there are a few statements that do seem just a tad rude and insulting to the people who posted in this thread...I personally do not think that was necessary to say like that...that is of course, JMO...

I don't really know anyone around these threads, so I do not know the history that many seem to have...

I have been seeking to understand this topic and the one prior to it since this started...

and each time I think I understand it, I am again confused...

I am out of here...

Oh please, give me a break.

There was absolutely NO MISUNDERSTANDING on my part when he said to me, "It's impossible to think like that, you are only kidding yourself if you think that way".

What do you not understand in that statement Jeremy?

And this was way back, way before he even started his thread about needing a rule against people making "ungrounded claims".

There was NO MISUNDERSTANDING Jeremy.

And his comment was even in direct response to my attempt to offer GROUNDS for my views. And I was even using Richard Feynman's words at the time!

He totally rejected Richard Feynman's GROUNDS by just dismissing it with the comment, "It's impossible to think like that, you are only kidding yourself if you think that way".

What will he accept as 'grounds' if he's just going to dismiss people's thoughts by telling them that they can't think that way?

No, there's no misunderstaning on that point Jeremy.

None at all.

If any apology is due, he owes me one. But I'm not even offended.

I don't need an apology.

All I want to do is make it perfectly clear that he's being utterly unreasonable.

That's the only point I care to make.

No need for any apology. I'm not offended. But I'm not guilty of m aking any "groundless claims" in philosophy either.

That's also a totally bogus notion.

I would hope they would tell me why they feel that way. It is not groundless because they have made the thought. Being a whore or loose by some standards is not a hard thing to accomplish.

I can't helped being amused by the confusion here, as people are bringing different sets of experiences to intrepreting the words of others. This just illustrates the rich variety there is in collective points of view.

I am so happy to see people commenting here who were not participating in some of the more recent, long-winded discussions.



As far as the momentum behind conversations between Creative, Abra, JB, Bushido, and maybe me....


can we just move on?

Everybody learned, we each think we see things correctly, for better or worse we have (or think we have) enriched contexts for future intreprations of other's words, but can we just leave the momentum of previous disagreements behind us?

That is a groundless claim.

Anyway your examples are a moot point because nobody claimed that you smelled funny. So unless you can point out exactly where any groundless remark was made about Creative your examples don't make any sense to me as you are skirting the issue.

Remarks about Creative are impressions as I explained in my post which you skirted over.




Since day one on this club I have attempted to "understand" what Creative is talking about but I have not been successful.

Besides Creative does not want to be "understood." He wants to make a point, and I can never figure out what point he wants to make because he is purposely vague and evasive and this invites and creates misunderstanding.

Then he gets upset because he is "so misunderstood" and insinuates that everyone else is just too ignorant to understand him. Give me a break JEREMY!

I agree, we aren't going to resolve anything. It's just going to continue to go downhill.

But I would like to say one last thing concerning a very recent post by Creative:



Why should Creative be the "Philosophy God"?

Why does he think that he should decide what constitutes valid thinking?

And why does he feel that he can just dismiss the views of others by simply saying:

"It's impossible to think like that, you are only kidding yourself if you think that way".

When did Michael become the philosophy God?

What's his "grounds" for wanting to dictate what constitutes a valid thought or not?

People are claiming that there can be no groundless claims. Which is idiotic.

That about sums up my entire issue with this thread.

______________________________________________

If you have beef with anything creative said I strongly suggests you quote him.

I think someone is misinterpreting this whole thing myself.

There can be no groundless thoughts because there is always a "ground" that made the thought come to life. Be it past experience, stimulus, day dream, etc...

What you are saying is based on your facts there are goundless thoughts but even in your great wisdom there are thoughts outside your realm of facts so you would be incorrect in saying they were goundless even though they appeared so to you.


Truths are subjective, realities are subjective, judgements are subjective, etc.... Because of this fact, lol, there can be no groundless thoughts or statements. There is a ground to every thought and action.

Or, optionally, let it lie.

I have already covered this.

This is not what we are talking about. Ideas independent from claims do not need grounds, yes I agree ideas have grounds in imagination in mind whatever you want to call it.

AGAIN NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT AT ALL.

A Claim requires a context. An idea independent from context requires no grounding to discuss. A claim must have context to be understood, and a groundless claim can be ignored.


And she says I dont get it . . . .

It is a complete straw man to sit here and pretend that what creative was talking about was ideas independent from claims.

Let it go Jeremy...



