Critique My Philosophy of Life?

Post Reply New Topic

You are repeatedly committing an ad hominem fallacy known as "appeal to motive". For detail, see:

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

Your comment demonstrates that you have not bothered to read the document.

I will not respond to any further posts of yours except those that clearly demonstrate that you have read the document.

when the topic of the document includes morality and personal responsibility and ways to evade those things in life, i think exploring the motivation for the document in the first place is valid. according to your wikipedia citation, my appeal to motive "can be considered as a special case of the ad hominem circumstantial argument. As such, this type of argument may be an informal fallacy. [emphasis added]" by that wording i take it that it is not ALWAYS ad hominem, if bringing up motivation for the argument in the first place is indeed relevant to the discussion. i think it's relevant.

also, you didn't respond to what i said BEFORE the "ad hominem" i supposedly committed.

i assure you, i have read the document. i even read the discussion from the link hopper posted of your attempt to get your document critiqued on another forum.

from wiki page on ad hominem circumstantial:

"The circumstantial fallacy applies only where the source taking a position is only making a logical argument from premises that are generally accepted. Where the source seeks to convince an audience of the truth of a premise by a claim of authority or by personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero."

Yep. Consideration of his motivation is certainly pertinent and not here fallacious - the arguments are clearly chosen to support a desired outcome. The arguments do not become any more or less valid depending on his motivation, but in a situation where criticisms are ignored, or old points simply repeated in reply, it's reasonable to consider why.

ETA: Forest/trees, palm-to-forehead, mein Gott. Of course - to engage with this man in a way that isn't futile, any interlocuter necessarily makes assumptions of him having honour, integrity, sincerity, honesty, etc. And he's dismissed responsibility and morality and declared self-interest the way of the future. I'm both pissed off and not surprised he sees fit to get all, 'you didn't read the document'. It seems quite apt to respond, 'did you?'.

Last edited by Hopper on 23 Mar 2014, 9:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Oh, I've read it. I've read it a few times. I kind of hate myself for doing so, but arguments that don't make sense have a way of niggling at me.

I want you to expand on this belief. You're very taken with 'rational' and 'ultimate' - why are these so important to you? If you're into skepticism, why not apply it to these two concepts? Or the concept of mind? What do you mean by 'self-interest'? You assess and dismiss theism, the afterlife, any kind of free will that may imply responsibility, and morality - all things which might otherwise distract your attention from yourself. By happy coincidence, you leave intact and take as given the self, the mind, rationality, the necessity of an 'ultimate' goal, and self-interest. You make no argument for them, nor make it clear what you mean by them.

Given this and much more, it is not a fallacy to consider your motivations. This is your philosophy, and is largely concerned with you achieving some sort of frictionless state of mind. As such, psychological considerations are warranted. And for me at least, they cannot be helped - this is a hugely personal and revealing document.

So, if we find ourselves making points that are ignored, or dismissed by restating what we are responding to, we may begin to question the sincerity or psychological ability of you to consider views and arguments counter to those you state.

Eases the pain (and pleasantly "I'll just watch another one"). I'm glad he's travelled.

i'm not sure many other people over here would know about him, unfortunately. i grew up watching shows from across the pond at my grandparents house (both were born and raised in london and moved to canada just before my mother was born)--thanks to my wonderful nana i already knew about shows like are you being served?, fawlty towers, the black adder, and monty python's flying circus by the time i was 12. keeping up with programs over there is a way for me to hang on to happy times from my childhood, and keep my grandparents with me (they've both passed on). (though i doubt nana would have approved of charlie's language, i'm sure he would've made her laugh )

That's sweet.

In the spirit of cultural exchange, I should like to point out how much I would enjoy watching Due South, and trying to get the jokes on Kids In The Hall (I was still fairly young, and much of it went over my head). Oh, and how important the books of Douglas Coupland were (and often still are) to me.

kids in the hall: oh, that brings back some memories--when i was in high school in the mid 90s they had established a bit of a cult following, and reruns of the show were on frequently, which i watched religiously for a few years. much of their stuff was pretty absurdist and surreal--so over most canadian heads, too. i did my share of drugs in high school as well, which tends to make surreal/absurd comedy more appealing.

sadly, most canadian tv then (and much of it still today) is crap. our current govt has nothing but contempt for the arts/public broadcasting (as well as the citizenry at large--they have lots of contempt for us, too) so the cbc is beginning to circle the bowl due to funding cuts and govt interference.

now i've depressed myself. maybe this will cheer me up:



[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGYJyeX-oMc[/youtube]

I hadn't seen that one - thanks. (And a much more 'true' conversation than any of that 'men are like this, women are like that' s**t.)

This is a classic:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2Ka2nkIi2I[/youtube]


I could never get a handle on drugs. Momentarily wanting to be in with my (older) sister's friends, I tried smoking, and promptly threw up. Tried sniffing solvents, and got a God-awful headache.

ETA: I do get a Canada fix by listening to CBC Radio podcasts.

