Begging for understanding

http://youtube.com/user/azrienoch

5 propositional types exist:
empirical truths
tautologous truths
assumptions (belief, including possibilities and probabilities)
opinions (subjective beliefs like taste and morality)
myths (storybook reality)

Normative language exists for subjective statements, like "I should write a poem for the war to show it's injustice", where the intention to do so is based on right and wrong. Another example is "I need to take out the garbage or the truck won't take away my trash", which uses inductive logic or assumption that the truck even arrives.

The former example does use inductive logic to resolve that anyone else has even heard of the war, but the statement itself is one of a moral position, so the method of resolution is primarily subjective and secondarily assumptive. Whew.

Necessity applies to what is logically necessary. ie: 1+1=2 is necessarily true, given accepted definitions and values of each term in the statement. Only then is it necessary. Scientific truths, empiricisms are contingent on the facts, not necessary. Eg: I exist is true, contingent on me existing. It isn't true necessarily as it is not necessary I exist.

Let this video stand as a symbol of my opposition to begging. And unless you ask for money, it isn't begging at all. Az had no reason to apologize.

Category:

Comedy

Tags:

• atheism
• begging
• absurdism

[falconelly]

I think there for I am what I think I am?

Beggers belief so to speak. O T O

[gklr]

haha

[sickliberal]

logical 'truth' or consistency is actually normative because it says what is not fallacious, and what is, and obviously implies that you should not be fallacious or our words dont make sense. so you might mean something more specific, like ethics?

[gklr]

I look at logical truth as descriptive, not normative. It describes inventions of mind rather than discoveries like contingent truths do, but contingent truths also are not fallacious. What ought to be, is not what is necessarily the case. My position is that no normative statement is true.

[azrienoch]

LOL! Oh my! That was brilliant, Greg.

Say, I'm not sure about normative language not being logically necessary, in the sense that normative language might be the content of a logical proof. But here's an idea I wanted to bounce off of you: if implication is a sort of normativity, wouldn't the fact that p -> q can be translated into ~(p.~q) be logical evidence of the unnecessity of normativity?

[gklr]

Az,

The necessity of their equivilance wouldn't itself be evidence of normative unnecessity for me, it's that no normative statement is logically necessary, even though they are necessarily equivilant. An implication doesn't become a necessity because it has necessary equivilance. This would be like saying beliefs are true because it's true we believe them.

[lunabirdie]

very silly....

[Winedarkseas]

you really need to get out more! lol

[brainouty]

"I beg you to understand NORMATIVE language" -- LOL, 5 stars! I subscribed! Love your dramatic style! Hope you don't mind I'm Christian!

[youmeandsomeknives]

A volutary beggar eh?

[RowanFortuneWood]

Excellent video; it's to the point and funny.