If there is a community of people who validate their own belief system by choosing to talk about other people's character in a manner which is grounded entirely by their own (unrecognized) unconscious judgemental nature, then so be it.

You are wasting your time, as was I. I have better things to do.

Thanks again for your defense of my character, and more importantly, of sound and reasonable critical thinking skills.

Best wishes to all...

Look inside yourself for your answers... I was but a reflection.

Wow, a lot going on in this thread - I'm going to try to keep on topic so I'm going to respond to the following.

Bushi said:


There are simply not enough details known about the context in which that statement might be made, Bushi. For example, I only know you from this community, I have never seen you, if I made a claim about your body oder - of course that would be groundless, I have never been near you to smell you. But in the example above the someone who might be calling another a whore may be making a statement based on grounds (even if only beliefs)which we are not aware of. This is why we need to get more details, to clarify our statements.

So I have to agree, there can be groundless claims, but there are never groundless opinions. Opinions have a foundation even if that foundation is only to say "well that's what I was told and it made sense to me at the time." In any case our questions are the best persuader because they make the person think about thier opinion and how they got to that idea and to provide reasons to support their view.

I find it much easier to change my own views when I feel that I've found logical reasons (for myself) than when I simply hear another saying "that doesn't make sense because..."

In general all of us (I think) have done a pretty good job of giving others the opportunity to change, but on occasion I notice that a posters attempts to explain a point of view is focused on the subjective and neglects to relate to anothers point of view in identifying what they have in common to even be having this discussion. Without having common ground to come back to, the discussion spins out of control and becomes a never ending and frustrating cycle of clarification, exemplifcaion, and eventually a point of non-reconcilliation.

The truth is, somewhere in all those posts there were grounds and more than that--there were common grounds that never got recognized.

I really enjoy the science & philosophy section of our common community because we have the opportunity to learn so much about communication. I know I have come away from the last several threads I've participated in with new ideas on how to communicate. I'm just trying to share them here with you all now.




Maybe a more ethical approach:

People are claiming that there can be no groundless claims. How could we test that conclusion? Can anyone think of anytime a claim might be groundless?

Even though you may have an example - begin with the question and make others think about it first. Then read the replies, find what you agree with and say so - THEN give your example and ASK if others can see the validity in it.

Wouldn't that be a better way to proceed. One thing at a time and that may mean we need to narrow the discussion, focus on one thing first to find a place we agree.

Never mind.

This is no fun anymore. Too much poison.

Whoa slow down. If I misunderstood then I misunderstood. Insults are not necessary.

Groundless means no basis and proving a negative is pretty hard to do in any context. So whether you place claim in front of it or thought it is still a negative.

If I claim the sky is purple and you see it as blue, how do you know that my sight is not impaired and I see it as purple. Would that make my claim groundless? Just saying.

This thread seems to be a carry on thread that has a hint of personal dig to it. If it is a personal dig thread that is really not cool.

I am sorry I did not realize your character was being attacked. I would hope that I did not inadvertently participate in this action.

I was trying to be philosophical...lol

JB wrote... before editing...



Language necessitates judgement.

We all judge, it is a matter of the grounds upon which are judgements rest their validity. Finding those grounds is the basis of philosophy.



I can clearly show that other's(including you JB) have made continual personal judgements about my character and/or intent based upon my word usage, which is insufficient grounds to be able to make such a claim.

I know if what one says about my character based upon my chosen language is wrong, then that reflection must have it's origin in a pre-existing belief regarding what those words mean to that person based upon that person's past experience in life. Those prior emotions and feelings and thoughts were resurrected from unconscious thought via my words. Those words have their meaning(to others) established by prior correlations to a previous experience regarding them and the situation at the time(s).

That does not make the prior correlation an accurate nor an equal reflection of the current experience of which I am involved. There are different correlations. My words simply sparked an unconscious emotional overload... A knee-jerk reaction.

When in a conversation, especially online, if there are differences between one's perception of another's intent, and the actual intent only the one writing can possibly know this is the case.

Perception of intent is completely contained in belief regarding the individual meaning of the words being used. I know that this is true in all cases and if it is consciously recognized, then one is much more careful about trusting this thing which is often mis-diagnosed as being intuition when it is not recognized. As long as one has an undeterrable confidence about that perceived ability to accurately judge another's character based upon only the written word, then they always trust that feeling too much, and it causes them to make poor judgements based upon insufficient grounds. That type of overconfidence in one's perception skews one's thought and emotion in such a way that they deem things to be what they are not. They see what they already expect to see, and not necessarily what is in front of them.

