Sunday, September 29, 2013

My August Comments to B.C. Hodge

I have had a most busy September, leaving me with no time whatsoever to devote to blogging. My schedule should hopefully loosen up some in October, and to whatever extent it does, I’m looking forward to it. Since I haven’t posted anything so far this month, I am posting the comments that I left on B.C. Hodge’s blog back in late August. I’m supposing that most regular visitors of my blog have already read these comments, but if not, here they are. If so, then obviously there’s nothing new here for you.

I know that Hodge reacted to some of what I have stated below and that some of the regulars here (Robert, Ydemoc, Photosynthesis, NAL, etc.) have continued interacting directly with Hodge on his blog. Unfortunately I’ve been able to read up on small portions of those conversations, but what I have seen so far is quite familiar: rational individuals trying their best to reach someone whose mind has turned its back on reason. There’s clearly more to say, but that will have to wait until later.

So here they are in their entirety, my last bout of comments to B.C. Hodge.


Hodge,

You wrote: “Let me suggest to you that you have not understood my argument, yet again.”

Then tell you what. Why not lay your argument out in a clear and succinct manner. Number your premises, and make it unmistakably clear what your intended conclusion is.

You wrote: “The reason why I say this is that you seem completely unaware that the definitions offered to me, both by you and your ilk, all beg your naturalistic worldview.”

I don’t know what you mean by “beg your naturalistic worldview.” I do have definitions, that’s true. But don’t we all? Perhaps when you lay out your argument succinctly, you can provide definitions for your argument’s key terms.

You wrote: “If I define existence to include non-perceivable attributes, that consciousness includes a supernatural mind, etc., I'd like to see you work into your conclusions with those assumptions.”

For one thing, I do not define the concept ‘existence’ in terms of prior or more fundamental concepts. That’s because the concept ‘existence’ is axiomatic: there are no more fundamental concepts. To what would any supposed prior concepts refer if not to something that exists? If they don’t refer to things which exist, what use would they be?

If I discover that something exists, I’m happy to integrate it into the concept ‘existence’, the widest of all concepts. But if there’s no evidence for something actually existing, then I do not integrate it into the concept ‘existence’. Do you think there’s something wrong with this policy? If so, what exactly do you think problem is?

You wrote: “It's stacking the deck.”

I might agree if the definitions were arbitrary or formed expressly for some illicit purpose. But that is not the case with my definitions. So I don’t think there’s any “stacking the deck” on my part.

You wrote: “Of course, you would argue that one can't use my assumptions and the definitions gained from them because they already preclude any conclusions of naturalism and your views concerning O/objectivism (spell it as your prefer).”

If your definitions (whatever they may be – I don’t think I’ve seen any yet) assume the primacy of consciousness, then they are to be rejected given their commitment of the fallacy of the stolen concept.

You wrote: “I appreciate the recommendation to read more, and I am certainly not a philosopher, but rather a biblical scholar; but my field discusses these issues quite a bit when it comes to data, and the fallacies often committed therein are also identifiable within what I have read thus far of Rand's Objectivism. It simply cannot function without first assuming definitions of existence, identity, perception, etc. that all accord with an a priori stance of philosophic naturalism.”

If you think this is what Objectivism does, you clearly don’t know anything about it. Objectivism does not rest on a priori assumptions.

You wrote: “You cannot win an argument merely by defining things in such a way.”

Who’s concerned about winning arguments?

You wrote: “As I said, it only begs the question and then argues that Christians are wrong because they don't let you define the terms according to your worldview.”

That is not why I think Christians are wrong.

You wrote: “NAL, and apparently you as well, have misconstrued what I was saying. I, at no time, have argued that reality within itself shifts into a distortion because it is not perceived correctly by an observer.”

Hodge, here is what you wrote: “That the reality of the object's nature is distorted by the dog's faculties is obvious.” How do you expect this statement to be understood?

You wrote: “I am not arguing that what is perceived is not real. I am arguing that perception itself is limited and therefore can distort the observer's view of what is real.”

Then let’s see your argument for this. So far it appears to me that you’ve simply been asserting that this is the case. Give me an example of a perception which “distort[s] the observer’s view of what is real.” How do you know that a distortion is even involved?

You wrote: “Hence, reality is distorted for him, not ontologically.”

I don’t know what this means.

You wrote: “It is his view of reality that is off.”

This is why I think you’re confusing perception and identification. When we perceive, we’re merely aware of objects as distinct entities. This is an automatic process of our biology. There’s no distorting going on at this point. Beyond this we need to *choose* to identify things what we perceive, and this is a volitional process which involves the formation of concepts to identify and integrate objects into mental units. Thus we can use the concept ‘man’ for instance to denote *all men* who exist now, who have ever existed and who will exist in the future, and anywhere where they might exist (since time and place are omitted measurements).

But when you talk about a person’s “view of reality,” it appears that you have in mind an entire network of positions on various matters about reality which are only possible after one has begun forming concepts – i.e., identifying and integrating what one has perceived. Objectivism holds that we should indeed build a view of reality, but that we should do so in a manner that is wholly consistent with the principle of the primacy of existence – i.e., existence exists independent of conscious activity. This would mean, among other things, that perceiving an object does not alter or “distort” an object, that consciousness does not have the ability to distort or alter reality, that one’s faculty of awareness cannot distort “the reality of [an] object’s nature.”

You wrote: “The dog perceives that no color exists.”

This would at best be overstating the case. I would say rather that the dog perceives things according to the nature of its perceptual faculties given the make-up of its sensory organs and the way perceptual signals are processed by its nervous system. It does not perceive “no colors exist.” It perceives how it perceives because of its nature and the nature of the objects it perceives. It’s an interactive process.

You wrote: “Are you actually making the argument that what the dog perceives is real and that the object really has no color, but when I look at it, it suddenly gains color?”

This is two questions packaged into one. If a dog perceives something, what it perceives is in fact real. It could not perceive something that does not exist. So in answer to the first question, I am affirming that what the dog perceives is real. If it perceives a rose, the rose must be real in order for anything to perceive it.

The second question ignores the fact that color is part of the form in which an organism perceives something visually. The concept ‘color’ presupposes not only an object which appears a certain color, but also a perceiver which perceives the object in a certain form. For example, an object exists, and when light hits it, it reflects light. That reflected light travels at different wavelengths, and depending on the type of receptor cells in the perceiving organism’s eyes, that light is perceived in the form of one color or another, or in a monochromatic or non-color form (e.g., shades of grey). This is a phenomenon called perceptual relativity. You won’t learn about it by studying the bible. But you can learn about it from David Kelley, for instance, who discusses it in his book The Evidence of the Senses.

