impressive
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2003
- Posts
- 27,372
raphy said:
I said almost the exact same words yesterday.Anger is indeed a tool. (Yes, Rob, it's a dangerous one -- as is any emotion taken to extreme.)
Question.. porn/chatting.. cheating?
- Thread starter EmeraldKitten
- Start date
I said almost the exact same words yesterday.Anger is indeed a tool. (Yes, Rob, it's a dangerous one -- as is any emotion taken to extreme.)
G
Guest
Guest
impressive said:
Anger is indeed a tool. (Yes, Rob, it's a dangerous one -- as is any emotion taken to extreme.)
Anger is a solid tool, I completely agree.
It has helped me deal with tragic circumstances.
Chantilyvamp
Confidently Neurotic!
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2006
- Posts
- 10,242
raphy said:
great for shovelling stones and taking down bushes as wellCeilidh_is_here
Virgin
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2007
- Posts
- 22
been there myself
I can't help but add my two cents worth of advise regarding this thread. I thought I was the only one who had issues with online cybering. Except, I was the one who was doing the cyber-chat.
When Yahoo was still allowing user-created chat rooms, I became an "employee/regular" of a room. My character was a courtesan and I had a lot of fun watching her develop as the room itself developed quite a storyline.
As time went on, my character became highly sought after and I, as her writer, felt compelled to not disappoint those who came to the room seeking her attentions. In other words, I was online for many hours late into the night.
At first, my husband didn't mind, in fact, my character rp was spicing up our sex life, then, as I spent more time online and less time in bed, things got out of whack in my personal life. My hubby was getting jealous, even though he denied it, of my online character. "She" was having the time of her life and it didn't include him. I tried having him develop a chara and join me in the room, but it only made things worse.
Fortunately, we both took a step back and assessed what was happening, and my poor character suffered for it..but my marriage is still going strong and I've re-channelled my creativity into writing stories.
In retrospect, I think you and your s/o have to decide together where the boundary lies regarding online chat. Both of you need to be clear about what bothers you and what you have no problem "blowing off". If you really love each other, then communication is the most important gift you can share.
I can't help but add my two cents worth of advise regarding this thread. I thought I was the only one who had issues with online cybering. Except, I was the one who was doing the cyber-chat.
When Yahoo was still allowing user-created chat rooms, I became an "employee/regular" of a room. My character was a courtesan and I had a lot of fun watching her develop as the room itself developed quite a storyline.
As time went on, my character became highly sought after and I, as her writer, felt compelled to not disappoint those who came to the room seeking her attentions. In other words, I was online for many hours late into the night.
At first, my husband didn't mind, in fact, my character rp was spicing up our sex life, then, as I spent more time online and less time in bed, things got out of whack in my personal life. My hubby was getting jealous, even though he denied it, of my online character. "She" was having the time of her life and it didn't include him. I tried having him develop a chara and join me in the room, but it only made things worse.
Fortunately, we both took a step back and assessed what was happening, and my poor character suffered for it..but my marriage is still going strong and I've re-channelled my creativity into writing stories.
In retrospect, I think you and your s/o have to decide together where the boundary lies regarding online chat. Both of you need to be clear about what bothers you and what you have no problem "blowing off". If you really love each other, then communication is the most important gift you can share.
xssve
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Posts
- 5,854
A fascinating discussion, and a groundbreaking one in a lot of ways - we're the first generation to experience cybersex and in a sense are pioneering the social patterns that will become part of popular culture, ideas and attitudes towards the concept of virtual sex in and out of realtime analog relationships.
Being artists, writers, etc., we are people who have necessarily come to grips with the difference between fantasy and reality, to greater or leser extents - speaking for myself, I literally study fantasy, it's my business in a very real way, and iit gets me into trouble.
I'd realy love to go into the whole psychological aspect of relationships, what makes them work and what tends to tear them apart, but to keep it simple and focused on the topic of the OP, not everybody percieves fantasy the same way.
pretty much everything that happens inyour head is a fantasy, and everybody has them, just not everyone recognizes line - or in psychological terms, the limn between fantasy and reality.
Religion is largely fantasy for example, the idea that a godlike being will descend from heaven and whisk them away to paradise, and then punish all the "sinners" who haven't followed "the rules" is an extremely vivid fantasy for some, so vivid that they attempt to bend objective reality to resemble the fantasy.
Both love and jealousy are fantasies, born of need for closeness to another human being, love evolves from trust, jealousy from mistrust, and there is a limn between the fantasy and the reality that requires our somatic senses to sort out - there are somethimes good reasons to love, or be jelous, sometimes they're just fantasies.
In the analog world it's pretty easy to sort out: in terms of evolution, when men cheat it's a potential threat to his mates offspring, i.e., it detracts from MPA (Male Parental Attention) that is important to a childs psychological development, as well as a threat to the resources women require in order to maximise her childrens breeding potential.
For men, it's quite simply the question of paternity - men don't like the idea of working like they do in order to provide resources for children that aren't theirs - this is the source of almost every patrimonial social convention that exists, the reason women are typically denigrated in religion: Eve is the source of the fall, woman as the seducer, the source of temptation and even evil itself, and it's corresponding dichotomous fantasy, the chaste, virginal desexualized mother figure.
Neither is exactly accurate of course, the male and female brains are not so very different in macrocosm, both are capable of anything humans are capable of: love and loyalty, deviousness and betrayal.
