Hinman's "Argument From TS"
Joe Hinman has made a rather obscure theistic argument based on philosopher Jacques Derrida's metaphysical concepts of the "Transcendental Signifier" (TS) and "Transcendental Signified" (TSed). It is worth noting that Joe actually rejects the philosophical position of Derrida, which is basically that the existence of any Transcendental Signified is a myth. But he accepts Derrida's metaphysical concept of the TS and the TSed as being valid, and he believes Derrida is wrong in positing that it doesn't exist. I must admit that I am not familiar with Derrida's work, but I'll try to explain it from Joe's perspective, and walk through his argument, step by step. So without further ado, let me state Joe's argument here:
1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops)
2. OP's summed up in TS
3. Modern Thought rejects TS outright or takes out all aspects of mind.
4. Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe.
5. minds organize and communicate meaning
6. Therefore universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS
7. Concept of God unites TS with universal mind therefore offers best explanation for a view that is Rational, Coherent, and Meaningful (RCM).
Joe defends his argument with a somewhat lengthy commentary on each of its numbered statements. Statements 1 to 3 are explained here, and the remainder are explained here. But first, it might be helpful to read Joe's other article on Transcentental Signifier, where he provides a somewhat more cogent explanation of what he means by TS and TSed. Basically a signifier is a word or mark that represents something, and the TS is what represents the ultimate ground of meaning - the organizing principle at the apex of the metaphysical hierarchy (according to Joe). In Christian parlance, it is "the Word", or "the Logos". The signified is the referent for that word - the thing that the word stands for. In Christian parlance, the Transcendental Signified is God. Why Joe should go to such pains to separate the signifier from the signified is a mystery to me. It doesn't seem to add anything substantial to his argument. And in fact, he seems to use the terms TS and TSed interchangeably, as far as I can tell.
Statement 1 summary:
Joe asserts that organizing principles (OPs) require hierarchies of understanding. He explains that this does not mean that the laws of physics imply a designer or a law-giver. (OK. I didn't think so, either.) He uses the term TS in an ambiguous manner, though. In one instance he says "I point to grammar as an example of a TS", and then he goes on to assert organizing principles are summed up in a "single first principle", or TS. This really should have come under his discussion of Statement 2, but I point it out here because he has used TS to mean both a generic top-level organizing principle (such as laws of physics, or rules of grammar), and the ultimate OP (the Logos). This only serves to confuse his argument. He discusses how self-organizing systems must still subject to an external OP. I disagree. The universe itself is a self-contained, self-organizing system, with the laws of physics as the top-level organizing principle (if that's what you want to call it). The point I make is that the OP that governs the structure of the universe is contained within the universe itself, not something imposed from outside. Note that if you think the laws of physics must be externally imposed, Joe already stated that is not implied. So there is no need for a higher-level OP.
Statement 2 summary:
Here, Joe makes the assertion that there are various high-level organizing principles, such as mathematics, language, logic, that are summed up in an overarching first principle. Again, he describes this in a confusing way. He actually uses the term "first principle" both in reference to those high-level principles (like the laws of physics) and in reference to the single overarching principle, which he calls the TSed. At this point, it's impossible to know what he means by "first principle". Is it the overarching first principle or not? Is that first principle the TS or the TSed? By Joe's own words we are left confused, and it isn't clear that Joe has a good grasp of what he's trying to say. But confusing terminology aside, Joe explains that there are top-level organizing principles that "explain everything". I must take issue with that, because they don't explain everything, but they may explain everything within a particular domain. For example the search for a Grand Unified Theory in particle physics does nothing to enhance our understanding of language or logic or chemistry. Joe says that the TS "organizes the organizers". So it must be at a higher level than an OP, yet he still uses the term TS and OP to refer to the same things. Still more confusion. Some consistency in his use of terminology would be appreciated.
But the bigger point to make is that there really is no overarching organizing principle. You might say God explains it all, but that is equivalent to saying we know all there is to know because God. In truth, just saying that doesn't explain anything at all. It's a feel-good thing for theists to say, but it does nothing to help us understand any of the subordinate organizing principles. The idea of an overarching organizing principle in meaningless. Just as is the idea that there is some kind of metaphysical hierarchy. Can Joe explain the structure of this supposed hierarchy, other than saying that God is on top of it all? No. Because there is no such thing. And likewise, there is no hierarchy of meaning that culminates in a first principle TS. There are domains of meaning, and they are more or less independent - not organized onto a single structure.
Statement 3 summary:
Joe's main point here is that we tend to use mindless concepts for our organizing principles. For example the laws of physics require no conscious entity to operate as an organizing principle. But (and this seems to be something that should probably fall under one of the later premises) the overarching first principle does require a mind to put it all together. I have already explained that the appeal to an overarching first principle is essentially meaningless. But even if that were not the case, I still see no need for this conscious entity. Why can't things just exist as they are and behave the way they do without being controlled by some mind? Joe doesn't say. It's just an assertion he makes.