My point is that when you compare how a dog perceives a rose with how a human being perceives a rose, simply because one species perceives without color variation while the other does, it does not mean that either the dog’s or the human being’s perceptual faculties are “distorting” the rose. Such a conclusion is drawn in haste typically because one fails to take into account the nature of perception in general and perceptual relatively in particular. The result is an instance of the fallacy of the stolen concept: it affirms a concept (in this case ‘distort’) while ignoring or denying its genetic roots. Ask yourself: What exactly is allegedly being “distorted” here? Earlier you affirmed that “the reality of the object's nature is distorted by the dog's faculties.” Then when you are challenged on this, you say that “reality is distorted for him, not ontologically”; and then you say “It is his view of reality that is off.” It changes every time you try to state your position.

You wrote: “Obviously, you think that I am somehow saying this, but it's the exact opposite of what I am saying. The object is real. It is being perceived, but we do not have the ability to know whether we are capable of perceiving all of its attributes or only some of them.”

Actually we do have the ability to discover that we have not perceived all of an object’s attributes. For instance, when my wife brings home a sandwich from the supermarket and I look at it from the outside, I see bread and a little bit of meat and cheese poking out the edges. Then when I bite into it, I discover that there are other ingredients in the sandwich that I did not initially perceive, such as mayo sauce and a tomato. As we explore things, we are definitely in a vantage to discover new attributes about the objects we perceive. So I don’t accept what you say here at all.

You wrote: “To make a judgment, i.e., an identification, of the object is to assume a sufficient amount of knowledge about the object to do so. But there is no way of knowing this.”

I don’t think this is necessarily true either. We can make tentative identifications based on what we do in fact observe directly, all the while recognizing that there is more that we can learn about an object. Identification does not require omniscience; indeed, omniscience would make the task of identifying completely redundant. Reason is the means by which we discover the nature of objects – and continue discovering the nature of things we have already perceived and identified. What’s more, reason enables us to detect and correct errors. But generally speaking, this process – identifying what we have perceived – is only possible after we have perceived something.

You wrote: “Identity, then, can only be for conventional purposes of distinguishing objects AS WE PERCEIVE THEM, but not as they are.”

This is like saying one can only experience San Francisco as approached by I-80 or Highway 1, etc., but never as it “really is.” Since perception is perception of an object(s), perception gives us direct awareness of objects. Thus we are aware of objects directly. We are not perceiving something other than the object we are perceiving. But that is what the view you state here requires us to suppose. But there’s no good reason for supposing this.

You wrote: “Hence, our perception of objects and the true identity of objects themselves may have little to no correlation between them, as they do not with the dog concluding that the object is colorless.”

Two points here:

First, the notion that “our perception of objects the true identity of objects themselves may have little to no correlation between” can and should be dismissed. That’s because perception is causal, and involved in the causality of perception is the object being perceived. The nature of the object contributes to the perceptual process, such as an object’s ability to reflect certain wavelengths and intensities of light. So to say that there may be “little to no correlation between” an object and one’s perception of it, is to ignore the interactive nature of perception.

Second, when you say that the dog concluded “that the object is colorless,” you’ve moved well beyond perception and into the realm of inference, which is a conceptual process. So already you’re losing sight of the original issue.

You wrote: “I would also shy away from arguing from technicalities in definitions in the sense that my definitions are not usually what your group means when you use them.”

Definitions are certainly important. But what are your definitions? And, importantly, where do you get your definitions? I would think that, since the Christian bible is supposed to be, well, your bible, you would have biblical definitions. But the issues that have come up in this discussion are nowhere addressed in the bible. It’s as though its authors were completely unaware of them. And given what poor thinkers they clearly were, I would strongly recommend not being so eager to put stock in much of what is found in the bible. But I realize you want to take what the bible affirms as truth, so my caution will likely fall on deaf ears in your case.

You wrote: “Communication is facilitated by cooperation in allowing one to define his own terms.”

I’m all for all parties to communication making their definitions clear, and being willing to defend them if they’re challenged, or to revise them if they are found defective. I would also emphasize that definition is a crucial step in concept-formation, and thus a theory of definition would come under the heading of a theory of concepts proper. But where would you as a Christian get a theory of concepts? There is no theory of concepts to be found in the bible. And given that Christianity has been splintered into quarreling factions since even the days of the apostle Paul, even if one were to point to some theory of concepts and call it distinctively Christian (and I’ve never encountered one), there would likely be multitudes of Christian adherents who rejected it.

You wrote: “Maybe I'm using perception and I mean what perception does in identifying an object.”

Just as you recognize the need to be clear in our definitions, we also need to be very clear in what is meant by ‘perception’ here. In philosophy, perception proper is not equated with “understanding” or “judgment” or “intuitive grasp,” but rather the process by which sensory qualities are automatically integrated into percepts which give us awareness of objects as distinct entities. “A ‘perception’ is a group of sensations automatically retained and integrated by the brain of a living organism, which gives it the ability to be aware, not of single stimuli, but of entities, of things.” (Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 19)

Perception is automatic, direct awareness of an object as a distinct entity. It is not the same thing as identification. Identification is a conceptual process, undertaken volitionally; we do not automatically identify things. We choose to identify things. When we identify an object, are are singling it out, isolating it from all the other things we are perceiving. Thus there are many things that we perceive which we do not and possibly never will identify. A good demonstration of this is when you’re driving down a street you’ve never been on before. You focus on identifying only those things which you judge to be relevant to your task of safely and successfully driving yourself to your destination; you will perceive many things in your visual field, but most of them you’ll just pass by without ever identifying. But you did perceive them, even if only for a brief instant. So there’s a fundamental distinction here to keep in mind.

You wrote: “Maybe I, as someone not trained in philosophy, am using the terms differently than their technical use. That’s very possible.”

It’s not so much as a matter of technicality, but clarity and consistency. We should have a clear understanding of what we mean by the terms we use, and we should use them consistently. Again, I don’t think you’ll learn about these things by reading the bible.

You wrote: “The easy thing to do if one wants to win an argument through posturing is to assume that one can win by proving a different use of terms.”

I’ll leave such concerns to those who are more concerned with winning arguments than with discovering and validating truth. To be sure, you are dealing with someone who does not think that the purpose of definitions is to win debates.

You wrote: “I likely am using terms differently than Rand, but then I also would since her definitions are not based upon my worldview but hers.”

So what then is the specifically Christian definition of ‘perception’? Where do you get this definition? How do you know it accurately isolates the essentials denoted by the concept ‘perception’? Or, do you think definitions have a different task? If so, what do you think that task is, and where do you learn about these things?

Also, if you have a different definition for ‘perception’, do you have a different concept to denote what Objectivism means by ‘perception’? Clearly we perceive objects as distinct entities. Objectivism has identified this form of awareness. If you have a different understanding of ‘perception’, what concept do you use to identify the form of awareness which Objectivism denotes as perception?

You wrote: “But none of that is essential to what I was arguing. To focus on such things is to evidence a desire to obscure the argument, rather than illumine it in order that one might make it clear and refute it.”

Why not simply lay out your argument in a clear and succinct manner, make it clear what your premises are and what conclusion you think they support, state your definitions, and stop worrying about such trivialities? One of the relevant issues that I’ve detected on several occasions so far is that (a) you make statements that seem quite inordinate, and (b) when readers inquire on those statements you accuse them of misconstruing what you’ve stated and then state something that is different from what you previously stated. So there seems to be some shape-shifting going on, in which case it makes it pretty much impossible to know what exactly you’re trying to argue and how exactly you’re trying to argue it.

