humanities.philosophy.objectivism

Gordon Sollars wrote:
> In article <47CA7CAF.5020604@cox.net>, vonvegas@cox.net says...
>> Gordon Sollars wrote:
>>

(snip alleged Vonvegas oversnippage)

Gordon:
> My apologies, von. I was posting in a hurry, and I did not go back to
> check my post.

Well thank you for the apology. While I wish to be equally gracious and
not drone on about it I must say you've wrongly made similar accusations
before and not only is that unpleasant but it wastes a lot of our mutual
time. So please, the next time you get the urge to accuse, check your
premises first.




> The qualification I was remembering - "in so far as" -
> was in a reply I made to you.

Yes I thot and said as much and have addressed it in 4 different posts
which you kept snipping and ignoring! So for hopefully the last time,
let me say it in a new/clearer/different way. Your alleged
*qualification* is not a qualification at all. A qualification qualifies
a proposition but does not change its basic character. But your
attempted qualification would have morphed it into a different
proposition! Let's review the relevant quotes:

Charles Bell had written:
A man cannot hold to "duty" which does not exist,

Gordon Sollars replied:
Of course he can...

If we summarize the foregoing we get the proposition:
'Nonexistents nevertheless can have relations.'


BTW, you had previously implied/alleged that I had somehow wrongly
summarized. Since in your latest response you again snipped and failed
to comment on my strong disagreement with your allegation, I now assume
that you do agree that the above is a fair summary after all (tho the
words "nevertheless" and "can" are superfluous).
I reckon two apologies to me in one day was more than your circuits
could handle. :-)

But to return to the point, the proposition that both Charles and I
disputed was your assertion:
'Nonexistents nevertheless can have relations.'

Then you allegedly qualified and offered as evidence:

>>Gordon:
"Yes, he can, insofar as "holding to the duty" is measured by the actions
> >that he takes."

But notice that the above proffered evidence contains only *existents*.
Were we to accept your evidence as valid, it would be evidence for a
different and morphed proposition namely:
'Existents have relations'.

But who in their right mind ever doubted/argued otherwise? Not Charles,
nor I.
You started out arguing:
'*Nonexistents* have relations'

and provided evidence for:

'Existents' have relations.'

So I don't particularly care how you want to phrase it, for you can say
either you provided no evidence for the proposition you were initially
defending (Nonexistents have relations.), or if you prefer to accept the
evidence as valid then it is evidence for a different/morphed
proposition (Existents have relations.)

>As was my Santa's cookies example.

Your Santa example is of the propositional form:
'Nonexistents have relations.'

You've provided no evidence for such a self contradictory proposition
but apparently wrongly think your "qualification" assertion did so.
In the Santa case what we have is a relation between the cookies and
perhaps the word Santa, or the name Santa, or the idea/thot of Santa,
but not a real Santa - cause he doesn't exist.

> So
> you were not quoting selectively - you were simply ignoring everything I
> said after your initial post.

Shame on you some more. I wasn't ignoring you at all for I replied in
4 different posts to you specifically about this,and each time *you*,
yes *you*, snipped and ignored it.
...
>> Sure, I'll do you that favor, but I expect you to answer a question in
>> return.
>> The simplest way for you is to go to Google, Groups, Advanced Group
>> Search, and in the box entitled "with all of the words" type in
Sherlock
>> Holmes and in the box entitled "Return only messages where the author
>> is" type in yzerok. That'll take you to it.
>>
>> You'll remember, of course, that to solve the problem you need to get
>
> I know the solution - it's the setup I can't remember.
> ...
>> Now my question is:
>> Have you ever considered that philosophy just ain't your thaing?

>
> I published a paper in the journal Economics & Philosophy, a journal
> that accepts only ten percent of the papers it receives. How about you?

If you send me a copy, maybe I can correct it for you. :-)

OK, that was evil and I'm sorry. You are to be lauded for it. Good for you.
Do you have a link for interested readers?

...
>> And I summarized it as the proposition:
>> 'Nonexisting things can nevertheless have relations.'
>>
>> See? That's a fair summary with no distortion. You are just engaging in
>
> Santa is nonexistent yet cookies are left for him; God does not exist,
> yet people act on a duty to pray to him. Neither of these actions
> requires a real or "existing" Santa or God or duty.

Right.

These simple facts
> are what my claim was about.

No. Your claim was and is that such nonexistents can have relations. You
are thereby treating nonexistents as tho they were existents. That is
the fallacy of reification of the zero!

It is of no interest to me how you choose
> to characterize these facts in terms of relations between things that
> exist and do not exist.

And I don't care, nor is it relevant, what your present newly found
interests are or aren't. It was *you* who made the various
statements/assertions you made and they were wrong. Your sudden loss of
interest is hardly surprising but doesn't change the fact that you made
and subsequently and seemingly still are, defending such wrong statements.

> It is simply not relevant to my argument with
> Charles - or so I claim. Tie the two of them together and you might
> have something. Just don't tie your shoelaces together in the process.

You and I've been discussing the truth value of various
propositions/assertions/statements you made and not how they
specifically relate or not to other propositions you are discussing with
Charles. So I've no duty to show how they tie with your/Charles dispute
and won't pursue it further. But I did actually make some conjectures
about such possible relevance but you snipped those too. Go back and
look, if you like.

...
>> > But I would probably be mistaking a neurotic fixation
>> > for dishonesty. Now, I think I'll go eat some of Santa's cookies.
>>
>> You wasted my time and yours
>
> I did not waste my time - I got just what I wanted.

I hope you get fat from all those cookies. :-)

>
>> by "responding" with a whole post
>> containing near zero substance just calumny.
>
> I get cookies and you get calumny - it seems there is some natural
> justice in the world. ;-)

I think it's proof that Beelzebub is in charge.


>
> I would feel badly that I had hurt your feelings, but I know that you
> will bounce back very quickly.
>

Your concern is so touching I can hardly keep a dry eye.

Vonvegas