Muslim Ban Over Handshake. Whaddayareckon Liberals?

[Forty Two]

Interestingly, Exi5tentialist does not actually "contradict" himself there.

He points to the unreliability of writings, and correctly says that if the writer were there we could talk to the person to get more information from the horse's mouth. That, of course, does not mean that the horse's mouth is not also subject to similar issues.

At that rate we ought to stop trying communicating, because what's in my head that I think you said may not have any truck with what you actually meant due to language being intrinsically unreliable... I studied that in philosophy in high school, and later in linguistics in the uni, and I'm thoroughly tired of that egg-hen debate

So - is the Quran evil or not?

No.

IMO, it's an outdated and almost worthless guide for moral behavior.

[Forty Two]

Your problem, Coito, is that you write masses of words that are often total non-sequiturs to the point you are replying to, because you utterly miss the point being made so often. And you are also pathologically immune from accepting that you could ever be wrong.

More of the same nonsense from you. Miss the point. It's been explained before. You're trolling. It's the same thing with you every thread. Everyone who disagrees with you misses the point, or trolls or ignores your explanations.

More made up rubbish. I disagree with Jim all the time. Ask him if I accuse him of any of those three things. Or shove your head up your arse again. Either one is fine.

Face it, you're just not a pleasant person, and you have a hard time holding a civil discussion. Once you face the truth, you'll be able to begin to address it.

None that, of course, requires you to behave like you do and talk to people in your nasty and sniping fashion. You choose to react the way you do.

What's the point of this? I've never claimed otherwise. I get that you don't like my personality. You aren't required to like it. Deal with it.

I neither like it nor have to deal with it.

What you claim or don't claim is irrelevant to the fact that you behave as you do, in your nasty and sniping fashion, by choice. It's your MO, along with consistently calling people trolls, claiming they missed whatever point you claim to have made, or are ignoring the irrefutable evidence you declare was long ago provided....and so they're trolling.... it's the same thing over, and over, and over....

[Exi5tentialist]

Nothing will be perfect, but we can be pretty sure Mohamet was not writing about Margaritaville, right?

We can be pretty sure of what the authors of the Koran were not writing about. But to make the leap to saying that we can be sure - or even reasonably sure - what they WERE writing about, when "they" are just constructions in our heads, and then to be so confident as to apply that leap to a population of living people, such as Jihadis, is not a leap I am prepared to make. I say my meaning solely exists in my brain, and it is unscientific to then say the meaning I have modelled in my brain, which is really Mohammed's meaning, is then being taken up Jihadis to mean what I think it means and that is motivating them to kill people. That's an excursion beyond the absurd into the silly.

[Forty Two]

Interestingly, Exi5tentialist does not actually "contradict" himself there.

He points to the unreliability of writings, and correctly says that if the writer were there we could talk to the person to get more information from the horse's mouth. That, of course, does not mean that the horse's mouth is not also subject to similar issues.

At that rate we ought to stop trying communicating, because what's in my head that I think you said may not have any truck with what you actually meant due to language being intrinsically unreliable... I studied that in philosophy in high school, and later in linguistics in the uni, and I'm thoroughly tired of that egg-hen debate

Indeed -- that argument is mainly rhetorical. In real life, we can with some reliability, depending on the piece of communication and its context, reliably exchange information. Reliably does not mean perfectly. But, lack of perfection doesn't mean complete futility either.

[Exi5tentialist]

Interestingly, Exi5tentialist does not actually "contradict" himself there.

He points to the unreliability of writings, and correctly says that if the writer were there we could talk to the person to get more information from the horse's mouth. That, of course, does not mean that the horse's mouth is not also subject to similar issues.

At that rate we ought to stop trying communicating, because what's in my head that I think you said may not have any truck with what you actually meant due to language being intrinsically unreliable... I studied that in philosophy in high school, and later in linguistics in the uni, and I'm thoroughly tired of that egg-hen debate

So - is the Quran evil or not?

I mean, it's all very well expressing your exasperation at a philosophical discussion.

given that it openly advocates making war on "the infidel", and does not properly warn you that Jihad is supposed to be mainly an inner fight, and generally is not really clear about being a 'religion of peace' despite what some of its apologetics claim, yes it is.

Then you came down wholeheartedly on one side of your egg-hen debate, so it's a bit hypocritical - just a bit - to pretend the whole discussion was too tiresome for your long-suffering, academically successful mind to contemplate.

[Exi5tentialist]

Interestingly, Exi5tentialist does not actually "contradict" himself there.