You wrote: “Your answers to me evidence nothing but a desire to win an argument, absent of any intent to consider the argument made.”

I don’t think that’s true at all. I’ve tried my best to correct what I think are major philosophical errors in what you’ve presented so far. It’s not motivated by a desire to win an argument, but to enlighten readers who might otherwise be misled.

You wrote: “Indeed, to consider it would cost too much to the neo-atheist, as he wants to continually paint himself as the intellectual superior to his religious counterparts. Yet, as I have argued, and I think anyone with common sense would admit, one must begin his arguments by stating his beliefs and then work out from there. Anything else is academic dishonesty.”

Or, do as I suggested in my first blog entry dealing with your writings: identify your starting point and the means by which you’re (supposedly) aware of what you take your starting point to be.

You wrote: “That said, my statement concerning your argument, that ‘the idea that physical objects make up the sum total of reality is a metaphysic that cannot be confirmed through sensory perception (yet, he still affirms it in his definition of reality)’ uses imprecise language. I should have said, rather, that your view assumes that there is only a naturalistic component to reality that can either be perceived through the human senses or reasoned to using what is perceived by the human senses’."

Actually, my view does not make this assumption. Specifically, I do not begin with some a priori commitment to the view you attribute to me and then use that to guide my assessments and conclusions. Rather, I start the only place I can start: by looking outward, with perceptual awareness of objects that come into contact with my senses. It is on this basis – on the basis of direct perceptual input – that I begin the task of identifying the most basic facts, beginning with the fact that existence exists. I.e., there is a reality. This is fundamental, it is conceptually irreducible, it is directly perceived, and it is implicit in all awareness, even conceptual awareness. So I am not beginning with some “assumption” that “there is only a naturalistic component to reality.” One of the discoveries I’ve made and factor into my worldview is the fact that there is a distinction between the objects I perceive and the conscious activity by which I perceive them, and also that the objects of awareness exist and are what they are independent of consciousness. In other words, existence holds metaphysical primacy over consciousness: existence does not conform to the contents of consciousness, but rather consciousness, in order to identify the objects of awareness on their own terms – i.e., in accordance to their nature, must conform to the objects of awareness. This implies yet a further fact, of which I am wholly aware, namely the fact that there is a fundamental distinction between reality and imagination. So while I am fully capable of imagining invisible magic beings, I recognize that I am in fact merely imagining, and also that what I am imagining is not real. Hence my question to you: how can I reliably distinguish between what you might call a “non-physical” object and something you may merely be imagining? If what you call a “non-physical” object is in fact a mind-independent entity, then you should be able to articulate a reliable method by which I can do this. But so far you haven’t done this. But surely it seems you should agree that, given the fundamental distinction between reality and imagination, this is an important matter for those who affirm the existence of “non-physical” objects – indeed, “supernatural beings” – to contemplate and address.

You wrote: “Your argument, as well as all of your definitions, beg this assumption.”

But as should be clear now, I don’t even make this assumption in the first place. So you are speaking in haste here, on the basis of your own assumptions rather than on the basis of knowing the method which my worldview actually applies.

You wrote: “Now, you want me to show you how your terms beg the questions? I think you can prove it to yourself if you just do the opposite of what you, and Robert, have done with me. Assume my definitions that assume my worldview and then argue from there. Assume consciousness is primarily rooted in a soul and that the brain is secondary mechanism used to function through a physical body in a world which has a physical component to it. Assume that existence includes things that cannot be perceived by the human, as though the human's perceptions and identifications had anything to do with the nature of existence itself. You'll find your arguments to fall flat as they assume what my definitions and ultimate beliefs do not assume.”

But to do this, we would have to jettison facts that we have already discovered and validated. So why should we deny what we know to be true? That’s not begging the question. That’s simply being consistent with the facts that we have discovered. Consciousness is biological. All examples of objectively verifiable consciousness that we have discovered in reality are faculties of biological organisms, whether they are human beings, dogs, fish, snails, etc. We know what physiological structures are responsible for sensation and we know that consciousness develops with the maturity of an organism just as do its other biological functions. There’s no *objective* basis to suppose that consciousness has its source in some supernatural realm which is available to us exclusively by means of imagination. I can imagine invisible conscious beings which float around and have magical powers, for example, but I already know that there’s a fundamental distinction between reality and imagination. Integrating these facts, which I know to be true, is not an instance of begging the question or circular reasoning. If you think it is, you need to revisit your logic texts and recognize that logic requires content, and the only content suitable for knowledge of reality is content that is objective in nature. A person might feel comforted by imagining supernatural spirits and hoping that they’re real, but such a process is not a means of identifying reality. Robert and I recognize this. As one pastor once said, “You know too much.” In essence, he was right: I’m aware of too many facts which vie entirely against the mysticism of god-belief, whether Christian or otherwise.

You wrote: “That was my original, and total, objection to Rand's argument.”

But where have you interacted with any of Rand’s arguments? I haven’t seen it.

You wrote: “It assumes a worldview in order to get her definitions that then supposedly prove her worldview, but that worldview cannot be substantiated by what we perceive without first assuming it.”

I don’t know what you’ve read, but I already know that this is not Rand’s methodology. I’m supposing that you read something in the Objectivist literature, perhaps by Rand herself, bristled in emotional reaction to it, and then supposed that this must be what she’s doing, probably given the fact, known to you at the time, that Rand was an atheist and that her worldview is incompatible with your god-belief. But without knowing the specifics (which you have not presented), I can only suppose that this is what happened (as I’ve seen it many, many times with other Christians).

You wrote: “Hence, only the concepts that are valid are valid because they are gained from our sensory perception, then the nature of reality, that she merely assumes in her worldview, cannot be valid.”

I’d like to know where Rand states this. Rather, her view is that the only concepts that are valid are those which are formed on the basis of objective input and by means of an objective process. Rand wrote a book about this, so her method is available for anyone to examine. I had written: “When one calls something ‘non-physical’, he seems only to be indicating what it is not, not what it is. But objects which exist have positive identity; they are not merely negations floating around."

You wrote: “Because we think analogically, so I can only use what I have experienced in order to explain what I have not. Hence, I use the physical to merely given an analogy as the antithesis of the non-physical.”

So are you saying that you have not experienced a “non-physical” object?

You wrote: “But I can assign positive attributes to it.”

But if you haven’t experienced a “non-physical” object, on what basis do you do this? If you’re aware of positive attributes that what you call a “non-physical” object is supposed to have, why not denote it according to these rather than denoting it by negation? How do you discover what “positive attributes” a “non-physical” object has? How do you determine that it is “non-physical” in the first place? What steps can I perform to come to the same knowledge of these things that you claim to possess? Is it simply accepting some report as true without any independent means available of validating that report? Or, did you perform some objective process by which you discovered the existence of a “non-physical” object (without experiencing it), reliably determined that it is in fact “non-physical,” and reliably distinguish it from something you may merely be imagining?

