What Do You Think Of Emmanuel's Wager©?

[PRmerger]

Sure, you can define it as you wish. Just don’t expect your broader conception to elicit the same response as the more popular conception. The bottom line is that I am not as dangerous as a fundamentalist in the religious sense.

Fundamentalists, of any sort, can be dangerous if they are intractable.

As for whether I am a fundamentalist in your sense of the word or not, I simply don’t think morals have truth values. (I don’t know, for example, what it would mean to prove a moral, or to find evidence for the truth of a moral, etc.) I abide by morals, but I acknowledge them as more or less widely accepted preferences. I prefer to treat others well, so I do. When I don’t, it typically bothers me, so I generally avoid abusing people.

If you are adamantine that Dispassion Alone is the only means of apprehending truth, then you are a fundamentalist.

It’s simply an absurd and UNNECESSARILY NARROW and CLOSE-MINDED way to assess truth.

Again, it’s like saying, “I am only going to use my sense of touch to determine if something is dangerous. My vision is unnecessary.”

Why in the world would you ignore your vision? ALL sources of data should be utilized.

 

[PRmerger]

Not at all. In fact, I think “cross-dressing agnostic” is much more entertaining than the religious usage.

 

[stewstew03]

I don’t know what point you each want to make regarding definitions as I’ve only read the last couple of pages and got a bit lost, and I’m not a mathematician, but I think you’re both right to an extent:

A triangle is a three sided polygon, and all polygons have straight sides.

In curved spaces a straight line is defined as a geodesic, for example the shortest distance along the surface of a sphere.

Triangles, including geodesic triangles, are still defined as bounded by straight sides in all spaces, it’s the definition of a straight line which varies (and the interior angles only sum to 180º in Euclidean geometry).

In a nutshell - Oreoracle does not believe in facts, only truths. Therefore, 3-sided triangles cannot be “right” (or correct) because 3-sided triangles aren’t part of reality. In Oreoracle’s world, triangles can take on many different shapes – square, rectangle, circle, etc.

 

[PRmerger]

I simply don’t think morals have truth values. (I don’t know, for example, what it would mean to prove a moral, or to find evidence for the truth of a moral, etc.) I abide by morals, but I acknowledge them as more or less widely accepted preferences.

Preferences?

So kind of like, “I prefer almonds over pecans?”

Really? That’s all moral values are to you–a preference?

 

[PRmerger]

You could make endless arguments about how society would collapse if people didn’t abide by certain morals, but then you’ve just pushed the question back one step–you would have to prove that society should exist.

Why would I have to do that?

 

[Oreoracle]

Again, it’s like saying, “I am only going to use my sense of touch to determine if something is dangerous. My vision is unnecessary.”

Why in the world would you ignore your vision? ALL sources of data should be utilized.

But therein lies the problem: What data does passion provide that other, more reliable senses do not?

In a nutshell - Oreoracle does not believe in facts, only truths. Therefore, 3-sided triangles cannot be “right” (or correct) because 3-sided triangles aren’t part of reality. In Oreoracle’s world, triangles can take on many different shapes – square, rectangle, circle, etc.

Actually, since you seem to agree that definitions are not true or false (but rather “right” or “wrong”, whatever that means), I’m not sure we ever really disagreed.

Preferences?

So kind of like, “I prefer almonds over pecans?”

Really? That’s all moral values are to you–a preference?

“Preference” has much weaker connotations than what I have in mind. I mean to say that we commit ourselves to morals because of who we are as empathetic people. Empathy makes us prefer to help others rather than ignore or exploit them. In other words, it turns self-interested preferences into common interests.

Without empathy, you cannot have a morality, or at least not any sort that we would recognize. And there is nothing about empathy to be proven or substantiated. We simply have it, we like it, and we act in accordance with it.

 

[PRmerger]

But therein lies the problem: What data does passion provide that other, more reliable senses do not?

One biggie is: compassion.

It is contrary to rational behavior (i.e. dispassion) to give your cloak to someone who has none.

That’s not rational.

And if you live your life that way, you’re going to be lacking in…compassion.

 

[PRmerger]

“Preference” has much weaker connotations than what I have in mind. I mean to say that we commit ourselves to morals because of who we are as empathetic people. Empathy makes us prefer to help others rather than ignore or exploit them. In other words, it turns self-interested preferences into common interests.

Without empathy, you cannot have a morality, or at least not any sort that we would recognize. And there is nothing about empathy to be proven or substantiated. We simply have it, we like it, and we act in accordance with it.

Ah. Very good, then.

So you are a Dispassion AND Empathy advocate.

We are making progress!

 

[Oreoracle]

One biggie is: compassion.

It is contrary to rational behavior (i.e. dispassion) to give your cloak to someone who has none.

