[Wittrs] Linguistic Behavior: Allegations of Fallacy
- From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:41:41 -0500
Cayuse wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>Cayuse wrote:
>>>"There is something that experiences". There is a problem here
>>>stemming from the linguistically grounded misconception that "I
>>>experience, therefore I am the experiencer". Once this invalid
>>>argument is relinquished, there is no longer any need to posit a
>>>"something" that experiences -- all we are left with is the
>>>unproblematic statement that "there is experience".
>>it sounds like you are saying that 'there is experience; therefore,
>>there is an experiencer' is fallacious because (according to you) 'I
>>experience; therefore, I am an experiencer' is invalid.
>Are you saying there is something that experiences, but it's not you?
no; although, obviously, other people experience.
what I'm saying is that your argument is bogus; for, only in a
solipsistic universe would the rules of logic be adjustable to suit the
strategic interest of the thinker.
the logic of the argument begins with an agreed upon fact: there is
experience. I will call the discovery of our agreement on this fact step
1 of the argument.
I build on that in step 2. based only on the agreed upon fact that there
is experience and the principle that nothing unreal experiences anything
at all, I conclude that there is something that something experiences.
at this point, a rational interlocutor might contest the claim that the
conclusion follows from the operation of the principle on the fact
alone. rational interlocutor might contest the validity of the principle
itself.
you, on the other hand, do something else. you point out (correctly)
that I will use the conclusion I reach at step 2 as I continue the
argument. obviously, I hope to eventually conclude 'I experience' and
after that 'I am an experiencer'.
then you argue that, because *you think* that stepping from 'I
experience' to 'I am an experiencer' is invalid, it follows that
stepping from 'there is experience' to 'there is something that
experiences' is invalid.
that's a bogus counter-argument. only in a solipsistic philosophy could
you make a pre-emptive strike against a later conclusion by adjusting
the rules of logic to reject an intermediate conclusion.
the specific error you are making is call a 'non sequitor'. look it up
if you have to.
but, until you address what is actually done in step 2, you don't have a
rational counter-argument.
Joe
--
Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
==========================================
Manage Your AMR subscription: //www.freelists.org/list/wittrsamr
For all your Wittrs needs: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