You wrote: “I just have to use analogy in order to do it.”

What exactly does that mean? Is this because you simply don’t know how else to assign attributes to something you call “non-physical”? What are these positive attributes any way? And how do you know that they belong to what you call “non-physical” objects? Do you just make them up? Or is there some objective method that you use? If it’s the latter, can you spell out the steps you take to make these determinations?

You wrote: “Thus is the nature of finite beings in a box.”

It sounds like you want to claim knowledge but at the same time are saying that it’s knowledge that no one could acquire, that we’re trapped in some way and thus can do nothing to come to the knowledge you claim, albeit analogically, to have. I don’t know how else to integrate what you’re saying at this point.

You wrote: “Only the objects perceived inside the box can be used to define objects outside of it.”

So what you call “non-physical” objects are outside your box? Then how do you identify them? How could you even have awareness of them? How do you know that you’re not making a mistake when you identify them as one thing as opposed to another, or have one set of attributes as opposed to another? What method do you have to guard against error????

You wrote: “To say there are no objects outside of it because of that, or to argue that such makes speaking about them meaningless, depends upon whether you believe one from outside the box has communicated to those inside the box, using their analogical thinking, to convey important elements of existence to them.”

Well, I can always imagine that there’s “one from outside the box” as it were that has “communicated” to me. But I am already aware of what it means to imagine something, and I’m also aware of the fact that there’s a fundamental distinction between reality and imagination. If I cannot reliably distinguish this “one from outside the box” which has allegedly “communicated” to whomever from what may merely be a figment of someone’s imagination, then I have no objective basis to accept such claims as legitimate knowledge of reality. Do you think I should ignore this and believe anyway? If so, why? My mind and is content are extremely important to me. I don’t “just believe” everything people tell me. Again, “you know too much,” so I’ve been told.

You wrote: “Do you think that describing ‘dark matter’ is also something that indicates dark matter is meaningless and should be either described without analogy or discarded as a concept?”

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a description of ‘dark matter’, so I couldn’t say. But I’m willing to grant that there may be descriptions of ‘dark matter’ that are meaningless. I do know that in my life, I have never found the need for such a concept.

You wrote: “It is my very worldview that believes that such analogies should be made. It is your very worldview that believes there is no need to do so since nothing outside the box exists.”

It depends what “the box” is intended to represent. We hold that existence exists and only existence exists. If something exists, it exists and is part of existence. The non-existent does not exist. Also, my worldview holds that there’s a fundamental distinction between reality and imagination. Most people implicitly recognize this distinction, but not everyone consistently acknowledges it in all their thinking. We think people should. Do you think that’s wrong?

Regards,
Dawson

Labels: , , , ,

49 Comments:

Blogger Robert Bumbalough said...

Hi Dawson. How's it going? I hope you and yours are well and prospering.

From your perspective living in Thialand have you noticed what local hot pepper sauce is popular with your neighbors? I love spicy foods.

The presuppers go round and round with the same ole song and dance. They've just got to be dishonest. Not hardly anyone is so dumb as to think that if the axiom of existence isn't self-evident then the axiom of consciousness is or vise-versa or that if either isn't self-evident then logic can somehow obtain. How can they keep a straight face when asserting the fairy tale that logic exists outside of existence and regardless of consciousness? They'be got to be genuinely delusional or really good liars to contest that logic isn't the means of describing the proper relationship of consciousness to existence. Sigh.

As for me, I'll just keep on training, running, swimming, and riding my bicycle. I'm gonna cross the triathlon off my bucket list before I kick.

Cheers.

September 30, 2013 10:01 AM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

Hodge has a very muddled mind. Getting him to make sense seems like trying to make our planet rotate backwards.

September 30, 2013 1:52 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Hi Photo & Robert,

Yes, I agree, Hodge's mind is well-marinated in his irrational worldview. Apparently as a matter of habit, he continually projects the presumption that everyone starts with these a priori assumptions, and that it is through the prism of these assumptions that everything is interpreted. This is very much the standard fare with presuppers. They're so accustomed to assuming this that they simply do not recognize the difference between perceiving and identifying. And yet, that's the key to much of their underlying confusion.

As for popular hot sauces here in Thailand, there are some off-the-shelf products, but most people just make their own hot sauce from what I have seen. A common condiment is called "nam-pla-prik" - nam-pla is fish sauce and prik is the small Thai chilies that pack a lot of heat. I have always loved this particular item, but I didn't realize how simple it is to make until my wife showed me some years ago. Here's a little recipe if you're interested:

You will need:

- 6-12 Thai chilies (red are the best if you can get them – preferably fresh)
- fish sauce (Tiparos brand is fairly common here – I’ve seen it in the States, too)
- lime juice (ideally fresh-squeezed)
- two or three shallots

Chop the chilies and the shallots, squeeze the lime juice, throw it all into a bowl and add fish sauce. Taste as you go. Too much lime juice will make it sour, too much fish sauce will make it too salty. The fish sauce and lime juice need to be well balanced. I love the shallots, but if you use shallots, you won’t be able to keep the sauce for very long (even over night). And while I love the chilies, I have to go easy on them as my stomach will revolt the next day – it’s not a very pleasant after-effect. But it’s all up to you. Better than anything in a bottle, but it goes primarily well with Thai food. Given the fish sauce, I don’t think it would go well with Mexican food, for instance. But feel free to experiment!

Okay, gotta run!
Dawson

October 01, 2013 5:00 AM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

Did you notice that your title has a nice double entendre with the word "august"?

October 01, 2013 3:20 PM  
Blogger QuantumHaecceity said...

Dawson, willfully or unintentionally, you are doing exactly what Objectivism teaches not to do. You are evading reality.

And the reality of the situation, is that it looks like Gregory S. Nyquist has utterly destroyed Objectivism. Taken it a part intellectually, piece by piece, and left it in ruins, with 8 years of refutations and attacks.

It looks like you have become exactly what you despise in Christians and Presuppositionalists. A person who is being shown the errors of their worldview, but are too dogmatic and dishonest to admit the truth and discard it.

Don't do this to yourself Dawson. Face reality and don't evade it. You either need to man up, and take on the Ayn Rand contra human nature blog in full, or admit that Objectivism has been put to ruins and discard it. I'm not saying you HAVE to deal with them intellectually. I'm saying if you want to stay honest and true to your tenets, and not be what you despise in Christians, either show how they are wrong, or man up and admit Objectivism is false and leave it.

You can start your refutations of their blog here:

http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2013/09/ayn-rand-epistemology-45_18.html#more

http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2013/09/ayn-rand-epistemology-45.html#more

http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2013/08/ayn-rand-epistemology-44.html#more

http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2013/03/ayn-rand-epistemology-31.html#more



If you refuse to interact with those above, you are free to do so, but then just admit Objectivism is wrong and massively flawed in a blog post, and that you were wrong about it, and after a few weeks or so, take this blog down.