This notion has been clearly proven here regarding the personal claims of my character and/or intent...



Here, once again, you are applying a characteristic of being veiled to my statement without having sufficient evidence to do such a thing.

It was completely open, which is the exact opposite of veiled. That above claim is made upon illogical grounds, and I have just shown why... logically.



I could have, but I did not. All of that message was not meant for only Jeremy.

So... what does that mean?

What could you possibly reasonably conclude from that?



This presupposes that you know that my intent was to purposefully(hopefully) insult someone. It also implies that you believe that I think that I am superior to others in some way, which is a groundless claim. That is judgement based upon prior unconscious grounds and/or beliefs, of which you were unaware...

How do I know that?

Because I know myself through a very concerted and ongoing effort towards an invasive self-examination, and I do not, in any way shape or form feel or think that I am above or superior to others. I have confidence in what I believe because it has held true, despite my attempts to shake it loose.

That view is purely from your own presuppositions about me and those words themselves. I am not your answer. I am showing it to you... through you.

It is about acquiring an understanding.

That claim that you think that I feel superior is grounded entirely in your own perceptual belief which existed before we met and has been applied to me as if I were the one involved in whatever experience has led you to believe that when those expressions are made the one making them feels superior... I do not.



Here, once again, I am being consciously used as a scapegoat to validate your prior unconscious perception that I feel that I am superior which has been brought into your conscious forefront...

What if your wrong? Would that change the way you see things?




James...

I already made a genuine apology for hurting your feelings which you dismissed saying that I did not. It is clear that it did. I also already, as has Jeremy, gave logical grounds for saying that anyone who claims that one cannot know *anything* for certain is kidding themselves...

That is still true. The very claim is an absolute claim of certainty. That is why I said that. I was not poking fun at your belief system, I was trying to help you see the illogical and senseless nature of that claim. It seems that it was a hinge proposition, and perhaps that importance level caused much distress to the subsequent beliefs...

You saw it differently, which is quite unfortunate, because had you read what I wrote afterwards this should not even be being discussed at this time.

I am still sorry, for you, that I hurt your feelings...





This post has given the grounds upon which this aspect has been raised.

Well said, JB.

My feelings have never been hurt, at any point in our discussions. I have never even suggested any such thing. That's entirely your own misguided perception.

The Feyman quote I used was:

"We cannot define anything precisely! If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers, who sit opposite each other, one saying to the other, 'You don't know what you are talking about!' The second one says 'What do you mean by know? What do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you?', and so on." - Richard Feynman

You were making totally empty semantic arguments at the time, and you're doing it here as well.

Nothing like claiming to make an apology and then ending it with "Oh by the way I was absolutely right and you were absolutely wrong and Jeremy proved it".

What kind of an apology would that be anyway?

That's your trademark. Your always out to prove that you're right and someone else is wrong. That's how you approach philosophy in general.



This has been my experience as well.

As far as I'm concerned Michael, I truly don't care about your opinions anymore.

We can just ignore each other on the forums.

No hard feelings required.

Problem solved.

Do you guys need your own topic to argue in?

Creative, If you want to blame my lack of understanding your words and our inability to communicate on me then you will, regardless of what I say to you here.

That either helps you to feel "right" or "superior" or else it is just your way of refusing to accept responsibility for your lack of communication skills.

It does not matter to me what you do or how you think. Whatever makes you happy, then do it.

And yes, I make judgments based on my prior experience and on my beliefs the same as you do. And yes I trust them, as they have and still do serve me very well in judging someone's character. (And By the way, I have not employed you to help me to understand myself. I understand myself very well.)





Insufficient grounds? Unfortunately, words are all we have access to on these forums.

Your words are all we have to make any judgments about your character at all; therefore if you are really concerned about people making judgments about your character, you should learn to chose your words more carefully. You obviously have a problem expressing yourself with your words so that you are perceived in the way you wish to be.

Don't be so afraid to be true to yourself. Be true, be you. Stop trying to analyze everything and everyone.



If a person misjudges your intent, it might help to make your intentions more clear. What are your intentions? If you state your intentions, are you to be believed? Are you to be trusted? We don't know. It is hard to tell because you are vague and evasive. You seldom get to the point. You invite misunderstanding and wrong conclusions. So don't complain if that is what you get.

You created it, you invited it.

And now you have taken the roll of the misjudged and the victim of wrong impressions that you yourself are the cause of.

Take some responsibility for what you create, creative. Stop blaming everyone else.