| | Bill,
Do you think I'm wrong for claiming to be certain that an ice cube from my freezer will float when dropped in a glass of water?
It depends on whether or not the ice is made of water made of the heavy isotope of hydrogen.
:-)
Do you see what happens when I shift the context on you, illegitimately? It makes me appear more correct than you. That's what Jon and Mike have done here, shift the context. Their context shift was subtle -- either intentionally or not -- so here are much more identifiable examples of such a shift in context for pure semantics:
I could proclaim the "philosophical" truth that cars are for transportation. Jon or Mike would then retort with the "existential" truth that cars aren't only for transportation, but are weapons -- citing the empirical results that, for US citizens, cars kill 41,000 people a year. You can't say, with certainty, that cars are for transportation -- they might say -- because we can think of an outcome of car use which isn't "transportive" but, instead, lethal.
I could proclaim the "philosophical" truth that intimate partners are for the value-sharing and psychological visibility of real love. Jon or Mike would then retort with the "existential" truth that intimate partners are also our enemies -- citing the empirical results that, for US citizens, intimate partners kill 2000 people a year. You can't say, with certainty, that intimate partners are for love -- they might say -- because we can think of an outcome of intimate partnership which isn't loving but, instead, lethal.
I could proclaim the "philosophical" truth that bathtubs are for washing. Jon or Mike would then retort with the "existential" truth that bathtubs are also life-enders -- citing the empirical results that, for US citizens, bathtubs kill 337 people a year. You can't say, with certainty, that bathtubs are for washing -- they might say -- because we can think of an outcome of bathtub use which isn't clean but, instead, lethal.
What's overlooked, intentionally or mistakenly, is how each thing -- cars, intimate partners, bathtubs, coin-flips -- is a kind of a thing, rather than a crude, brute, or vulgar particular; unintegrated with a body of knowledge. Looking at things as if they don't have identity, Jon or Mike proceed to tell us how much more correct they are, about the "mitigated certainty" that they have about the objects in question (and about how we are in intellectual folly for being "certain" about things).
Like Rand was fond of saying, it's not about genius -- but intellectual honesty. It's about understanding what identity is and means in human (psycho-epistemological) affairs.
Ed
p.s. I have to add that, in posts 61 and 71, I was deliberately "word jousting" with Jon (rather than working toward the kind of mutual understanding that this post affords). I was attempting to have the kind of fun with him as he may have been having with me. Assuming he was after such a spurious and superficial semantic exchange (rather than any kind of a mutual understanding), I went down to his level, so to speak -- trying to beat him on his own illegitimate playing field. I'm willing to admit that, on his playing field, he whooped my ass. I am one of the few people online who can and will admit when he's wrong or outdone.
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 11/08, 8:07am)
And Bill Dwyer is a remembered example of another person engaging in this kind of mature behavior (of error admission).
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 11/08, 8:39pm)
|
|