October 01, 2013 7:32 PM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

Oh shit. Now we have childish tactics to get Dawson to debate some idiots in a blog whose main characteristic is that they can't tell their prejudices and fallacies from what Rand actually wrote?

October 02, 2013 5:59 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

Oh its the lets him and you fight guy again. Hi there QuantumHaecceity, good advice, man up and present an argument yourself if you think this is important. If you want sport you are going to have to actually play, that is participate. Otherwise dry up and blow away.

October 02, 2013 6:40 AM  
Blogger Robert Bumbalough said...

QuantumHaecceity wrote "Face reality..."

If Rand was wrong and Objectivism is false, then metaphysical primacy of consciousness obtains, and consequently reality doesn't. QH's consciousness would then be constituting Nyquist and his blog, Dawson and his blog, me and the other comment posters in the sense of pure idealism. Appeal to Kant fails both Nyquist and QH because with Kant the lack any possibility of knowledge of the "noumena" self or presumed "noumena" existence, a mind is reduced to complete skepticism, and proof in the sense of refutation is not possible.

Time's up. Have a great day. Thanks for the recipe.

October 03, 2013 3:56 AM  
Blogger QuantumHaecceity said...

"then metaphysical primacy of consciousness obtains, and consequently reality doesn't"


The above is a non-sequitur fallacy. It doesn't logically follow that if consciousness has primacy, reality doesn't obtain.

Also, if you are an Objectivist Bumbalough, I invite you to man up and go on to Ayn Rand contra human nature blog and confront Gregory S Nyquist, Daniel Barnes and them directly.

You seem to be confident with the arrogant "Time's up. Have a great day. Thanks for the recipe" stuff.

October 06, 2013 2:03 PM  
Blogger Daniel GodIsTime said...

Hi all,

Long time, no drop-by. Thought I would just pop in and say that I'm really starting to think clearer now. It is rather amazing to see how long it takes to shake the Christian worldview when raised in it from the cradle. But what is more fantastic, is how fun it is to brake these chains. I've all but completed Dawson's archive and bitten off rather substantial portions of the reading materials suggested by Dawson and Robert B.

Tangentially, here's a fun little (by little, I mean LONG) exchange between myself and one of my long time acquaintances who felt compelled to stop by my social site and tell me that he felt bad to see that I no longer believed his fairy tale. http://thehiddengodoftime.blogspot.ca/2013/10/this-much-fun-cant-be-christian.html

Thanks again, Dawson for the hours upon hours of engaging and enlightening reading material all found here on you blog.

Yours In Humanity,
Daniel

October 06, 2013 8:04 PM  
Blogger Daniel GodIsTime said...

Quantum,

I believe that Dawson has shown rather redundantly, how reality obtains in existence is primary. That is what he asserts and he proves in conclusively, much to the chagrin of mystics everywhere.

That being said, it is not up to Dawson, Robert, myself, or anyone else who might share our philosophy to show you how reality MIGHT obtain if consciousness is primary. If you believe consciousness is primary, it is up to you to do so. You make the claim, you bring the proof. Just saying that it is possible doesn't show us how it works. So, indulge us.

In Humanity,
Daniel

October 06, 2013 8:13 PM  
Blogger Daniel GodIsTime said...

If a Christian is already happy in life and feels fulfilled, what potential motivation to de-convert could I present that would answer the question: What does Objectivism offer me?

Daniel

October 07, 2013 6:26 PM  
Blogger NAL said...

Daniel:

What does Objectivism offer me?

A coherent worldview.

October 08, 2013 5:17 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

"What does Objectivism offer me? "

A world view that presents a intelligible metaphysics

A world view that actually lays out explicitly the foundations for epistemology (knowledge)

A world view that gives me a moral guide that does not start with the premise that I am a corrupt horrible and inherently evil being. A world view that gives me hope that I can achieve my values in the only life I have, this one. A world view that says there is value to be found in this life.

I could go on and on but basically objectivism is a world view for those that value life and Christianity comes across as a death cult.



October 08, 2013 8:55 AM  
Blogger Robert Bumbalough said...

Well said Justin.

"What does Objectivism offer me? "

A complete philosophy that is not only coherent but also lacks the many problems of Idealism and the plethora of subjective systems.

October 08, 2013 2:24 PM  
Blogger QuantumHaecceity said...

Wow, this just makes Objectivism look worse than it already looks to so many people.

We have Dawson Bethrick, clearly evading dealing with those posts I gave him. Which can easily be construed as he can't.

You have Robert Bumbalough blatantly evading substantiating his claim that the primacy of consciousness means no reality.

Meanwhile, you have other Objectivist's, ridiculously banging on about Objectivism being a coherent worldview, while clearly ignoring the 600 pound gorilla that has been brought right to their doorstep. Which is Gregory S. Nyquist and the Ayn Rand contra human nature blog.

How can you guys be so ridiculous as to bang on about Objectivism being valid or coherent, when I've posted not one but four attacks against it that show it's not coherent, and that have not been interacted with an refuted at all, is up to the level of Creationist's and Presuppositionalists in dishonestly and evasion.

October 09, 2013 11:05 AM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

QuantumHaecceity,

If you don't understand why primacy of consciousness would mean that reality does not obtain, then you don;t understand what primacy means. If you don;t understand something that basic, I doubt that you could make a rational case against Objectivism. That level of ignorance at such early steps, would mean that you are far from educable. No wonder you can't see how those antihumannature guys fail at criticizing Objectivism. But that's entirely your problem.

October 09, 2013 5:36 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Hey, QuantumHaecceity,

You wrote: "We have Dawson Bethrick, clearly evading dealing with those posts I gave him. Which can easily be construed as he can't."

Aren't you on record as throwing out similar taunts to them about Dawson? Back in June of 2013 I think it was? Here's the link to that thread:

http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.co.nz/2013/06/ayn-rand-epistemology-39.html?showComment=1371755835520

Here's only a portion of what you write: "I'm very curious about the psychology of Greg Nyquist. What motivates a man to attack a philosophy or worldview for 8 calendar years? That is astounding."

And then, in that same thread: "Why? Why go on this long? What's the point? What are you trying to prove? I'd see if you were having a constant explicit, current exchange with an Objectivist that was actually taking you on in a very public manner like a Dawson Bethrick; But from what I can tell, Objectivist's by and large, completely ignore Greg Nyquist and his interminable attacks."

Ydemoc






October 09, 2013 6:58 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Hey, QuantumHaecceity,

You wrote: "We have Dawson Bethrick, clearly evading dealing with those posts I gave him. Which can easily be construed as he can't."

Aren't you on record as throwing out similar taunts to them about Dawson? Back in June of 2013 I think it was? Here's the link to that thread:

http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.co.nz/2013/06/ayn-rand-epistemology-39.html?showComment=1371755835520

Here's only a portion of what you write: "I'm very curious about the psychology of Greg Nyquist. What motivates a man to attack a philosophy or worldview for 8 calendar years? That is astounding."