That’s not rational.

And if you live your life that way, you’re going to be lacking in…compassion.

Rationality is a very different subject that concerns the choices we make. But this goes back to what I said earlier: choices are not claims. They may be indicative of claims. They may suggest claims that the person making the choice would proclaim if asked. But they are not claims in themselves. If they were, then two people who make the same choice would be making the same claim, and that clearly isn’t the case because there can be different motives for the same action.

 

[PRmerger]

Rationality is a very different subject that concerns the choices we make. But this goes back to what I said earlier: choices are not claims. They may be indicative of claims. They may suggest claims that the person making the choice would proclaim if asked. But they are not claims in themselves. If they were, then two people who make the same choice would be making the same claim, and that clearly isn’t the case because there can be different motives for the same action.

I don’t know how any of the above changes the fact that using Dispassion Alone is a very narrow minded way to go about life.

No one does it.

We can see what it would look like simply by using our computer models.

They do not take into account all of the other factors we have at our disposal to make a decision.

Since you don’t model your life the way a computer does (which I am 100% certain you don’t), then you are not a Dispassion Alone advocate.

If you don’t make your decisions using algorithms alone, then you are not a Dispassion Alone advocate.

“Do I find her attractive? Yes. No.” “Does she have breeder hips? Yes. No.” “Is her mother aging well? Yes. No.”

And since you haven’t even really been adamantine that “I am a Dispassion Alone advocate”, and are only half-heartedly advocating the position, I think you’ve distanced yourself from your original proposition.

No more needs to be said on this.

 

[Oreoracle]

I don’t know how any of the above changes the fact that using Dispassion Alone is a very narrow minded way to go about life.

No one does it.

So why expand the usage of “fundamentalist”, capitalize “Dispassion Alone”, and characterize it as if it were a threatening counterculture all for the sake of villifying a position that you even admit no one actually holds? You’re blatantly admitting that what you’ve been bashing is a caricature, a straw man.

And since you haven’t even really been adamantine that “I am a Dispassion Alone advocate”, and are only half-heartedly advocating the position, I think you’ve distanced yourself from your original proposition.

What you mean to say is “I’ve finally come to understand what your actual position is, Oreoracle, and I’m sorry for jumping the gun and calling you a fundamentalist.” Apology accepted.

 

[PRmerger]

So why expand the usage of “fundamentalist”, capitalize “Dispassion Alone”, and characterize it as if it were a threatening counterculture all for the sake of villifying a position that you even admit no one actually holds? You’re blatantly admitting that what you’ve been bashing is a caricature, a straw man.

Well, I was hoping that you’d be able to clearly state that Dispassion Alone was a very unreasonable paradigm to espouse.

You weren’t willing to do that, so I had to lead you down the Road of Reason to get you to see it.

If you only would have disavowed yourself of that, saying, “I am not a Dispassion Alone advocate” at the very beginning, we could have avoided this.

These past few pages you just kept making half-hearted attempts to argue against what I was saying.

What you mean to say is "I’ve finally come to understand what your actual position is, Oreoracle,

I’m still not sure of your position. You’re arguing weakly and unenthusiastically, because it appears you see it’s ridiculous.

But you’re also not quite willing to let go of it.

Are you willing to say here on the rather public CAFs that using Dispassion Alone is a bad way to apprehend Truth?

Yes? Or No?

It should be pretty easy for you to answer.

And then we can discuss other more interesting things.

Like why you don’t recognize the God of the Philosophers. (Similarly, you are arguing, rather tepidly, that this God doesn’t exist, but aren’t quite willing to profess that. I’d like to explore this with you.)

 

[Oreoracle]

Well, I was hoping that you’d be able to clearly state that Dispassion Alone was a very unreasonable paradigm to espouse.

…]

I’m still not sure of your position. You’re arguing weakly and unenthusiastically, because it appears you see it’s ridiculous.

I think the confusion may lie in the fact that you seem to think I’m making normative claims. I have not said even once that “people should do such-and-such” or “people should value such-and-such” in this thread. More to the point, this means I never suggested that people should live without passion.

Can we agree that there is a difference between:

1. Passion isn’t necessary for the acquisition of truth.
2. We should live without passion.

My very first response on this thread to the Dispassion Alone objection is that I do see the value in passion. There is more to life than seeking truth, after all. Passion just isn’t a good tool for that particular aspect of life.

Like why you don’t recognize the God of the Philosophers. (Similarly, you are arguing, rather tepidly, that this God doesn’t exist, but aren’t quite willing to profess that. I’d like to explore this with you.)

I didn’t argue that such a god doesn’t exist. I said I see no reason to believe he exists and that the presented arguments don’t substantiate his existence satisfactorily. I would never claim to be able to disprove something that is unfalsifiable.

