Imm, you're obfuscating and constantly using red herrings that only further the sophistry game you're trying to play.
Honestly, I'm not playing any games, using red herrings, or deliberately engaging in any kind of sophistry or obfuscation at all. It's easy for me to go on and on precisely because I don't have to go through any kind of logical contortions, I just ask myself what the truth is and then say it as accurately as I can. I don't expect you to believe that but since I know that I'm being sincere and you sound as if you too believe that you are being truthful, then I'd say that we have innately divergent characters. There are probably a lot of ways which we differ in our personalities, values, and life experiences. You see me as one type of person, I see you as another type of person.
Just like there is no effort to convey reasonably what purpose is when you responded to plethora when he points at 'purpose' is just a human construct. Its a word in a context of a definition, that can be applied to many different situations. Yet, your question obfuscates:
Are beaver dams, beehives, and anthills not purposeful? If not, what makes them ontologically different from our dams, buildings, and cities?
Plethora didn't say purpose was nothing, or limited to a just humans.
I'm really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here - to see it from your POV, but how is saying that 'purpose is a human construct' not saying purpose isn't limited to humans?
I asked him about other animals to try to find out just that, did he really mean that purpose itself is only something which is constructed psychologically by human beings - not by animals, not a human discovery of something which is common to other phenomena...
Then he answers: "I didn't mean purpose only in the sense of utility. Of course a beaver's dam has a purpose.
However, a beaver is not asking itself why it exists in the first place and what the point is of spending his life meaninglessly building and maintaining dams to ultimately end up dead. Hence it doesn't need to assign purpose to anything it does."
He's not accusing me of obfuscating at all. He even starts off with "My bad for not defining "purpose" or asking for it to be defined.
". It was actually a productive interchange. We both got a little closer to each other's meaning. No attempt to wriggle out of answering a question, just trying to clarify what we're discussing.
Only that it was a construct, as in a word used to describe something in a context.
We're not talking about the word purpose as a word, we're talking about what the word means - the concept(s) of purpose. I'm saying purpose isn't a construct at all, but an underlying elemental property of some aspects of the Cosmos - whether it's called purpose, teleology, desire, instinct, will, voluntary movement, or volition, it can all be seen as part of the same phenomenal principle which drives or motivates living beings (and potentially inorganic processes).
Its still a human construct when assigned to beavers, because it is a subjective word with a definition that can apply in many context.
So would you say that anything exists which is not a human construct? Is matter a human construct? Is iron? Is a specific piece of iron which actually exists in front of you? Aren't all words subjective?
Yet again, your response is one that presumes that 'purpose' is something beyond just a subjective word to describe something. No reason, no explanation, no evidence, nothing.. just a question to obfuscate and side step.
Or, yet again your response to my response reflects your own confirmation bias, with you reading into it a lot of prejudice, paranoia and hostility. It could be that too.
Just like you attempt to side step me pointing it out:
Notice that, without any useful meaning or definition for 'purpose' you can always plead it in a question where you presume it still exists. You can always use it like a tautology, because you give it no adequate explanatory meaning.
Then let's use your definition of purpose. Which is?
See, you omit the first part of the discussion regarding your response to plethora.
No, the first part you accuse me of not having a definition for purpose so I'm inviting you to provide one. Which you ignore.
Not to mention that your question in response is used in the manner of a fallacy ( a tautology ). You're not even concerned that you did so, only that you provide a response as quick as possible to obfuscate deeper into nonsense.
The only tautology or obfuscation present is what you are projecting into it as far as I'm concerned. People ask me questions, I try to answer them truthfully. I ask people questions, they sometimes answer them but usually they get mad or go away.
My definition is not even required,
Ohhh, of course not. Only my definition is required. Not hypocritical at all. This is the very definition of pseudoskepticism.
I'm just pointing out the problem with your assertion and response. You treated 'purpose' in a certain manner that begs the question, you responded to others as if they needed to treat 'purpose' like the 'magical construct' you imply it to be. They don't, I don't, none of us do.. until you properly argue that we should. ( btw, once I noticed you ignoring the points being made, I promptly ignored your definition request )
There is no assertion. There is no argument on my end. I don't demand that others see purpose as I do at all, I'm just presenting that 'here is a way to understand purpose that I think might help resolve some important cosmological problems.' If you see a particular reason why that doesn't work, then by all means, share that, but if you only see reasons why my ideas don't fit into a parliamentary model of debate someone may imagine to be relevant, I say 'who cares?'
It is essentially a tangled mess of rhetoric,
That's not the definition of an ad hominem ( which this is the second time this has to be pointed out to you ). Describing it as 'rhetoric' means that the language you use is purposefully made in a way not to convey any useful understanding.
'A tangled mess' is unquestionably ad hominem - language you use purposefully to insult your opponent rather than convey any useful understanding. wiki
- Ad hominem abusive usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument.
Your use of rhetoric is the opposite of the literal definition Wiki
- "Rhetoric: the art of using language to communicate effectively
", but I don't obsess on literal definitions or insult people when they use words in colloquial or vernacular ways. This is why I don't argue definitions. They detract from conversation and make it into ideas about words instead of words about ideas.
Notice that I had to ask questions of the very basic components of the claims you make in the following posts:
Which you didn't answer a single god damn question.
I didn't answer them because they are rhetorical questions. You are trying to make the point that your view of my use of purpose is impossible - hence all of the god damn 'questions' are loaded questions begging a category error. You know perfectly well that purpose of a Beaver's dam doesn't begin in a quark, atom, molecule, protein, cell, skin, or tail and I've never claimed that purpose is a physical substance at all - quite the contrary.
Your other god damned questions are also loaded questions begging a category error - ascribing ad hominem qualities of "magic, the supernatural, superstition, bullshit, nonsense" to my straightforward use of purpose (for short: a phenomenal principle which drives or motivates living beings, and potentially inorganic processes)
Notice how your questions: "How do you know it?, Where is it?, Why is it?" are predicated upon a straw man caricature of my use of purpose.
How do you know truth? Where is it? Why is it?
How do you know sleep? Where is it? Why is it?
How do you know green? Where is it? Why is it?
How do you know yourself? Where is it? Why is it?
It's doesn't matter if I answer any of your questions, because you have already determined in your mind that if you try to drown me and I float, I'm a witch and must be burned at the stake, and only if I die at the bottom of the lake can I be innocent.
Which leads me to reasonably conclude that you are knowingly obfuscating, presenting red herrings, and actively working to do nothing more then troll the forum. Not to mention that it further backs up my description of the type of language you use, in that its a type of rhetoric not meant to convey any useful content.
Haha, what a shocker. So reasonable, and not at all clouded by hostility.
I notice that you avoided my question:"I don't believe that you do not know what purpose is. What is your evidence that you believe that?"