Statement 4 summary:
What Joe is saying here is that without a mind governing everything, we have no way to explain the meaning of the whole. We can't answer certain questions like Why are we here? We can't explain why the laws of physics exist. He is making the assumption that God is necessary to answer these questions, but he ignores the fact that Because God really doesn't answer them any better than having no answer at all. Why is there something rather than nothing? We could say Because God, or we could admit that we have no answer. Either way, we still don't have anything meaningful. Joe feels that by saying Because God, we now magically have all the understanding we need. And that makes him feel good, but what has he actually explained? He says that without God, the world is irrational. That's not true. The world is a-rational, but not irrational. We humans can provide rational explanations for what we observe. We just can't answer some of those big Why questions. But Joe seems to be making the case that without God's mind, we can't provide any rational explanations at all. This is false.
Statement 5 summary:
Minds organize meaning. No argument there. But there is something Joe leaves unsaid. Meaning is entirely within a mind. There is no meaning that somehow exists outside of our minds. Meaning is how we understand things. Consider a proposition P. P might mean one thing to me, and a different thing to you. It depends on what definitions we attach to the words of the proposition, and the concepts we associate with them, which is based on our experience. Meaning is not some universal thing that exists apart from our brains. Even if there were a God, how does that give me any more understanding than I already have? Joe seems to be making the theistic case that we don't understand anything without having access to God's mind. Which would be an assertion without any justification, and which denies scientific knowledge.
Statement 6 summary:
This is where Joe puts his argument together. He makes the assertion that science omits mind, and so precludes "an explanation uniting all the major areas of human being: the physical nature of the universe, the moral, and the existential or the dimension of our being where higher meaning and sheer existence meet." Joe ignores the fact that science doesn't exclude mind at all. It explains mind in terms of the function of the physical brain. But this isn't good enough to give Joe the answers he's looking for. He cites unscientific opinions that say mind must not be physical. The real source of all mind is God. God provides the source of ultimate meaning and purpose, which gives us the answers that science can't. True enough, science does not give us that kind of mind. Science only gives us answers that are obtainable by humans. But positing God as a universal mind answers to those Why questions, and the answer is always Because God. That's the best we can do when we are looking for answers that are not attainable by humans. For some reason, it is an answer that Joe finds satisfying.
Statement 7 summary:
Joe returns to the concept of the Transcendental Signified, which is the ground of meaning, and the only way to those Why questions. But since he equates the TSed with God (or is it the TS?), he could have just said "God is the ultimate organizing principle" from the outset, and not bothered with TS and TSed at all. But then he goes further and claims without any supporting explanation that the ultimate answer (Because God) is "rational, coherent, and meaningful". Frankly, I don't see it. It isn't rational, it isn't coherent, and it isn't meaningful.
Overall assessment:
I think the whole argument could have been stated in a much simpler way:
1. There must be a universal mind to answer the questions that science can't.He could have skipped over all that discussion of TS and TSed, which really add nothing substantial to the argument. But they do serve to obscure the real meaning of what he's saying. If you use lots of big words, perhaps you can hide the fact that your premises are baseless. Why must there be a universal mind? Joe may be uncomfortable with the thought that there might be no such thing, but he hasn't substantiated the claim that it must be true. God is, of course, the thing that fits the bill by definition, but once again, he still hasn't substantiated the claim the God must exist. Perhaps there simply is no answer to those Why questions. Just because he wants to believe that there are answers, doesn't make it true. And even if God does exist, there are still no meaningful answers beyond Because God. If we want to understand our world in any truly meaningful way, we still need science.
2. God is the universal mind that answers those questions.
3. Therefore, God exists.
The bottom line is that this argument is much like the Argument From Reason. It gives the believer a warm, fuzzy feeling by making theistic assertions that are unjustified. It is not even slightly compelling to someone who doesn't already believe.
here is the I am skeptiocal uote of the day:
ReplyDelete"I must admit that I am not familiar with Derrida's work, but I'll try to explain it from Joe's perspective, and walk through his argument, step by step. So without further ado, let me state Joe's argument here:"
Translation:
I don't know what I'm talking about but I'm going to explain it (from another person's point of view no less) gotta love this guy,
I based what I said on your words. If I got it wrong, please enlighten us.
Delete"Basically a signifier is a word or mark that represents something, and the TS is what represents the ultimate ground of meaning - the organizing principle at the apex of the metaphysical hierarchy (according to Joe). In Christian parlance, it is "the Word", or "the Logos". The signified is the referent for that word - the thing that the word stands for."
ReplyDeleteno c- for understanding the concepts,in structuralism you have the signifies and the signfied--the word and the thing it represents,
In Christian parlance, the Transcendental Signified is God. Why Joe should go to such pains to separate the signifier from the signified is a mystery to me.
Not in Christian parlance, there are about three Christians who know about this stuff in the whole world-- In Derridian parlance,
It doesn't seem to add anything substantial to his argument. And in fact, he seems to use the terms TS and TSed interchangeably, as far as I can tell.