He points to the unreliability of writings, and correctly says that if the writer were there we could talk to the person to get more information from the horse's mouth. That, of course, does not mean that the horse's mouth is not also subject to similar issues.

At that rate we ought to stop trying communicating, because what's in my head that I think you said may not have any truck with what you actually meant due to language being intrinsically unreliable... I studied that in philosophy in high school, and later in linguistics in the uni, and I'm thoroughly tired of that egg-hen debate

Indeed -- that argument is mainly rhetorical. In real life, we can with some reliability, depending on the piece of communication and its context, reliably exchange information. Reliably does not mean perfectly. But, lack of perfection doesn't mean complete futility either.

I think this "lack of perfection" argument is your get-out clause for ignoring the death of consciousness.

[Forty Two]

Nothing will be perfect, but we can be pretty sure Mohamet was not writing about Margaritaville, right?

We can be pretty sure of what the authors of the Koran were not writing about. But to make the leap to saying that we can be sure - or even reasonably sure - what they WERE writing about, when "they" are just constructions in our heads, and then to be so confident as to apply that leap to a population of living people, such as Jihadis, is not a leap I am prepared to make. I say my meaning solely exists in my brain, and it is unscientific to then say the meaning I have modelled in my brain, which is really Mohammed's meaning, is then being taken up Jihadis to mean what I think it means and that is motivating them to kill people. That's an excursion beyond the absurd into the silly.

We can work with the evidence we have -- words -- a word can have a meaning which can be elucidated or explained with an understanding of what the general usage was at the time it was written.

We can also use the meanings ascribed to the words by the Jihadis, and conclude what the Jihadis think the words mean. That's really the important part. If Jihadis are taking Mohamet's recipe for Cinnamon Rolls to mean that Jews are subhuman, then that's what Jihadis think it means. In the case of the Koran it's not just a question of us, sitting here in Europe and Merka looking at the words and saying "this is what the words mean to us today, and they sound terrible, so that's what they mean" -- we also have Jihadi Musselmen burying people to their neck and stoning them, beheading people and committing acts of terrorism while screaming "God is Great" and then declaring that they themselves believe they are following the word of Mahomet, the Great and Powerful, well, that's really the important part -- the meaning the violent folks are taking from it. They seem to think it means to fuck up up some shit, don't they?

[pErvinalia]

Your problem, Coito, is that you write masses of words that are often total non-sequiturs to the point you are replying to, because you utterly miss the point being made so often. And you are also pathologically immune from accepting that you could ever be wrong.

More of the same nonsense from you. Miss the point. It's been explained before. You're trolling. It's the same thing with you every thread. Everyone who disagrees with you misses the point, or trolls or ignores your explanations.

More made up rubbish. I disagree with Jim all the time. Ask him if I accuse him of any of those three things. Or shove your head up your arse again. Either one is fine.

Face it, you're just not a pleasant person, and you have a hard time holding a civil discussion. Once you face the truth, you'll be able to begin to address it.

Who says I want to address it?

And I'm pleasant to people who don't present offensive ideas or debate dishonestly.

None that, of course, requires you to behave like you do and talk to people in your nasty and sniping fashion. You choose to react the way you do.

What's the point of this? I've never claimed otherwise. I get that you don't like my personality. You aren't required to like it. Deal with it.

I neither like it nor have to deal with it.

What you claim or don't claim is irrelevant to the fact that you behave as you do, in your nasty and sniping fashion, by choice. It's your MO, along with consistently calling people trolls, claiming they missed whatever point you claim to have made, or are ignoring the irrefutable evidence you declare was long ago provided....and so they're trolling.... it's the same thing over, and over, and over....

With you it certainly is.

And as usual you are missing the point. I don't deny that I'm aggressive against certain posts and posters. So telling me that repeatedly is a waste of time.

[Exi5tentialist]

Nothing will be perfect, but we can be pretty sure Mohamet was not writing about Margaritaville, right?

We can be pretty sure of what the authors of the Koran were not writing about. But to make the leap to saying that we can be sure - or even reasonably sure - what they WERE writing about, when "they" are just constructions in our heads, and then to be so confident as to apply that leap to a population of living people, such as Jihadis, is not a leap I am prepared to make. I say my meaning solely exists in my brain, and it is unscientific to then say the meaning I have modelled in my brain, which is really Mohammed's meaning, is then being taken up Jihadis to mean what I think it means and that is motivating them to kill people. That's an excursion beyond the absurd into the silly.