And then, in that same thread: "Why? Why go on this long? What's the point? What are you trying to prove? I'd see if you were having a constant explicit, current exchange with an Objectivist that was actually taking you on in a very public manner like a Dawson Bethrick; But from what I can tell, Objectivist's by and large, completely ignore Greg Nyquist and his interminable attacks."

Ydemoc






October 09, 2013 6:58 PM  
Blogger QuantumHaecceity said...

@photosynthesis


You do realize your post did not in any way offer an argument for why if the primacy of consciousness obtains, reality doesn't, nor any intellectual refutation of those four links I gave.

All your post did, was offer thinly veiled insults. And I'm not even sure if the qualifier, "thinly veiled" even needs to be used.

Also, on a side note, I'm puzzled by your aggressive, belligerent attitude on behalf of Objectivism.

As far as I can ascertain, you're not even an Objectivist. If that is indeed the case, your behavior is a bit bizarre.

October 09, 2013 10:43 PM  
Blogger QuantumHaecceity said...

@Ydemoc

What is your point? I didn't see any point there.

October 09, 2013 10:46 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

Thank you for finding the evidence to support what I have suspected for sometime about Mr QuantumHacecceity. He is a troll not interested in finding truth but in manipulating people into arguments presumably to provide him with online entertainment.

He reminds me of a kid I once knew about in junior high school, damn what was that 1983? Anyway this morally bankrupt individual would go around to belligerent kids known for getting into physical confrontations and tell them some other equally belligerent kid had said something disrespectful about them behind their backs. Then he would stand in the crowd and enjoy the sport he had engineered. Of course to anyone older then say 12 such sophomoric and infantile tactics are easy to detect.

October 10, 2013 7:15 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Hey QuantumHaecceity,

You wrote: "What is your point? I didn't see any point there."

Please see Justin's latest comment. If that doesn't do the trick, I would suggest rereading the thread you participated in over there. Perhaps then, the point will become plain to you.

Ydemoc

October 10, 2013 8:36 AM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

QuantumHaecceity,

If I wanted to insult you the guys here could confirm that I would just do that. There's no insult in telling you that you seem uneducable if you don't understand something as basic as primacy. It's a mere description of your situation. If you find that insulting that's also entirely your problem.

October 10, 2013 10:04 AM  
Blogger Robert Bumbalough said...

Greetings friends: Nyquist is refuted.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13408&hl=nyquist

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13408&p=186303

He argues against Rand and the Objectivist philosophers because he finds Objectivism offensive. But as Photo pointed out, that's his problem.

October 10, 2013 11:40 AM  
Blogger Robert Bumbalough said...

This is not an adversarial conversation. QH and Nyquest are nice people. I think they're wrong, but there's no value to me in expending the effort to review Nyquest. Curi has already shown Nyquest's work is loaded with ad hominem, appeal to authority, division and composition fallacies. Have a great day. Best and Good.

October 10, 2013 1:37 PM  
Blogger QuantumHaecceity said...

@Ydemoc

It didn't do the trick. All I saw Justin doing is whining and demonizing. Which frankly means nothing to me.

He seems to be apt to do that to anyone that he doesnt like, or that is not clearly on his side. Like I think he did with Nide and Michael David Rawlings.

In fact, Justin Hall's post is, frankly, very retarded. He acts like I'm hiding my desire to get Nyquist and Bethrick to interact and engage each other. When I'm trying to openly get that done! LOL!

Then, he childishly demonizes this as "trying to get them to fight", which is retarded since I already told Bethrick, he didn't HAVE to deal with them intellectually. I even put that word in all caps for emphasis. Which shows that I don't see it as some entertainment, or a fight, but as I already explicitly said, it's about Dawson not evading the reality of the situation.

Which is that he is not being true to the tenets he has espoused these many years. He's running away from engaging them and their powerful refutations of Objectivism, all the while still espousing Objectivism, and acting like no one has refuted it or made any critique's against it, that call it into question as a coherent and correct worldview.

Justin Hall is being utterly ridiculous. Another example of this is when he says "man up and present an argument yourself", and "If you want sport you are going to have to actually play, that is participate".

Which is laughably retarded since I've done just that. I have confronted and been confrontational to Greg and them on the Ayn Rand contra human nature blog. I have participated, I have engaged them intellectually and directly.

Which makes Justin Hall look foolish as he is accusing me of not doing something, I've already done. Repeatedly.

Even more, it makes him look foolish, and others on here, as they refuse to directly engage, refuse to go over to "enemy territory". Refuse to face the 600 pound gorilla in the room. But rather stay over here in the safe confines of friendly territory. And act like nothing is wrong with Objectivism. Banging on about how Objectivism is a coherent worldview, while not a dew drop of intellectual refutation has been made to all those attacks by Nyquist, from those like NAL or Daniel.

Justin Hall's middle school cynicism is laughable.

October 10, 2013 4:19 PM  
Blogger QuantumHaecceity said...

@photosynthesis

Cool story bro. Meanwhile, while you're banging on about how your insults weren't insults, you still have not rendered a dew drop intellectually on the issues at hand.

Which is telling. Although I must commend you for not resorting to cursing as usual. It's good to see, at least there, you can show some class and self-restraint to at least some extent.

Looking over your posts, I can tell it's very hard for you to not insult people. As you did to Hodge, and countless times, and if I'm not mistaken, to Michael David Rawlings, and Nide. And now to me.

Well look, if you're not capable of intellectual argumentation, can you at least explain your belligerence in the light of the fact that, as far as I know, you're not even an Objectivist. Which, to me, is rather bizarre.(bizarre from the standpoint of you getting your underwear in a bunch over something you don't even believe in or self identify as)

October 10, 2013 4:30 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@QuantumHaecceity

“It didn't do the trick. All I saw Justin doing is whining and demonizing. Which frankly means nothing to me.”

I would not say demonize, I would say I have insinuated that your behavior on this blog to date has been juvenile and trollish. If that is demonizing so be it.

“He seems to be apt to do that to anyone that he doesnt like, or that is not clearly on his side. Like I think he did with Nide and Michael David Rawlings.”

Really? You want to play the victim card by grouping yourself with those two individuals? Micheal David Rawlings had a very public emotional melt down right here on this blog. His behaviour was far from adult and most unbecoming. Of Nide, Chris Bolt, accomplished christian apologist author once said basically “please shut up already you are making us look bad”. Do you really want to be viewed as being in the same league or category as them? If so then you have earned all the insults you believe yourself to be a victim of.

“In fact, Justin Hall's post is, frankly, very retarded. He acts like I'm hiding my desire to get Nyquist and Bethrick to interact and engage each other. When I'm trying to openly get that done! LOL!”

Retarded? Is this the epitome of your vocabulary when it comes to comebacks? And you accused me of junior high cynicism... but whatever. My point was not that you were being clandestine about it but that you appear from your behaviour here to date to share a certain moral quality with the individual I recalled from my past. Namely a schadenfreude pleasure in seeing conflict between others. To speaks directly to the issue I have with you which not objectivism but your behaviour here. This is not about intellectual debate, this is about you... you personally and your trolling immature behaviour.

