does me fine. :)
Date Added: 26/04/2005

Vanessa
Ah, but you CAN have it both ways. Let's assume that world is all chance and coincidence and miraculously we ended up here. To deny the thought of Absolute Truth does not automatically discount that. This seems to be where I am confused a bit about your argument - are you saying that because (according to this theory) we came about by pure chance that our logic is flawed? That's a mighty big stretch if so. If you are logical, you will say the odds of everything happening purely by chance AND aligning just so to leave us in this exact state of time and place are dismally low. I agree. But the possibility is there nonetheless. It's about the same degree of probability as say, god plucking a rib from adam and making eve, wouldn't you say? ;) I'm off for lunch... to be continued most assuredly:)
Date Added: 26/04/2005

Gone Away
And I still say that you cannot have it both ways. If we are the result of a chance creation of the universe, we cannot say that there is any possibility of our thought processes being true. They must follow the principle of cause and effect and so are the result of millions of years of evolution. And since they are an evolutionary strategy, it is meaningless to say that they can be true - they work for us, that's all. Logic may feel to us as if it must be true and we may not be able to imagine that it is not true, but, in your chance-created universe it must be so. What is truth if there is no such thing as purpose? And how can there be purpose in a chance-created universe?

You propose that there is a chance that logic is true, no matter how small that chance may be. I suggest that there can be no truth in a chance-created universe since the very concept of truth is merely the result of chance combinations of energy in our brains. The thing flies up its own backside. We either accept that there is a Creator or we discount reason itself and have to sit in a corner humming to ourselves.
Date Added: 26/04/2005

Way
If she calls you Mr. Way again I shall bite her. And that is the absolute truth.
Date Added: 26/04/2005

Vanessa
Oooh, is that a promise Way? ;)
Date Added: 26/04/2005

Gone Away
I think the confusion is caused by the fact that I am Mr Away... :D
Date Added: 26/04/2005

Vanessa
Yes, yes, my mistake. My apologies Mr. Way. Feel free to bite me anyway, if you must:)
Date Added: 26/04/2005

Gone Away
Oi! I'll have no biting in my blog!
Date Added: 26/04/2005

Vanessa
Getting back to the topic at hand, once again I have to say that the "reductio ad absurdam" logic doesn't work.It applies to logic ONLY. The fact remains that it does not tell us whether any particular statement other than itself is true. Instead of harping on this point, let me bring another one into play. This happens to be the school of thought that I subscribe to. First let me say that I consider myself agnostic (I know you're rolling your eyes..) and take this definition: The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable. I am not discounting the possibility of absolute truth. I do believe however that absolute truth is unattainable and any attempt to find it would be futile. Now you may ask how I arrived at this conclusion, and you might be surprised that I happened upon this view with cold, hard science. And not just any science, but the most clear-cut and well-defined science (or so they'd like to believe) of them all - Math. Now I take you for a old scientific nut yourself, Mr. Away, would that be a correct assumption?
Date Added: 26/04/2005

Gone Away
Wrong assumption, Vanessa. I'm an artist through and through and never did cotton to that Math thing at all. :D And I regard it with the suspicion that all artists do.

Call me Gone, by the way. ;) As regards the reductio ad absurdam argument, allow me to point out that it was you who mentioned that the statement, "There is no absolute truth" disproves itself. I would agree that that merely proves that there is such a thing as absolute truth. But my argument is that, if there is no God, there can be no such thing as absolute truth (which, of course, is absurd). The absence of a God requires that the universe be a construction of pure chance without purpose or reason and within such a universe all things must necessarily be without purpose or reason and logic itself becomes unprovable.
Date Added: 26/04/2005

Way
Apology accepted, and with sincere relief, since I own only one tooth (and that Gone went and put up a fresh sign).
Date Added: 26/04/2005

Vanessa
My apologies Gone. I took you for someone who is swayed by a logical argument as opposed to idealic fluff, after all that's what your arguement is based on, no?. ;)
Date Added: 26/04/2005

Gone Away
There is logic in what I say, Vanessa, even though I cannot frame it mathematically for you. But I can tell you why we artists don't trust that mathematics of yours one little bit. ;) And, if you wish to say that my argument is based on idealistic fluff, why then, my dear, you're going to have to prove that assertion. It seems to me that you came very close to admitting that the argument holds a considerable amount of weight when you admitted that there was only a tiny chance that logic might accidentally be right in an accidental universe. ;) But you take issue with the idea that even that small chance is disallowed. How much further must I go? Your argument hangs by a thin thread of chance at best, it seems. :D
Date Added: 26/04/2005

Vanessa
Since you are bound to steer this discussion towards logic, let me offer you this - Are you familiar with Godel's Incompleteness Theorem? Ultimately he proved that rational thought can never penetrate to the final ultimate truth by using of all things, a computer. It may sound a little fishy but I assure you it makes perfect LOGICAL sense. I'm interested to see what you use to rebuke that theorem... if you aren't familiar with his work might I suggest a little bit of reading...

http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html

http://www.usna.edu/Users/math/meh/godel.html
Date Added: 26/04/2005

Gone Away
It's a mathematical theorem, Vanessa, and, as such, a product of human reasoning (whether or not a computer was used in its formulation). And, since there is no reason why we should believe human logic to be truthful in an accidental universe, I can see no reason why we should take account of it. Unless, of course, you now accept that there is reason to this universe?
Date Added: 26/04/2005

Gone Away
That is just my point, Vanessa; I maintain that things are provable but only in a God-created universe. And I use logic even when discussing logic because we have nothing else. Would you listen to me if I were to say that my intuition tells me something? I doubt even I would. ;)
Date Added: 26/04/2005

Vanessa
Oh dear. I luv ya Gone but this seems to be getting us nowhere. Let's just say we agree to disagree and share a beer:)
Date Added: 26/04/2005

Vanessa
I'm afraid I still view your logic as being faulty Gone so I can't concede. I'm still on for that beer though:)
Date Added: 26/04/2005

Gone Away
'Tis always the way, Vanessa. There's a point that neither will concede and that puts an end to discussion. But fancy trying to draw me into mathematical stuff when we had yet to agree on whether we can trust logic or not. Tsk, tsk. Hmmm, I have no beer in the house. Will wine do?
Date Added: 26/04/2005

Before anyone shouts at me for not giving a link to Vanessa's blog, I should mention that she doesn't have one. And that's it. If anyone has reached this far, I suggest any prize be awarded to them; they've earned it!

Clive

Back to the main blog

Have your say

You may use HTML in comments. A carriage return is <br />, use two for a new paragraph. For bold text use <strong></strong> and for italic text use <em></em>. If you know what you're doing feel free to use more complex mark-up but please no deprecated tags or JavaScript.

Name *

Comment *

Email *

URL

Commenting has closed for this post