We can work with the evidence we have -- words -- a word can have a meaning which can be elucidated or explained with an understanding of what the general usage was at the time it was written.

We can also use the meanings ascribed to the words by the Jihadis, and conclude what the Jihadis think the words mean. That's really the important part. If Jihadis are taking Mohamet's recipe for Cinnamon Rolls to mean that Jews are subhuman, then that's what Jihadis think it means. In the case of the Koran it's not just a question of us, sitting here in Europe and Merka looking at the words and saying "this is what the words mean to us today, and they sound terrible, so that's what they mean" -- we also have Jihadi Musselmen burying people to their neck and stoning them, beheading people and committing acts of terrorism while screaming "God is Great" and then declaring that they themselves believe they are following the word of Mahomet, the Great and Powerful, well, that's really the important part -- the meaning the violent folks are taking from it. They seem to think it means to fuck up up some shit, don't they?

I don't trust Jihadis as much as you do.

I think they are buying into the same post-religious belief the messages can come from the past. If they stopped and thought for a moment, they would recognise, as I do, that the consciousness that wrote the Koran is dead, therefore the stonings and beheadings are an idea of their own invention. That would leave the meaning of the Koran as a quaint academic speculation, which is what it is. You, and they, are assuming a connection to the past that doesn't exist.

[Forty Two]

Interestingly, Exi5tentialist does not actually "contradict" himself there.

He points to the unreliability of writings, and correctly says that if the writer were there we could talk to the person to get more information from the horse's mouth. That, of course, does not mean that the horse's mouth is not also subject to similar issues.

At that rate we ought to stop trying communicating, because what's in my head that I think you said may not have any truck with what you actually meant due to language being intrinsically unreliable... I studied that in philosophy in high school, and later in linguistics in the uni, and I'm thoroughly tired of that egg-hen debate

Indeed -- that argument is mainly rhetorical. In real life, we can with some reliability, depending on the piece of communication and its context, reliably exchange information. Reliably does not mean perfectly. But, lack of perfection doesn't mean complete futility either.

I think this "lack of perfection" argument is your get-out clause for ignoring the death of consciousness.

No no. Death by consciousness is your get-out clause for the fact that the words did have a meaning when written down, and that the common usage of words is very often consistent with the usage of those words in written pieces. Thus, the words, once written down, do not depend for their existence on the continued life of the mind which wrote them down.

Just as a building does not disappear because its architect and builders have all died, so too a written work does not disappear. When the mind of the writer dies, we don't lose the writing, we only lose a piece of evidence that could have elucidated what was meant by the words on the page. We still can rely on the general practice that people use words in the manner commonly in use at the time and in the culture in which the writer wrote.

Plato's writings didn't lose all meaning when he died. I can understand Euthyphro, and we can reliably conclude that Plato did not mean to suggest that Jews be slaughtered, and we can reliably conclude that he did wish to convey the concept of Euthyphro's Dilemma in that piece. Analysts have pored over the original texts, researched prevailing usages at the time, and discussed the meaning and import of the words. There is reliability there.

Can we be 100% sure that we know what Plato was intending when he wrote it? No, of course not. But, the suggestion that we need that surety to have reliability is absurdist nonsense. It sounds like an attempt to evade negative judgment by demanding that the words not be analyzed or taken to mean anything because of the claim that we can't know with absolute certainty what they meant.

[Forty Two]

Nothing will be perfect, but we can be pretty sure Mohamet was not writing about Margaritaville, right?

We can be pretty sure of what the authors of the Koran were not writing about. But to make the leap to saying that we can be sure - or even reasonably sure - what they WERE writing about, when "they" are just constructions in our heads, and then to be so confident as to apply that leap to a population of living people, such as Jihadis, is not a leap I am prepared to make. I say my meaning solely exists in my brain, and it is unscientific to then say the meaning I have modelled in my brain, which is really Mohammed's meaning, is then being taken up Jihadis to mean what I think it means and that is motivating them to kill people. That's an excursion beyond the absurd into the silly.

We can work with the evidence we have -- words -- a word can have a meaning which can be elucidated or explained with an understanding of what the general usage was at the time it was written.

We can also use the meanings ascribed to the words by the Jihadis, and conclude what the Jihadis think the words mean. That's really the important part. If Jihadis are taking Mohamet's recipe for Cinnamon Rolls to mean that Jews are subhuman, then that's what Jihadis think it means. In the case of the Koran it's not just a question of us, sitting here in Europe and Merka looking at the words and saying "this is what the words mean to us today, and they sound terrible, so that's what they mean" -- we also have Jihadi Musselmen burying people to their neck and stoning them, beheading people and committing acts of terrorism while screaming "God is Great" and then declaring that they themselves believe they are following the word of Mahomet, the Great and Powerful, well, that's really the important part -- the meaning the violent folks are taking from it. They seem to think it means to fuck up up some shit, don't they?