“Then, he childishly demonizes this as "trying to get them to fight", which is retarded since I already told Bethrick, he didn't HAVE to deal with them intellectually. I even put that word in all caps for emphasis. Which shows that I don't see it as some entertainment, or a fight, but as I already explicitly said, it's about Dawson not evading the reality of the situation.”

And yet you came back when It became clear that Dawson was not going to go running over there to put out the fire at your insistence with bombastic claims that Dawson had fortified and that by proxy he had all but admitted that objectivism was in ruins. Your words

“You either need to man up, and take on the Ayn Rand contra human nature blog in full, or admit that Objectivism has been put to ruins and discard it”

Note that you were first to use the term "man up" Not I.

continued....

October 11, 2013 11:33 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@All

as always I noticed some spelling and grammar mistakes only after hitting the publish button. Apologies to all including even you QuantumHaecceity

October 11, 2013 11:43 AM  
Blogger QuantumHaecceity said...

@Justin Hall

Justin that's a cool story bro. All your demonizing, whining about childishness, and pathetic cynicism aside, the fact still remains that Dawson has refused to engage the links I've provided, you have refused to intellectually engage them, NAL has, Daniel has, nor has Robert Bumbalough, or Ydemoc.

Fact still remains, as far as I know, none of you have gone over there and personally dealt with them, but stayed over in friendly territory, which can easily be construed as cult like cowardice.

So all your blah, blah, blah aside, and concentration on the personal, the thing that matters, the intellectual part; the part of substance, still remains untouched by your likes.

And that's what matters. What matters is this right here, and I'm making it EXPLICIT, so there is no misunderstanding:

Dawson Bethrick has made it his business lo these many years, to defend and espouse Objectivism, and claim it's correct, while other worldviews like Christianity are false.

Dawson Bethrick has either explicitly or implicitly, felt that Christianity and Presuppositionalists are dishonest and not facing the truth that their worldview is false and flawed, as he has supposedly shown on his blog countless times.

Now, the shoe is on the other foot, and the Ayn Rand contra human nature blog has supposedly shown Objectivism to be false and flawed, and it looks like for all the world, Bethrick is evading it like the plague, and running like De La Hoya against Felix Trinidad.

If Bethrick wants to avoid hypocrisy, and stay true to his tenets, he needs to man up and either take them on Intellectually, or admit Objectivism is wrong, and take this blog down.

This is the bottom line. And all that other stuff you're whining about, and all those 5th grade insults, is just irrelevant and a waste of time, to be frankly honest with you Justin.

That's just the bottom line. I'm hoping you don't come back with another post filled with cynicism and insults.

You, or any of these other people, need to either get it done intellectually, or leave it, and Objectivism alone. It's just that simple.

October 11, 2013 6:11 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Quantum

there was supposed to be a second part to my post but for some reason it has not posted. I'll try posting it again later. In response to what you have said. You just don't get it. Dawson is not your play thing and toy to do your bidding. He does not have to prove anything to you or anyone else. He will spend his time anyway he so desires. I am an atheist and atheism's viability is not contingent on me going around and posting on every christian apologist site some troll thinks has made or scored some points. That is the beginning and end it. If you think the arguments are good ones post them here in your own words.
As for you, I will continue to call you on your trollish behavior as long as you persist in it. This is how things are going to proceed. Dawson wont do what you want and I will continue to ride you over being an internet troll. Hell I may even write about you over on my blog as a text book example of bad behavior in online forums.

October 11, 2013 7:22 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

the second part of my original reply to QH

“Which is that he is not being true to the tenets he has espoused these many years. He's running away from engaging them and their powerful refutations of Objectivism, all the while still espousing Objectivism, and acting like no one has refuted it or made any critique's against it, that call it into question as a coherent and correct worldview.”


Mr Dawson does not have to due your bidding, despite your words you clearly carry the attitude that he does or you would have dropped the matter some time ago.


“Justin Hall is being utterly ridiculous. Another example of this is when he says "man up and present an argument yourself", and "If you want sport you are going to have to actually play, that is participate".


Which is laughably retarded since I've done just that. I have confronted and been confrontational to Greg and them on the Ayn Rand contra human nature blog. I have participated, I have engaged them intellectually and directly.”


But not here you have not. I don’t care what you have done at other blogs. You came here and threw down the challenge and when called on it simply posted links to elsewhere. You challenge here was not your responses to Greg but Greg's arguments themselves. His words, not yours. This is trying to vicariously win through the efforts of others. It is dishonest. If you believe the author of objectivismcontrahuman nature has made valid arguments then you should be able to reiterate them here in your own words. In other words act like an adult and do your own work. If you are willing to do so fine, let the matter rest then.


"Which makes Justin Hall look foolish as he is accusing me of not doing something, I've already done. Repeatedly."


All I have seen you do HERE is try and engineer a confrontation between two other people and then act like a frustrated spoiled child when things do not go your way.

continued...

October 11, 2013 7:24 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

continued... there reason this did not post is that it exceed the 4096 limit, oh well

All I have seen you do HERE is try and engineer a confrontation between two other people and then act like a frustrated spoiled child when things do not go your way.


"Even more, it makes him look foolish, and others on here, as they refuse to directly engage, refuse to go over to "enemy territory". Refuse to face the 600 pound gorilla in the room. But rather stay over here in the safe confines of friendly territory. And act like nothing is wrong with Objectivism. Banging on about how Objectivism is a coherent worldview, while not a dew drop of intellectual refutation has been made to all those attacks by Nyquist, from those like NAL or Daniel."


What do you know of me? I am not an objectivist as Ydemoc would tell you. When I said objectivism provided me with a coherent world view I meant it. Coherent however does not automatically equate to accurate or useful, only that it was internally consistent. Objectivism compared to Christianity is however a breath of fresh air and I was once once very much infatuated with it and to this day maintain in interest. However I gradually came to the conclusion that objectivism's model of ethics was too limiting and counter to human nature. I even attempted to do what you are doing here and get a colleague of mine to debate Dawson on this point. My colleague however had the good grace and maturity to do his own work and came to Dawson with his own arguments. It is unfortunate that like so many before he threw a fit when his conclusions were to accepted by Dawson on his mere says so but I digress.


My point is QH, I have gone over to the blog in question and I have read it. I even found some of his objections to objectivist epistemology thought provoking. The issue here is not the intellectual merits of objecitivsm however. The issue here is your behaviour. You have acted like a troll and an infantile man child when Dawson did not jump at your instigation. If as you have said he did not have to go over there, that you were in effect simply providing him with the information and leaving it up to him then that would have been the end of it. However you continue on and still continue on which as I have said speaks loudly to us if not in so many words that you are at core frustrated that Dawson has not done your bidding.



"Justin Hall's middle school cynicism is laughable."


You may laugh all you like, it will trouble me not at all. My cynicism which started to take root long before middle school as been born of my keen observation of human nature and motives. From what you have said and done here you have cemented in my mind the identification of yourself as yet another internet troll.