Yo, Philosofer123. Just incase you come back by, a round-up.

In a classic forest/trees moment - all the more ironic for your assertions that I hadn't read the document - I realised that this is a futile exercise, though it is still, just, enjoyable. It is not quite as absurd as playing cards with someone who brazenly declares beforehand that they intend to cheat, but it's close. You dismiss the possibility of considering yourself responsible for your actions. Then you dismiss the possibility of any morality beyond what you yourself may choose You are quite clear on these matters.

Those who have responded have done so in good faith, expecting, by the fact of their engagement with you, the same of you. That we may have confidence that you will consider our critiques fairly, when in the very piece we are critiquing you state that for you there is no responsibility, and no morality.

The purpose of this exercise is, you state, to help you 'live well'. But that is rather a vague term, and may justly be applied to many idea(l)s. Later, we find you reach the conclusion that 'peace of mind' is the way to this, for you. Further, 'peace of mind', for you, is achieved by turning away from the world, and into yourself - of living a frictionless, flatlined existence. I believe this was your aim from the start. That the arguments you construct are done so to get you to that point. I do not, by this observation, assume I have thus falsified any of those arguments you make. I do, however, consider this and your clear dismissal of reponsibility and morality mean that you are not interested in improving it from a philosophical point, but from a personal one. We may offer arguments that make that frictionless existence all the easier to get - you accept them. We may offer counter-arguments to the arguments you've made, that would make peace of mind harder for you - you dismiss them.

So, we can have no such confidence. You question whether others have read the document. We are quite just in asking if you have, if you quite understand what you insist we read.

Earlier on, you stated:

Yet we can, and will. You may choose to act on this argument. How responsible others hold you is up to them.



And if you defined Free Will or 'ultimate responsibility' differently? Would that make it harder to evade those negative emotions?

We have Free Will, or we do not. There is no 'limited' Free Will. There is not an 'unlimited' Free Will we could possibly have, of which ours is but a pale imitation. Free Will is not some essence of which we only possess a small amount, and a larger amount would make us more 'free'. Free Will is the situation of being able to make one choice when we could just as easily make another. It is the exercising of one option over others, where all options are possible. It does not get any freer than that, and nor does it need to.

Free Will is situated within our circumstances, our character, and our being persons. Indeed, it can only meaningfully be so. I like libraries. I hate pubs. I would not be exhibiting a less limited freedom, or more meaningful freedom, if I went to the pub rather than the library. We make these choices as people, as humans. They are meaningful, free choices because they are born of our character and circumstance. It seems to me your idea of 'ultimate free will' would resemble an epileptic fit.

If you want to do away with responsibility, you may want to look at determinism, or arguing against personhood or the self.

You have misplaced Free Will. To repeat myself - it is like chasing the ever receding horizon, and declaring there's no such thing as a destination.

You want a sort of Free Will, but not the sort that comes with responsibility. How fortunate your definitions and arguments lead you to such a conclusion.



I want you to expand on this belief. You're very taken with 'rational' and 'ultimate' - why are these so important to you? If you're into skepticism, why not apply it to these two concepts? Or the concept of mind? What do you mean by 'self-interest'? You assess and dismiss theism, the afterlife, any kind of free will that may imply responsibility, morality, and that life has intrinsic meaning - all things which might otherwise distract your attention from yourself. By happy coincidence, you leave intact and take as given the self, the mind, rationality, the necessity of an 'ultimate' goal, and self-interest. You make no argument for them, nor make it clear what you mean by them. Please do so.

Philsofer, I would wonder how you would respond to these arguments ...

1. starvingArtist's contention that mental reasoning can overcome past influences - even biological ones , thus the regress is not meaningful

Starving Artist states: "this argument is reductive to the point of absurdity, the idea that human conscious thought and analysis and will weighs nothing against the irresistible pull of deterministic biology--and the "regress" you speak of is dependent on the simplicity of that reduction, which makes it impossible for me to take seriously as an argument "

2. Hopper contention that there is no regress, because free will is situational.

Hooper states: "Free will and responsibility are situational"..Free Will is situated within our circumstances, our character, and our being persons..

Philsofer, since you don't commit to determinism, and stated earlier you believe in indeterministic factors, then can't these arguments be right in view of the regress ? Therefore, the regress argument is simply reduced to "I didn't choose to be me, therefore I am not responsible for anything".

However, biologically, it would appear you did choose to be you, and you had control over forming yourself. You are the result of egg plus sperm biological cell grouping. This grouping formed cells that formed you. *You* are those cells. They acted autonomously to form you, nevertheless, you - per your cells - had control over forming you. Do you differentiate *you* from your conscience mind ?

Thanks.

Howdy p123, or can I call you "P?" Or Mr. P

I hope you stay involved for a while.

In order to improve your life I'll see if I can offer observations after thoroughly rereading your philosophy; I'm slowed by the latter portions.

And in case you need to go off I'll say thank you for bringing us this subject.

denny

Hi Denny. I'm still here, and I look forward to any additional feedback you may have.