I don't trust Jihadis as much as you do.

I don't trust them at all, but Musselmens' views on what the Koran means are pieces of evidence as to what they do mean.

I don't "trust" a Pentacostal minister either, but when the prevailing view of Pentacostals as to the meaning of a passage is X, then that is the meaning they ascribe.

I don't consider Jihadis to be less Moslem than Moslem.

I think they are buying into the same post-religious belief the messages can come from the past. If they stopped and thought for a moment, they would recognise, as I do, that the consciousness that wrote the Koran is dead, therefore the stonings and beheadings are an idea of their own invention. That would leave the meaning of the Koran as a quaint academic speculation, which is what it is. You, and they, are assuming a connection to the past that doesn't exist.

I do not assume a connection to the past. I assume an imperfect understanding of the meaning of words on a page which nevertheless is to one degree or another, depending on the passage in question, reliable and understandable. In other words, when a person writes "Jack kicked the ball" we do, as you say, create the meaning in our heads. But, the reality is that the agreement among all human heads as to what is meant by the sentence "Jack kicked the ball" is so uniformly in agreement, and an argument from common usage so strong, that we can reliably conclude that a person named Jack made contact with a ball with his foot. The mind who wrote the sentence may be long dead, but the words on the page survived. Maybe the author meant that Jack swung a bat and hit a coconut. We can never really know. But, with some reliability we can conclude that the words mean that Jacks foot hit a ball, can't we?

[Exi5tentialist]

No no. Death by consciousness is your get-out clause for the fact that the words did have a meaning when written down, and that the common usage of words is very often consistent with the usage of those words in written pieces. Thus, the words, once written down, do not depend for their existence on the continued life of the mind which wrote them down.

Just as a building does not disappear because its architect and builders have all died, so too a written work does not disappear. When the mind of the writer dies, we don't lose the writing, we only lose a piece of evidence that could have elucidated what was meant by the words on the page. We still can rely on the general practice that people use words in the manner commonly in use at the time and in the culture in which the writer wrote.

Plato's writings didn't lose all meaning when he died. I can understand Euthyphro, and we can reliably conclude that Plato did not mean to suggest that Jews be slaughtered, and we can reliably conclude that he did wish to convey the concept of Euthyphro's Dilemma in that piece. Analysts have pored over the original texts, researched prevailing usages at the time, and discussed the meaning and import of the words. There is reliability there.

Can we be 100% sure that we know what Plato was intending when he wrote it? No, of course not. But, the suggestion that we need that surety to have reliability is absurdist nonsense. It sounds like an attempt to evade negative judgment by demanding that the words not be analyzed or taken to mean anything because of the claim that we can't know with absolute certainty what they meant.

What you cannot deny is that these meanings exist solely in the heads of living people. Adding the past tense to your explanation doesn't give meaning retrospective life. I am totally in favour of analyzing words from the past. I am not saying we should stop reading Plato. But we should place an intellectual break on taking him at his word as if we have understood his reality, even "imperfectly". If we do not put this intellectual break in place, then we are at risk of buying into whole swathes of ideas about belief, heritage and the history of the present, that conspire to lock us in to a present that is portrayed as an inevitable consequence of a particular set of supposed historical truths. The behaviour of Jihadis is one such example.

[Exi5tentialist]

Just as a building does not disappear because its architect and builders have all died, so too a written work does not disappear.

By the way, the continued existence of buildings is not dependent on a living human consciousness. Meaning is. So it is not "just as". You are comparing a physical object with a dynamic process. The two are completely different.

[pErvinalia]

I think most of us, other than Exi and Jamest, understand that ideas can be transmitted via text (and other means) and that particular branches of religion (and individuals) interpret them in various ways. Hence why it's not at all strange to accept that religion at least plays some part in the bigotry of certain religious people and groups.

[pErvinalia]

Just as a building does not disappear because its architect and builders have all died, so too a written work does not disappear.

By the way, the continued existence of buildings is not dependent on a living human consciousness. Meaning is. So it is not "just as". You are comparing a physical object with a dynamic process. The two are completely different.

Nonsense. A building only exists in human consciousness (under your model), just the same as text. Without consciousness there is no building.