 

[PRmerger]

My very first response on this thread to the Dispassion Alone objection is that I do see the value in passion. ** There is more to life than seeking truth, after all**. Passion just isn’t a good tool for that particular aspect of life.

Well, see now. Here you are clinging, ever so tenaciously, to the fact that Dispassion Alone is what we need for seeking truth, when you contrast dispassion with “more to life than seeking truth.”

Can you please indulge me, simply based on our cordial relationship here, and sign your name to this: “I, Oreoracle, believe that Dispassion Alone is too narrow a vehicle as a means of apprehending truth.”

 

[Oreoracle]

Well, see now. Here you are clinging, ever so tenaciously, to the fact that Dispassion Alone is what we need for seeking truth, when you contrast dispassion with “more to life than seeking truth.”

I wouldn’t say that we “need dispassion” for seeking truth but rather that we “don’t need passion” for seeking truth. As you noted, complete dispassion is unattainable, so if that were my requirement, then I agree that it would be impossible. I’m only saying that passion isn’t necessary for unraveling truths.

Indeed, trying to turn negations into affirmations seems to be a common practice on these forums. It’s a semantic game used to subtly shift the burden of proof from oneself to another.

Other than morals–which, as I’ve said, I don’t believe have truth values–is there any example of a truth that requires passion to be uncovered? This is your grand opportunity to prove me, and apparently the “Dispassion Alone” fundamentalist movement, wrong.

 

[PRmerger]

Can you please indulge me, simply based on our cordial relationship here, and sign your name to this: “I, Oreoracle, believe that Dispassion Alone is too narrow a vehicle as a means of apprehending truth.”

Oreoracle: with a nod to our nice virtual friendship, would you indulge me in the above in answering the above?

Thanks.

 

[Oreoracle]

Can you please indulge me, simply based on our cordial relationship here, and sign your name to this: “I, Oreoracle, believe that Dispassion Alone is too narrow a vehicle as a means of apprehending truth.”

I disagree with the sentiment, although I think our real disagreement lies in how we define “truth”. If you allow morals to be true, then sure, passion is necessary. But I would define “truth” more strictly.

So it may not be that my vehicle is too narrow, considering that the goal itself may be narrower than what you had in mind. Or, in other words, my vehicle is narrower than yours, but my notion of truth is also narrower.

 

[PRmerger]

I disagree with the sentiment, although I think our real disagreement lies in how we define “truth”. If you allow morals to be true, then sure, passion is necessary. But I would define “truth” more strictly.

So it may not be that my vehicle is too narrow, considering that the goal itself may be narrower than what you had in mind. Or, in other words, my vehicle is narrower than yours, but my notion of truth is also narrower.

*sigh"

I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I gave you a multitude of chances to recuse yourself from the fundamentalist label which so aggrieved you.

But you are too atttached to your very narrow paradigm of Dispassion Alone that you cannot bring yourself to make a very, very easy statement.

I do not dialogue with folks who are recusant to reason and who cannot disavow themselves from narrow-minded paradigms. It is utterly inutile to continue dialogue with these types of folks.

Buh-bye.

 

[Oreoracle]

I know you won’t respond, but you’ll read this, and that’s good enough.

I gave you a multitude of chances to recuse yourself from the fundamentalist label which so aggrieved you.

And I gave you multiple chances to substantiate your position. A single example was all you needed. But alas, you couldn’t produce even that.

In case you haven’t considered this, it is possible to be too open-minded with one’s definition of “truth”. If you allow unfalsifiability to creep into the definition, then pretty much anything can be true.

So you can call me narrow-minded, but I would rather be accused of that than be so open-minded that my brain falls out and I’m unable to justify rejecting anything.

 

[Non_Serviam]

I know you won’t respond, but you’ll read this, and that’s good enough.

And I gave you multiple chances to substantiate your position. A single example was all you needed. But alas, you couldn’t produce even that.

In case you haven’t considered this, it is possible to be too open-minded with one’s definition of “truth”. If you allow unfalsifiability to creep into the definition, then pretty much anything can be true.

So you can call me narrow-minded, but I would rather be accused of that than be so open-minded that my brain falls out and I’m unable to justify rejecting anything.

It’s unfortunate that many of the catholics doing apologetics take the route of:

1. Assert that something must be a certain way
2. Continue asserting the point, while avoiding any request for evidence
3. Insist you provide evidence to disprove their assertion, while making personal attacks.

Thankfully not all catholics do this, some can be very enjoyable to discuss matters with, but there are certainly enough to make it annoying.

Now, as to your discussion of passion, do you think having a passion for the truth would assist you in finding the truth, rather than being neutral about whether you find truth or not?