Ideally one needs to read chapter three in the book, but in this thumbnail version of the argument reality needs to be understood as the basic assumption of western thought as a whole that there is an overarching ground of meaning that gives significance to ideas.This is represented by all the words like God, reason,the forms,truth so on. This is Derrida based upon the linguistic theory of Saussure known structuralism,
c- for understanding the concepts,in structuralism you have the signifies and the signfied--the word and the thing it represents,
Delete- That's what I said. Use a dictionary. A 'referent' is the thing being referred to. It is the thing represented by the word. F for you.
needs to be understood as the basic assumption of western thought as a whole that there is an overarching ground of meaning that gives significance to ideas.
- It represents SOME "western thought", especially in theism. But not mine. And not Derrida's. He does not agree with you.
in Derrida world it's all of Western thought predicated upon that.
DeleteI don't know where you get this "all of Western thought". It's definitely not scientific. It doesn't agree with reality. There is no "hierarchy" of knowledge.
DeleteThis really should have come under his discussion of Statement 2, but I point it out here because he has used TS to mean both a generic top-level organizing principle (such as laws of physics, or rules of grammar), and the ultimate OP (the Logos). This only serves to confuse his argument. He discusses how self-organizing systems must still subject to an external OP. I disagree. The universe itself is a self-contained, self-organizing system, with the laws of physics as the top-level organizing principle (if that's what you want to call it). The point I make is that the OP that governs the structure of the universe is contained within the universe itself, not something imposed from outside. Note that if you think the laws of physics must be externally imposed, Joe already stated that is not implied. So there is no need for a higher-level OP.
ReplyDeleteIt is confusing a d hard not to muddle because I'm dealing with levers complex concept that sound alike such as signifier and signified. I try to streamline and simplify it so hard not to lose lose things. there is a distinction in my mind tween TS and Op. btw Derrida never uses "TS," he says transcendental signifier, TS and TSED are my codes to simplify typing,
OP are found at all levels they are strange attractors in chaos thoery but TS at the highest level like God or the forms. OPs are empirical and TS is theoretical,
It is confusing a d hard not to muddle because I'm dealing with levers complex concept that sound alike such as signifier and signified.
Delete- you're slinging pseudo-intellectualism. You have used the same terminology to mean different things. That's not a problem with the difficulty of the concept. It's just confusion on your part. It's a failure to explain yourself. And I really don't care whether you spell it out or use an acronym. That's not the point. You are using your own terminology in an inconsistent way.
OP are found at all levels they are strange attractors in chaos thoery but TS at the highest level like God or the forms.
- Then why do you refer to TS at something other than the highest level? (Read your own words.) Why do you talk about "first principles" at more than one level?
OPs are empirical and TS is theoretical
- Sorry, Joe but a 'principle' is conceptual. It's not observed. It's the way we THINK about something.
OP are found at all levels they are strange attractors in chaos thoery but TS at the highest level like God or the forms.
Delete- Then why do you refer to TS at something other than the highest level? (Read your own words.)
stop making assertion you can't back up I don't do that, you clear misunderstood, as you do so often,
Why do you talk about "first principles" at more than one level?
because they are at every level
OPs are empirical and TS is theoretical
- Sorry, Joe but a 'principle' is conceptual. It's not observed. It's the way we THINK about something.
that;'s B. if you read post you would know in googling the the term one finds thousands of armistices where they claim to observe then, I will grant you they are observing alleged effects of OPs.
that;s your attempt to find a small thing to be right about it doesn't affect my argument,
stop making assertion you can't back up I don't do that, you clear misunderstood, as you do so often
Delete- Joe, you use TS to mean various high-level, but not top=level organizing principles. I quote your words: "I point to grammar as an example of a TS" RThat's clearly not the highest level of this so-called hierarchy.
because they are at every level
You can't have a "first principle" at more than one level, because then it wouldn't be first, would it. Your choice of words is confused, and even self-contradictory.
that;'s B. if you read post you would know in googling the the term one finds thousands of armistices where they claim to observe then, I will grant you they are observing alleged effects of OPs.
- I know what a "principle" is. I understand the definition. You apparently don't.
that;s your attempt to find a small thing to be right about it doesn't affect my argument
- That's how the fallacy of equivocation makes its way into an argument. It does affect the argument, even if you don't think so.
The point I make is that the OP that governs the structure of the universe is contained within the universe itself, not something imposed from outside.
ReplyDeletethat's begging the question ,really my argument is getting at the idea that without explain how OPs cohere there is no reason in modern tough,
Note that if you think the laws of physics must be externally imposed, Joe already stated that is not implied. So there is no need for a higher-level OP.
The whole point is your universe reduces to brute fact, thus has no reason behind it. What you leave hanging as brute fact i see as deep structure which draws us in to the explication in/God.In fact the title of the book is God and The Deep structures of Being,
that's begging the question ,really my argument is getting at the idea that without explain how OPs cohere there is no reason in modern tough
Delete- No, Joe. You say there's a single overarching principle. THAT's begging the question. What I see is separate domains of knowledge or meaning. There is no overarching principle that ties them together. If I understand language (as one domain), that has nothing to do with physics, for example. Because they are separate domains.
The whole point is your universe reduces to brute fact,
- That's right. And you are trying to prove otherwise. So prove it. Don't just tell me I'm wrong. Because I don't buy your explanations of reality. Prove me wrong with actual logic.
skep, isn't it actually the case that physics doesn't work unless language works?
