tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post2092228183527733968..comments2024-03-29T07:36:41.429-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: Petersen’s Failed Attempts to Refute Leonard Peikoff: Objection 4 and ConclusionBahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-38755207233797761342014-10-20T18:06:17.096-04:002014-10-20T18:06:17.096-04:00Thanks Dawson, Ydemoc, Photo, Johann and Bachalon....Thanks Dawson, Ydemoc, Photo, Johann and Bachalon. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-8896642262467401332014-10-18T03:15:29.720-04:002014-10-18T03:15:29.720-04:00Hi Ydemoc,
No worries. Post whenever you like, wh...Hi Ydemoc,<br /><br />No worries. Post whenever you like, wherever you like. There’s no hurry here, so take your time. <br /><br />In the meantime, here’s a new blog entry: <br /><br /><a href="http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2014/10/jason-petersens-abysmal-ignorance-of.html" rel="nofollow">Jason Petersen’s Abysmal Ignorance of Concepts</a><br /><br />I this entry, I examine the paragraph that Johan pasted above. If anyone has the link to where Petersen published this paragraph, please post the link to my new blog entry discussing it.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-51459711589914124302014-10-18T01:51:29.883-04:002014-10-18T01:51:29.883-04:00Hi Dawson,
Thanks for the reply. I've had no...Hi Dawson,<br /><br />Thanks for the reply. I've had no time today to post the Peterson thing, but perhaps I will do so tomorrow, even though his understanding of Objectivism, from then until now, has shown no improvement that I'm able to tell, but only confusion -- and seemingly willful at that!<br /><br />Ydemoc Ydemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-77785161753944648712014-10-17T13:02:06.814-04:002014-10-17T13:02:06.814-04:00So now Petersen deployed an attack on concepts ign...So now Petersen deployed an attack on concepts ignoring both, the definition as informed by Objectivism, and the most basic definitions available in a dictionary, all the whole imagining that, without checking carefully what a concept is, he could make a case against something, but who knows against what. Maybe he imagines that he's attacking Objectivism, but his concept of a concept is ridiculously stupid by any standards. Not ono;y that, he mistakes different conceptual levels within that single tirade of bullshit. If only he was asking for the sake of learning, rather than under the false, and stupid, impression that he's making some kind of devastating point.<br /><br />So many words, and all what that shit means is<br /><br />«I, Jason Petersen, could not care less about understanding what Objectivism is, or what Dawson writes, all I care about is giving the impression that I know what I'm talking about by obfuscating the issues with quickly-fired and twisted rhetorical bullshit.»<br /><br />But then again, that's what presuppositionalism is all about.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-45352053903172108682014-10-17T08:17:32.264-04:002014-10-17T08:17:32.264-04:00Petersen apparently wrote:
«One must ask, can con...Petersen apparently wrote:<br /><br />«One must ask, can concepts be true or false? ... blah, blah, blah ...»<br /><br />Holy shit. This guy is not only way out of his game. He's an uneducable imbecile.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-25351450271405147962014-10-17T03:30:36.834-04:002014-10-17T03:30:36.834-04:00Ydemoc,
this is what I found on the "Answers...Ydemoc,<br /><br />this is what I found on the "Answers for Hope" fb-page:<br /><br />1. "Apparently Dawson Bethrick thinks that he can define what the concept of 'length' is. Oh boy, this will be fun. I will be waiting to post my next response until after Bethrick is done posting his four-part monologue.<br /><br />~Jason"<br /><br />2. "This is a portion of an upcoming response to Dawson Bethrick:<br />"One must ask, can concepts be true or false? Are concepts not just categorizations? In the objectivist conception, categorizations are made by individuals. Is the concept of 'treeness' true or false? Is the concept of 'duckness' true or false? More to the point, can categorizations be true or false? Concepts are not true or false. If concepts are not true or false, then they are not propositional. If concepts are not propositional truth, then they cannot be said to be knowledge. For instance, if someone asked a person to picture a tree, that person may picture a magnolia tree. If a person down south is asked to picture a tree, they may imagine a pine tree. Which concept of 'treeness' is true and which is false? They are not the same tree. If two people picture pine trees, the pine trees would look different from one another in some way. Which concept of 'pine treeness' is true and which one is false? In fact, which pine tree within 'existence'(as the objectivist says) are they picturing? Is not anything that is within the sum total of existence imaginary according to the objectivist? Is one concept of treeness true or false if there are other trees that are not identical to the concept of the tree that is being pictured? Should we then have more than once concept of 'treeness?' If everything must be not only identical to itself, but also of specific quality/quantity, then would not every individual tree require a concept? By such implications, every tree must be a proper noun, for if one tree is not identical to another tree, then their quantity cannot be said to be the same. Thus, there can be no concept of 'treeness' in the objectivist worldview, rather, every tree must be treated as an individual, and thus, a concept must be made for every individual tree. Thus, a concept of 'treeness' would not be identical with reality because the concept will not contain the quantity that every other tree in 'existence' possesses. Thus, concepts are not ultimately reflections of reality and do not lead to knowledge."<br /><br />~Jason"<br /><br />regards,<br />Johanl_johan_khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15467379458813206767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-85295275849039132592014-10-17T00:41:17.910-04:002014-10-17T00:41:17.910-04:00Hi Ydemoc,
Thanks for your message. And yes, if y...Hi Ydemoc,<br /><br />Thanks for your message. And yes, if you would like to post excerpts from Petersen's interaction, feel free to do so. Offer any comments you might have on it.<br /><br />As for Petersen's response to what I've posted this week, I only know *of* his response to my Preamble, but I have not read it. There were some excerpts posted by some visitors here, and I commented on some of it. But I have not gone to Petersen's blog since I started rolling out my examination of his comments on Peikoff. Frankly, I really don't see any need to. Everything I've seen from Petersen confirms my initial assessment in spades.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-51727869063180840992014-10-16T23:15:23.287-04:002014-10-16T23:15:23.287-04:00Dawson,
Excellent! By the way, I think I've...Dawson,<br /><br />Excellent! By the way, I think I've located Peterson's attempt to interact with someone who had some familiarity with Objectivism. which I mentioned to you on a different thread. It was in one of my files. I can post it if you'd like. <br /><br />Also, do you know (or does anyone else know) if Peterson has responded to what you've written here, other than what he responded to in the Preamble?<br /><br />Ydemoc<br /><br />Ydemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-60385111789578571752014-10-16T15:07:18.027-04:002014-10-16T15:07:18.027-04:00Wait wait wait, if, as Petersen claims, "One ...Wait wait wait, if, as Petersen claims, "One cannot discover the truth of Christianity via reason, sense perception, or experience," then that makes TAG a performative lie (in addition to its circularity).<br /><br />I would say that's another nail in the lid of presuppositionalism's coffin, but at this point, it seems there is little room left for another one.Bachalonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17294546903806208091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-75184157471081830842014-10-16T14:37:00.450-04:002014-10-16T14:37:00.450-04:00Poor Jason is pathetically out of his game. Arroga...Poor Jason is pathetically out of his game. Arrogance and stupidity don't go well together. Maybe Jason should renounce at least one of them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-8105150819403203982014-10-16T06:26:12.397-04:002014-10-16T06:26:12.397-04:00The pleasure's all mine, Johan!The pleasure's all mine, Johan!Bahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-91130407897317034762014-10-16T05:28:48.213-04:002014-10-16T05:28:48.213-04:00Really appreciate this, Mr Bethrick!
Thank you, no...Really appreciate this, Mr Bethrick!<br />Thank you, not only for this series, but for your whole blog!<br />l_johan_khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15467379458813206767noreply@blogger.com