Cheerskep, the burdens of proof/justification are exactly the same for both of us. You are illicitly modeling your understanding of Argument on an American criminal court proceding, wherein the prossecution's burden is greater than the defence's (which is interesting in its own right, but has little to do with argument in philosophical circles). So, for the record, it's equally dogmatic to assert in the absence of evidence that God (or relations) doesn't exist, as it is to assert with the same absence of evidence that he doesn't. Both positions, as Barthes rightly quipped, require the same kind and degree of faith. Both are dogmatic. If you were a true skeptic, you would simply say somethign to the effect that we don't know as of yet whether god, relations, angels or ghosts 't exist. And you might even demonstrate the point by constructing equally forcefull arguments for both sides of the debate as a way of showing us that we should refrain from committing ourselves to either position. Fact is, however, that you simplykeep dogmatically telling us that there _IS no such thing as_. Not only is this claim dogmatic, but it tends to be self defeating: you are continually forced to rely on the very thing you keep denying exists.
Moreover, from what I understand of argumentation, a negative existence claim is much more difficult to justify than an mere existence claim, if only because you need a completed induction. I, however, need only 1 relationship out there in the world. The sack of barley _is on_ the mat. Your considerations in your previous email only reinforce my claim that _is on_ is a relationship between a sack and a mat. Furthermore, I have no problem accepting an infinite number of relations. I hardly see why i should be troubled by that. There are an infinite number of ordinals and cardinals. That doesn't bother me. Why should an infinity of relations bother me? Moreover you have just dogmatically asserted that any position that's different from yours is committed to an infinite number of relations. you have not actualy proved that to be the case. I would be interested in such a proof, since as far as i can see I am only committed to saying that there is an indefinitely large, but certainly finite, set of relations. Finally, why do you insist on limiting yourself to such a quaint and thoroughly outdated idea like 'sense-data' as the ground for justfication? Aren't 'sense-data' symptoms of something entirely different? They certainly aren't part of a non-mental world. And don't we use something like indirect observation much more effectively than direct observation? Simply put, we don't see radiation, electrons, cells, germs, oxygen, air, light, etc. but we can indirectly observe them. They are never given by sense-data. So why would I now accept your appeal to sense data in this context, when it would be foolish to accept it in most other contexts too? why aren't relations and all of the other things you keep telling us do not exist, like radiation: observable on in its effects, never by itself. On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 11:11 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I asserted that so-called "relations" are entirely notional figments, that > there are no external-to-the-mind entities that we think we're citing when > we > use the word 'relation'. > > I'm both encouraged and discouraged to see my position is so unheard-of, so > contrary to what all of us have always assumed, that people cannot attack > it > without assuming the very point in question. > > They can't go back to square one, start with the possibility that > "relations" > don't exist extra-mentally, and go from there to prove they do. > > Geoff writes: > > " Assume the existence of a) cheerskep's head, b) a falling anvil about to > land on a). I submit that cheerskep will observe a relation between less > pain and more pain dependent on the anvil a) falling and b) landing." > > No -- all I'll "observe" is my head and the anvil. I'll "imagine" all sorts > of notion. Again: I will never "observe" a "relation" "out there". Never. > > Imago cites "the web of associations your mind > connects to prepositions" and he writes: > > "'the sack of barley is ON the mat' is true if and only if a sack actually > stands on a mat. . . It seems difficult to > claim that there _is no_ relationship between the sack > of barley and the mat." > > It honestly is not difficult for me. I see the sack, and I see the mat. My > mind can conjure all sorts of comparisons and other considerations about > these > images in my mind. The idea that that each of these notional considerations > entails either the creation of, or the discovery of, an entity "out there" > called > a 'relation" -- that certainly gives me difficulty. > > Recall that I started this thread with a confession of my astonishment that > we all have assumed the "existence" of utterly fundamental objects and > events > -- such as "relations" and "facts" and "signifying/denoting/naming etc" -- > without ever thinking the implications through to their exposure as > absurdities. > > For an example, I pointed out that the assumption of just a single > "relation > entity" entails that we must then concede an effectively infinite number of > further relations. This is so because if a relation is an entity, then it > must > have a unique relation to every other entity out there -- including each of > the > other relations. (This skips the additional absurdities that we notice when > we consider that, if a notion is an entity -- albeit a notional one -- it > too > must be related in some way to every other entity in the material and > notional > world.) > > I want to believe that any intelligent person who can rinse his mind of all > prejudices and assumptions about "relations", and start at square one, will > eventually come to the view that it is utterly zany to think of the > non-mental > world as being packed with infinities of objects like relations, facts, > sets, > etc. > > Imago says further: > > "To claim there _is no_ relationship between the sack > of barley and the mat expresses a dogmatism, > rather than a skepticism." > > No -- just the opposite. Anyone who asserts the existence of an entity has > the burden of proof on them. We all feel this in the case of ghosts, > angels, > gremlins, etc. Because none of us is a solipsist, we tend to accept sense > data as > "evidence" of the non-mental existence of material objects. There are no > sense data of relations. Therefore, say I, unless he can come up with a > persuasive > form of evidence other than sense data, the person who asserts that > non-mental objects such as relations "exist out there" is the dogmatist. > > > > > > > > ************** > New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. > Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out! > > (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000001)