Delete[b]there are about three Christians who know about this stuff in the whole world-- In Derridian parlance[/b]
DeleteI think there more quite a lot more Xians than that who got graduate - or even just undergraduate - degrees in Lit or Critical Theory or Gender Studies at some point in the 90's!
:-P
skep, isn't it actually the case that physics doesn't work unless language works?
Delete- I would prefer to say that language doesn't work unless physics does. But the issue here is that under Joe's thesis, there are frameworks of understanding (organizing principles), and there is the underlying reality (the TSed). In the underlying reality, everything is dependent on God (according to Joe) or on something else, like physical reality. But in our framework of understanding, there are domains of knowledge. Linguistics is one. Physics is another. They don't have a hierarchical relationship. They are more or less independent. Wouldn't you agree?
Well, I meant, physics - the *study* of physical regularities - is dependant on language, not on linguistics.
DeleteBut -- eg-- an expert on both might be able to illuminate us on how our language forms affect the way we understand some things ....perhaps particularly the way we understand QM with all its non-intuitive oddities? That could be interesting....
The point is, there can always be relations between fields of knowledge. (Although they tend to be segregated by the practices in the various fields, but that is actually artificial, and even something Joe could point to as part of the "malaise" of modern thought's "decentered" nature.)
WDYT?
That doesn't show a "hierarchical nature" to Op's though, I know ... just interrelationships.....
DeleteWell sure. I think that human cognition is largely dependent on our linguistic capability. Without the ability to formulate thoughts in language, we wouldn't have the level of understanding we do. But I distinguish between our natural linguistic abilities and the intellectual understanding of linguistics as a field of knowledge. The former is largely intuitive.
DeleteThe question is, then, "what does 'intuitive' mean to you?".
DeleteWhere do our intuitions come from?
Tracing that - and I think you might answer "from our evolutionary endowment? - might give a clue about an implicit TSED within your own belief system?
Intuition is an unconscious mental process. It doesn't have to depend on intellectual understanding. Do you understand what I'm saying about the difference between being able to use language and having an intellectual understanding of it?
DeleteLook at the example of catching a ball. A child can do it. He knows intuitively how to predict the path of the ball. He doesn't need to understand mass and force. He doesn't need to be able to mathematically calculate the points on a parabolic arc. Those are domains of knowledge that he may lack, but he still depends on physics (and an intuitive understanding) to catch the ball.
The point of my earlier discussion was to dispute what Joe was saying about knowledge and understanding. There are domains of knowledge that are not structured in some hierarchy. But I think Joe equivocates between physical reality and knowledge. Remember, his whole thesis is about understanding. How we use organizing principles. He then transitions from that into metaphysical stricture (with God at the apex), which is not the same as understanding. The two aren't necessarily related. We could have false organizing principles in our understanding of the world, but that doesn't affect the underlying reality. Yet Joe has treated them as if they are the same. Even if there is some hierarchy in physical reality, that doesn't mean the same thing applies to knowledge, and vice versa.
If you ask me, there is no TSed. Anywhere. And that's what Derrida thinks, too. But I still think Joe doesn't have the same idea of it that Derrida has. And he has the gall to belittle my understanding of it.
Joe is attempting to contest Derrida's conclusions in D's own terms (& his sketch of D's thought is pretty rudimentry in what he's presented so far.)
DeleteHe then transitions from that into metaphysical str[u]cture (with God at the apex), which is not the same as understanding. The two aren't necessarily related. We could have false organizing principles in our understanding of the world, but that doesn't affect the underlying reality.
Yep, & our false principles might even work just fine as far meeting as our needs go; that's a good point.....
Mike GerowFebruary 7, 2018 at 5:52 PM
DeleteThat doesn't show a "hierarchical nature" to Op's though, I know ... just interrelationships.....
obviousness there is a hierarchical relationship there since some things are consequences of other things,It;s all headed toward laws of physics clearly hierarchy,
but I don't claim that OP are directly hierarchical in relation to each other,
I don't claim that OP are directly hierarchical in relation to each other
Delete- Joe, do you even read your own words? Once again I quote you: "OP 's make sense of the universe and explain hierarchies of conceptualization" I'm pretty sure you just copied and pasted this from somewhere without realizing what you were saying, much less understanding it.
I will make more comments tomorrow, last one for the night,apologetics night cap.
ReplyDeleteHere, Joe makes the assertion that there are various high-level organizing principles, such as mathematics, language, logic, that are summed up in an overarching first principle. Again, he describes this in a confusing way. He actually uses the term "first principle" both in reference to those high-level principles (like the laws of physics) and in reference to the single overarching principle, which he calls the TSed.
as I say it's hard to render every complex stuff simply without over simplifying.
first Principe is a general term. Ops ad TS are both first principles owing to the field of discussion. but Ops are not TS. they are explained by TS,
Your explanations are confused and misleading. You should reconsider the terminology you use.
DeleteBut the bigger point to make is that there really is no overarching organizing principle. You might say God explains it all, but that is equivalent to saying we know all there is to know because God.