October 11, 2013 7:26 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

I am not pleased with how my comments get broken up by the 4096 character limit so for everyone's benefit as well as to bring the trollish behavior of QuantumHeccentiy to the attention of a wider audience I have posted my entire reply in one unbroken post over at my blog if it interests you

http://court-of-reality.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-troll-quantumheccenity.html

October 11, 2013 7:34 PM  
Blogger Daniel GodIsTime said...

I heard you, Robert. Thanks for the link.

October 11, 2013 7:48 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

QuantumHaecceity,

You wrote: "If Bethrick wants to avoid hypocrisy, and stay true to his tenets, he needs to man up and either take them on Intellectually, or admit Objectivism is wrong, and take this blog down."

That's hilarious! Really? Those are really the only two options, huh? I'm sure you can see the fallacious nature of asserting such a forced choice. If you can't, than you are without a brain.

Can you see it now, now that I myself, in the interest of illustration, have engaged in it? If not, here's some light reading for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Ydemoc

October 11, 2013 8:19 PM  
Blogger QuantumHaecceity said...

"Hell I may even write about you over on my blog as a text book example of bad behavior in online forums."


Hahaha! Who cares. That mess is so silly and petty. Right up your alley with the other dark cynicism and whining.

Still haven't engaged anything intellectually. Which is devastatingly telling. But you do decided to ratchet up the worthless personal attacks by making a blog post about it.

Oh no, Justin Hall made a blog post on his blog to whine somemore. Oh no. LOL!

I wonder if it crosses your mind just one iota, how utterly childish and infantile that is. To actually take negative junk, and not only continue to engage in it, when the other person has explicitly stated they want to stick to substance, but to vindictively try to make your insults and whining more public, like a child throwing a temper tantrum in his room, but then wants to do in in front of other people, so his tantrum can get more attention.

October 11, 2013 8:26 PM  
Blogger QuantumHaecceity said...

@Justin Hall

"I am not an objectivist as Ydemoc would tell you"


Good lord really? That makes your behavior even more bizarre and ridiculous.

Dude, just stick to substance Justin. Stop all this whining and crying, and middle school cynicism.

October 11, 2013 8:46 PM  
Blogger QuantumHaecceity said...

@Ydemoc

"If you can't, than you are without a brain"

Cool beans bro. And, what have we to say on your part about these below:

http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2013/09/ayn-rand-epistemology-45_18.html#more

http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2013/09/ayn-rand-epistemology-45.html#more

http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2013/08/ayn-rand-epistemology-44.html#more

http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2013/03/ayn-rand-epistemology-31.html#more


I mean, I don't know how many times I have to say it. I'm interested in the substance and the intellectual arguments of Nyquist being dealt with. You guys keep dragging it to personal insults and personal based red herrings.

Just deal with the substance or disengage. Simple as.

It's devastatingly telling you guys are ignoring interacting with those critiques, but rather wallow in this childish nonsense.

October 11, 2013 8:53 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

Still dropping links instead of presenting arguments in your own words I see. As long as its links we get from you it wont be the substance you want from us, just scorn. Its simple, present them in YOUR OWN WORDS, damn slacker.

October 11, 2013 10:46 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@QuantumHaecceity

All for you buddy

http://court-of-reality.blogspot.com/2013/10/an-open-challenge-to-quantumhaecceity.html

October 12, 2013 8:29 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

Oh my god... I have just read through a comment log over at AynRandcontrahumannature. Our QauntumHaecceity comes off like some sort of objectivist version of Nide only with better grammar and spelling. Speaking of which sorry again QuantumHaecceity about miss spelling your handle. It was sloppy of me and I offer no excuse only an apology. That being said I now better understand your motives. You're pissed because we wont do your work for you. They roundly disregarded you over there as a troll, which you are and now you want us to fight your battles for you. Mmmmm.... yeah not going to happen kid.

October 12, 2013 9:30 AM  
Blogger ActionJackson864 said...

"Dawson Bethrick has made it his business lo these many years, to defend and espouse Objectivism, and claim it's correct, while other worldviews like Christianity are false."

I'm pretty sure his blog is about "Incinerating Presuppositionalism". Not about "defending Objectivism against blogs from any and all commenters."

The argument against mystic presuppositionalism what brought me here.

October 13, 2013 12:24 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@ActionJackson

If you go over to that blog you will see in the comments that QH made a mess of defending objectivism. He got dismissed out of hand. I suspect he is simply sore that Dawson did not come to the rescue. This is what I noticed almost right away, the brazen attempt to manipulate people and why I took such a harsh stance with him. Anyway peace.

October 14, 2013 12:34 AM  
Blogger NAL said...

A commenter named "Rian" is taking B.C. to the cleaners. I'm standing back and enjoying the show, although I still think B.C. get his metaphysical cart before the epistemological horse.

October 16, 2013 12:46 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Hi NAL,

Thank you for the heads up on this!

I went over to Hodge’s blog and saw this entry: http://theologicalsushi.blogspot.com/2013/10/christianity-doesnt-require-omniscience.html

I don’t think this is the entry you had in mind (perhaps you had this one in mind?), but there’s some interesting discussion in the comments between Rian, Steve Hays and Photosynthesis.

I have posted a new entry on my blog - The Primacy of the Inner over the Outer - which documents some of my reaction to a portion of Hays’ remarks that I read there.

And Photo,

I noted that Hays preferred to ridicule you instead of address what you had written. Such is to be expected from Hays in many cases. But I saw nothing in your comments “demonstrating that you have nothing intelligent to contribute to this discussion,” as Hays hastily stated. Hays prefers that non-Christians take him seriously. And if you don’t, you’ll get his backhanded remarks and condescension in response. Been there, done that, got the blog entries to show it. As my pastor used to say, “Consider the source.” In some cases, this is legitimately rational advice.

Okay, gotta run!

Regards,
Dawson

October 17, 2013 6:43 AM  
Blogger photosynthesis said...

Dawson,

Thanks a lot for your words. I was far from feeling offended by Hays. I re-read what I said, noticed that there was nothing wrong with it, and my conclusion was that Hays preferred to deal with the apparently easy target, rather than deal with the one who "goes for the kill."

I'm happy to see your new entry by the way.

October 17, 2013 6:53 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Hi Photo,

Perhaps what might "demonstrate" having something "intelligent to the discussion" for Hays would be complete agreement with whatever he says and no questions asked. Whenever I read his interactions with people who don't agree completely with him, I get the very unshakable impression that he's ticked off and wants to use every opportunity to wrestle a person down on the mat and take him out for the count. He clearly wants to win every match, and this usually involves demeaning his opponents with belittling witticisms and biting repartees. It’s as though he simply cannot have an adult conversation with anyone outside the choir. His goal seems entirely to smear atheism and atheists for being atheists. He does this with Arminians and Catholics, too. If he has a family, they probably hate to be anywhere around him. But I have to hand it to him – he’s definitely wise in his own eyes. That makes one pair.

Regards,
Dawson

October 17, 2013 7:08 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home