ReplyDeletethat shows a great deal of confusion on your part. The overall point is Western thought has never been satisfied with loose eds, We do not like the idea of a million disjointed answers that conflict or have nothing to do with each other. That is why why science wants a Grand unified theory,
In truth, just saying that doesn't explain anything at all.
yes it does. It explains what needs explaining, now you will assert we now need all knowledge we have to know everything, But we don't.We Only need to know what the overarching Principle of all principles is,we don't even have to understand it.
It's a feel-good thing for theists to say, but it does nothing to help us understand any of the subordinate organizing principles.
that's not important see how you have changed the premises, I said we need to have reason as the basis of reality you now assume that means we need to know everything. Not that it's not important but it's not important in the same way, Science can keep working on that,
The idea of an overarching organizing principle in meaningless. Just as is the idea that there is some kind of metaphysical hierarchy.
then why is Wineberg looking for it? why did they keep the laws of physics? why do they make a big thing out of cause and effect?
Can Joe explain the structure of this supposed hierarchy, other than saying that God is on top of it all? No.
yes
Because there is no such thing. And likewise, there is no hierarchy of meaning that culminates in a first principle TS.
typical atheist question begging. If there's no such thing +why does modern thought predicate itself upon the very concept? It' been the basic assumption since Plato.
There are domains of meaning, and they are more or less independent - not organized onto a single structure.
wrong. Without that assumption reality, silence, and modern thought are predicated upon a dead end with no exploitation,
We do not like the idea of a million disjointed answers that conflict or have nothing to do with each other. That is why why science wants a Grand unified theory,
Delete- YOU don't like loose ends. YOU need God to answer all your questions. Your example of the grand unified theory is STUPID. It only applies to particle physics. That's all. Nothing more.
yes it does. It explains what needs explaining,
- It satisfies your curiosity. Not mine. And not anyone who isn't mired in theistic delusion.
see how you have changed the premises, I said we need to have reason as the basis of reality you now assume that means we need to know everything.
- "God did it" is not an example of reason.
most of my post was sabot the mutually reinforcing nature of a dialectical process of experience and reason
- And you continue to ignore the fact that I was not attempting to rebut your post.
then why is Wineberg looking for it? why did they keep the laws of physics? why do they make a big thing out of cause and effect?
- Theists insist on looking for one single overarching principle. Nobody else feels the need for that. Particle physicists aren't trying to answer anything outside of their own domain.
yes
- OK. Let's hear it. Explain the structure of knowledge. Not just the God thing at the top. Tell us how all the pieces fit together in a structure.
typical atheist question begging. If there's no such thing +why does modern thought predicate itself upon the very concept? It' been the basic assumption since Plato.
- Plenty of philosophers have been absolutely wrong.
wrong. Without that assumption reality, silence, and modern thought are predicated upon a dead end with no exploitation
- Too bad if you can't accept reality. Things aren't true just because you want them to be.
Statement 3 summary:
ReplyDeleteJoe's main point here is that we tend to use mindless concepts for our organizing principles. For example the laws of physics require no conscious entity to operate as an organizing principle. But (and this seems to be something that should probably fall under one of the later premises) the overarching first principle does require a mind to put it all together. I have already explained that the appeal to an overarching first principle is essentially meaningless. But even if that were not the case, I still see no need for this conscious entity.
no that they are required but they make the best explanation
Why can't things just exist as they are and behave the way they do without being controlled by some mind? Joe doesn't say. It's just an assertion he makes.
Were I to assign you to write a dissertation based upon empirical studies from the best journals and deductive reasoning the point the dissertation argues for is that words have no meaning they are merely random grunts with no point to them, If you see the irony you see my point,
no that they are required but they make the best explanation
Delete- Only if you're stuck on theism. There ARE better explanations. You just refuse to see.
Were I to assign you to write a dissertation based upon empirical studies from the best journals and deductive reasoning the point the dissertation argues for is that words have no meaning they are merely random grunts with no point to them, If you see the irony you see my point
- listen, kid. If you were in MY class, I'd demand that you explain yourself, prove your points, and use clear, unambiguous language.
Skep, the man's ideas are intellectual jokes. They need an expert, Stephen Colbert or a Bill Maher, to untangle and be worked on to derive some form of intelligibility. Hinman really tickles the parody/satire module in my brain. He is the essence of risibility, a no-nothing banging on about know-nothing.
ReplyDeleteI suggest a change of focus when responding to his oeuvres, from serious-intellectual to parodical jocularity. The fit would be better.
The more I argue with Joe, the more I realize that he is like a child - so unprepared to argue on a truly intellectual basis, despite the fact that he tries to use the concepts and language of philosophers and scientists as a facade, to pretend that he's one of them. Half the time, he has no idea what they're talking about. Recall his butchering of Sartre. Notice how he speaks down to me, even when it is he who fails to understand. But he always wants to play the part of the misunderstood genius. So far above any mere atheist. I agree that it's a joke.
DeleteMy argent is written for intellect people with a sophisticated educational background, It;s nor surprising it's incomprehensible to you, Writing is incomprehensible to illiterate people.
DeleteYour argument is written for religious believers who who have no ability to recognize phony pseudo-intellectualism. You go off on unnecessary tangents, you contradict yourself, you equivocate, you beg the question. This is not sophistication. This is pure Joe.
DeleteI would suggest your title to this piece: "Hinman's "Argument From TS"" should properly reflect the content of his argument: Hinman's "Argument From BS"
Delete
ReplyDeleteOverall assessment:
I think the whole argument could have been stated in a much simpler way:
1. There must be a universal mind to answer the questions that science can't.
I did not make that claim. you always re word arguments when you do that you change the meaning form what the original tented was,
2. God is the universal mind that answers those questions.
yea that kind of goes with the territory,
3. Therefore, God exists.
If P then Q, so the argument is can we say P?
He could have skipped over all that discussion of TS and TSed, which really add nothing substantial to the argument.
Obviously it does but not surprising you missed it,
But they do serve to obscure the real meaning of what he's saying. If you use lots of big words, perhaps you can hide the fact that your premises are baseless. Why must there be a universal mind? Joe may be uncomfortable with the thought that there might be no such thing, but he hasn't substantiated the claim that it must be true. God is, of course, the thing that fits the bill by definition, but once again, he still hasn't substantiated the claim the God must exist. Perhaps there simply is no answer to those Why questions. Just because he wants to believe that there are answers, doesn't make it true. And even if God does exist, there are still no meaningful answers beyond Because God. If we want to understand our world in any truly meaningful way, we still need science.
you cant answer the argument you don't understand how it works so obfuscate
The bottom line is that this argument is much like the Argument From Reason. It gives the believer a warm, fuzzy feeling by making theistic assertions that are unjustified. It is not even slightly compelling to someone who doesn't already believe.
that's your obfuscation attempt to divert the reader from the argent,
The argument is just one big theistic presumption wrapped in a lot of bullshit language to make it sound sophisticated. And I don't think you understand Derrida any better than I do. If you think this is a good argument, show me any atheist philosopher, or somebody like JJ Lowder, who would agree.
DeleteYou might as well say "God exists because I say so."
im-skepticalFebruary 7, 2018 at 8:14 AM
ReplyDeletethat's begging the question ,really my argument is getting at the idea that without explain how OPs cohere there is no reason in modern tough
- No, Joe. You say there's a single overarching principle. THAT's begging the question.
no it;snot, you don't even know what it means to beg the question,It means you employ your position to prove your position,I never said there's an overarching mind because there;s an overarching
mind, most of the argument is pouting out signs of this mind,
part of that evidence is that the Western tradition asserts it for me,which is why I go into all this TS stuff.
What I see is separate domains of knowledge or meaning. There is no overarching principle that ties them together.
You are obfuscating, oblivious there is you see it you refuse to accept it. The beauty of the argument is sickness has to turn on itself and content itself with with a million loose ends to deny that point because it's been made trough out the history of ideas,
If I understand language (as one domain), that has nothing to do with physics, for example. Because they are separate domains.
totally missing the point as usual. It's not true because linguistics studies scientifically, it is a social science,it incorporates genetics,
The whole point is your universe reduces to brute fact,
- That's right. And you are trying to prove otherwise. So prove it. Don't just tell me I'm wrong. Because I don't buy your explanations of reality. Prove me wrong with actual logic.
I don;t have to prove it, i only have to show it's the best explanation. You just did that for me. because you just admitted you don't have one, brute fats means you don't have an explanation,
- Joe, if you claim there's an overarching mind, nobody is stupid enough to think you are doing anything but you are making a claim about God. You ARE begging the question.
Deletepart of that evidence is that the Western tradition asserts it for me,which is why I go into all this TS stuff.
- You keep harping about "Western tradition". What you mean is Christian religious tradition. It's just religious bullshit.
You are obfuscating, oblivious there is you see it you refuse to accept it. The beauty of the argument is sickness has to turn on itself and content itself with with a million loose ends to deny that point because it's been made trough out the history of ideas
- You speak of these "loose ends" as if there is some law of nature that says "Loose ends shall not be allowed". You have provided no reason for me to accept your argument.
totally missing the point as usual. It's not true because linguistics studies scientifically, it is a social science,it incorporates genetics
- Genetics??? Now I am more convinced than ever that you have no idea what you are saying.
I don;t have to prove it, i only have to show it's the best explanation. You just did that for me. because you just admitted you don't have one, brute fats means you don't have an explanation
- Do you have any understanding of logic? If YOU claim there are no brute facts, then PROVE IT. And as for your "best explanation", God doesn't explain anything. It's nothing but a place-holder for ignorance. There is always a better explanation.
The more I argue with Joe, the more I realize that he is like a child - so unprepared to argue on a truly intellectual basis, despite the fact that he tries to use the concepts and language of philosophers and scientists as a facade, to pretend that he's one of them. Half the time, he has no idea what they're talking about. Recall his butchering of Sartre. Notice how he speaks down to me, even when it is he who fails to understand. But he always wants to play the part of the misunderstood genius. So far above any mere atheist. I agree that it's a joke.
ReplyDeletesee he;s getting testy because he's starting to see there is A a real point here and he can't understand it. All his childish attempts at argument fail he is getting frustrated. He falls back on the conferred status the atheist cult taught him to assert,
I'm not the only one who has this opinion. You would do well to listen.
DeleteJoe, give over. You know that what you peddle is religious-infused crapola. Dr Valerie Tarico's ARTICLE HERE simply explodes your argument to smithereens.
DeleteI don't want to write off Joe's argument without considering it. But at the same time, I'm neither a fan of the writing style nor the things being appealed to. Derrida? I think there's good reason for some philosophers to have rejected him as a sophist and/or rejected that he ought to have honorary degrees at well respected institutions.
ReplyDeleteI won't personally try to decipher Joe's argument because he hasn't liked that in the last (despite my interpretations making his arguments valid when they otherwise we're invalid). Good luck to you all.
I didn't really want to do this, either. I was participating in discussion at his blog, and Joe kept saying I hadn't addressed his argument at all. That's true. I was avoiding it. But he wouldn't let it go, so here we are.
DeleteWell, Ryan......
Deletehttps://youtu.be/WyHTEIAYQlQ
Well ... I guess we should accept his odd ontology of the Transcendental Signified that doesn't exist, then.
DeleteNo cuz, otoh, there's "the postmodern [i.e. Derridean] turn in the philosophy of religion" for you guys to deal with.
DeleteOkay, here ya go! Starting with Peterson's diatribe, this fairly-long article sketches the basics and maybe even .... Um, "essence" of Derrida's thing pretty well, IMO.....in case you really want to know...
Deletehttps://www.viewpointmag.com/2018/01/23/postmodernism-not-take-place-jordan-petersons-12-rules-life/
He was questioning the idea that there is a meaning to a text that is distinct from what is actually there in the text. There is no pure transmission, uncorrupted by a secondary medium, that makes us one with our listeners or readers.
So is there a point you're trying to convey to me?
DeleteAre you telling me I need to "deal with" his philosophy? There are many philosophers, and many who have ideas that are not based in reality. My way of dealing with them is to ignore them, unless they have some bearing on what I'm doing - or they are involved in the discussion I'm engaging in. As far as I'm concerned, Derrida is only peripherally pertinent to Joe's thesis. Joe seems to find his metaphysical views of value because they can be interpreted as supportive of his theology. On the other hand, Joe doesn't need Derrida to confirm what he believes. If he had never heard of the transcendental Signified, Joe would still believe exactly what he believes, but use a different name for it. This is superficial sophistry.
I find myself in partial agreement with Derrida (what I understand of it). There is no objective meaning - it is always a matter of interpretation. However, his "metaphysics of presence" is pure philosophical fantasy that departs from a scientific view of reality.
You haven't seen all of joe's case yet. He goes on to argue that there is ALWAYS & inevitably a TS in any form of thought [and even Derrideans have their own TS(ed) despite their constant disavowals of such, according to Joe].
DeleteBut you can see where Joes issues with Derrida might emerge from? When he talks about the M-scale as a tool to derive something like the "pure essence of RE" from across cultures and personal experiences, well, the gist of Derrida's work (as sketched in the little quote above) tends to call that into question: is there really a "pure essence" like that, that underlies all the different culturally-and-otherwise-defined interpretations of people's experiences that they make for themselves? (& that tendency for thought to look for "pure essences" - often without us even really noticing - is kinda what D means by "metaphysics of presence.")
I don't doubt that people can interpret Derrida in a way that seems to make sense. Peterson, a non philosopher, has certainly done a good job. But I've seen actual philosophers clarify Derrida, and that does nothing to make Derridean ideas worthy of attention.
ReplyDeleteDerrida is in a category with the likes of Sartre, Nietszhe, Zizek and others where people mentioning them almost certainly are speaking nonsense. I take this to be their own faults for seemingly intentionally being obscure to the point where their ideas, if we want to call them ideas, are perfectly suited for pseudo intellectuals who like appearing intelligent.
The best format for any presentation of an argument is to lay out sub sections such that the first section lays out explicit definitions, the second sub section presents a formal presentation of the argument (with all premises, inferences and conclusions contained), and a further sub section minimally dealing with defenses of premises (ideally each controversial premise).
Arguments ideally are also laid out in such a way that the natural language can easily be translated into a formal logic. Joe misses this step quite frequently by having conclusions inside premises, or wording premises in such a way that they need to be reinterpreted to translate into a formal language.
I have always been leery of arguments that are stated in obscure or impenetrable language. I find that there are two main reasons for doing that.
DeleteOne is to try to impress the audience. It is an attempt to make the arguer sound sophisticated by making the audience feel that they are incapable of understanding, when the reality often is that the argument can be easily understood if it is explained clearly.
The other reason is that the argument is flawed, and obscure language is used in an attempt to hide the flaws. In such cases, the flaws would be readily apparent if the argument was stated in a straight-forward manner.
Derridean arguments are understood these days as most often presenting "impossibly possible impossibilities," or "aporia" --ie philosophical puzzles-- Ryan, so, if they were syllogized, they might end up presenting in some paraconsistent logic form.
DeleteAs far as if there is an easy and clear way to present any argument.... Do you guys really think so? How about, for counterexamples ...Formal Undecidability, the 150-page proof to Fermats Last Theorum, or the independence of the Continuum Hypothesis from the ZF/Ac axioms ? Afaik, there aren't any easy versions of those (or lots of other things in Maths) and it takes a lot of study and background for anyone to follow along with them. Why do you think philosophical specialities would or should be different? In fact, why wouldn't philosophy be especially hard, since it deals with "theories of knowing" and those sorts of tricky and kinda self-referential topics?
..... in analytic philosophy, how about, eg, David Chalmers discussion of "conceivability," (which I found nearly incomprehensible after the first five or so pages, to be honest)?
Derrida was a really technical philosopher who read and wrote mostly about other French academic works. Anyone eavesdropping on that (and lots of people were at one time) is, I guess, kinda on their own. But I think the basic gist of what he was on about was presented pretty well in the article I linked just above....(well, afaict, at least, since I'm not a specialist in D or even continental philosophy either, it's just a hobby....).
The other reason is that the argument is flawed, and obscure language is used in an attempt to hide the flaws. In such cases, the flaws would be readily apparent if the argument was stated in a straight-forward manner.
DeleteHow do you tell what's "clear" from what's "obscure"? Obscure to whom? What about to someone from outside your "in-group" (who already speak that "dialect")?
What conclusions might already be there....um, "always already present" ...in your pre given concepts of a "clear" presentation?
That'd maybe be what Derrida might have asked you.....
Some concepts are difficult to grasp. Some are made deliberately difficult by the use of obscure language. It is always preferable to use clear, comprehensible language if possible. And I wasn't talking particularly about Derrida.
DeleteMike, don't confuse the presentation for arguments being clear to the presentation of arguments being either short or easy to understand. If I was to prove the completeness theorem for a first order logic, it might be two dozen pages to be concise, and certainly it wouldn't be comprehensible unless the reader either has familiarity with first order logic or I present all the necessary info to become familiar. But being clear doesn't imply being either short or easy to understand. All I mean by presentation being clear is presenting an argument in such a way that the argument form is easily recognizable (it is unambiguous), the definitions are readily available in one spot for reference (like an index you'll often find in the back or front of a math book), and the defenses of premises are easy recognizable (the reader ought not be unsure if a premise was defended nor what the defense appears to be).
ReplyDeleteFollowing the above won't instantly give people an appreciation for what they're reading; they might need to think about the truth of the premises or exactly what the definitions mean. But it is still best to do something like the above.
I'd wonder - probably with Derrida - if there are conclusions already excluded by imposing particular forms on argumentation?
ReplyDeleteLike, "the media is the message" ...or sumpthin!
You simply follow Grice's conversational maxims in application to arguments. It's no more excluding conclusions based on presentation than it would be to require a speaker speaks your language.
ReplyDeleteEven that.... K, Ryan, anyway,I will look them up....and maybe I'll deconstruct em! ;-)
Deletehttp://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/projects/stylistics/topic12/14cp1.htm
DeleteRyan, what would you make of the notion given here that the maxims are ....well, um, "floutable"?
what would you make of the notion given here that the maxims are ....well, um, "floutable"?
Delete- I would say that the one who flouts these maxims might not be an effective communicator - whether intentional or not.
"Those who flout maxims are either not effective communicators or extremely skillful & effective communicators".
Delete(Btw, Ryan, perhaps, was making a little aside to me about "speech" ...ie "speech vs writing", a Derrida thing from the 60's)
I agree that in-person speech is different from written speech - just because of the dynamics of human interaction. I don't agree with his metaphysics of presence, which seems totally bogus and utterly unscientific.
DeleteWell, it's philosophical, not scientific. His star protege, the now-famous French philosopher, Catherine Malabou, named "writing" rather than difference as D's big idea: everything is "writing". Iow, its all "codes", all encoded (incl. people in their DNA, societies in social codes, languages in grammatical usages and rules) and the individual or the "speaker" or the author's original intention therefore becomes tenuous. Basically, everything is like reading a book, an complex interaction between codes and unpredictable environments. I only kinda dimly understand it, sometimes....
DeleteWell, it's philosophical, not scientific.
Delete- I hear that a lot. There shouldn't be any discrepancy between them. It's not as if philosophy describes some separate realm of existence that isn't accessible to science. It isn't as if there are different truths. We use both tools together to help us arrive at an understanding of the truth. If people think philosophy is "above science", they are suffering from a delusion. The two should work hand-in-hand, not at odds with one another.
Well, at least, people who think in terms of 'above' are thinking hierarchically, right?
DeleteYou can flout maxims without issue, but only if you and your conversation partner are aware that the rule being disregarded isn't an issue. e.g. when your conversation partner is aware of an implicature of your utterance(s).
ReplyDeleteIf you think flouting is always permissible given that it is contingently permissible, then of course you're thinking something false.
What I meant is, what do you think the philosophical consequences of "flouting" are, in terms of semiotic theories?
DeleteI have no opinion on it.
Delete