In the analog world then, there are very real, physical concerns, whether it's paternity or resources, and real, potentially life altering consequences to having sexual relationships outside the primary dyad: jealous emotions, and their associated behaviors are one way for the partners in a dyad to coerce loyalty from each other. Some cultures even seemingly promote jealousy.
Hispanics for instance are famously "hot blooded", and almost insanely jealous - one would think they cheat at the drop of a hat, although I suspect their rates of infidelity are no greater than average, they become extremely aggressive over a mere exchange of glances - in part, I bleive the culture of machismo is partly at fault here, it involves a tremendous loss of face for a man to be cuckholded.
Fantasy unfortunately, has the power to arouse the exact same emotions as actual infidelity, even absent any real world consequences, and cybersex, of course, lies somewhere in between, complicating matters further.
More urban and urbane adaptions take into account the great strides in science and manufacturing achieved in the last century: birth control in numerous forms, paternity tests, etc., and the possibilites these allow in terms of expanded circles of social/sexual relationships ranging from serial monogamy, in terms of both dating and marriage, swinging and swapping, all the way up to full blown polyamoury.
I'm tempted here to really expand this, but to keep it short, the situation is exceeedingly complex, and traditional social controls that once made it difficult to leave a dyad, once formed, have been replaced by social pressures that threaten to tear it apart form every direction - cybersex is the least of it: economic stressors are much more profound, when changing jobs every few years becomes not so much an option as a way of life, and fairly large sectors of the population are essentially nomadic.
To get back to fantasy, it can just as easily hold a relationship together as break it apart, relieving the boredom and tedium of lives that have become almost as stifling as the serfdom of our ancestors, even if we live them in relative luxury: fantasy can be a form of growth, intellectual and psychological freedom, and shared fantasies can take on the aspect of experience in ways that other mind altering experinces, drugs and alchohol, cannot, sicne these things simulate experience without emotional involvment.
Fantasy is much the same on the simplest level, it simulates and experience without emotional involvment - when fantasies are shared however, whether by accident or intent, emotions neccesarily become involved - even when we would prefer them not to.
In a sense, our fantasies are the most vulnerable aspect of our selves - they represent not what we resemble, what we model for the world, how we act but a more nebulous and unrealized inner self, free from the constraints of social control and coercion, of what is expected of us - even the tyranny of our own alleles.
Cliche, but true: the most important aspect of any relationship is communication, without it, your best bet is to have a house big enough so you don't have to run into each other very often.
Being artists, writers, etc., we are people who have necessarily come to grips with the difference between fantasy and reality, to greater or leser extents - speaking for myself, I literally study fantasy, it's my business in a very real way, and iit gets me into trouble.
I'd realy love to go into the whole psychological aspect of relationships, what makes them work and what tends to tear them apart, but to keep it simple and focused on the topic of the OP, not everybody percieves fantasy the same way.
pretty much everything that happens inyour head is a fantasy, and everybody has them, just not everyone recognizes line - or in psychological terms, the limn between fantasy and reality.
Religion is largely fantasy for example, the idea that a godlike being will descend from heaven and whisk them away to paradise, and then punish all the "sinners" who haven't followed "the rules" is an extremely vivid fantasy for some, so vivid that they attempt to bend objective reality to resemble the fantasy.
Both love and jealousy are fantasies, born of need for closeness to another human being, love evolves from trust, jealousy from mistrust, and there is a limn between the fantasy and the reality that requires our somatic senses to sort out - there are somethimes good reasons to love, or be jelous, sometimes they're just fantasies.
In the analog world it's pretty easy to sort out: in terms of evolution, when men cheat it's a potential threat to his mates offspring, i.e., it detracts from MPA (Male Parental Attention) that is important to a childs psychological development, as well as a threat to the resources women require in order to maximise her childrens breeding potential.
For men, it's quite simply the question of paternity - men don't like the idea of working like they do in order to provide resources for children that aren't theirs - this is the source of almost every patrimonial social convention that exists, the reason women are typically denigrated in religion: Eve is the source of the fall, woman as the seducer, the source of temptation and even evil itself, and it's corresponding dichotomous fantasy, the chaste, virginal desexualized mother figure.
Neither is exactly accurate of course, the male and female brains are not so very different in macrocosm, both are capable of anything humans are capable of: love and loyalty, deviousness and betrayal.
In the analog world then, there are very real, physical concerns, whether it's paternity or resources, and real, potentially life altering consequences to having sexual relationships outside the primary dyad: jealous emotions, and their associated behaviors are one way for the partners in a dyad to coerce loyalty from each other. Some cultures even seemingly promote jealousy.
Hispanics for instance are famously "hot blooded", and almost insanely jealous - one would think they cheat at the drop of a hat, although I suspect their rates of infidelity are no greater than average, they become extremely aggressive over a mere exchange of glances - in part, I bleive the culture of machismo is partly at fault here, it involves a tremendous loss of face for a man to be cuckholded.
Fantasy unfortunately, has the power to arouse the exact same emotions as actual infidelity, even absent any real world consequences, and cybersex, of course, lies somewhere in between, complicating matters further.
More urban and urbane adaptions take into account the great strides in science and manufacturing achieved in the last century: birth control in numerous forms, paternity tests, etc., and the possibilites these allow in terms of expanded circles of social/sexual relationships ranging from serial monogamy, in terms of both dating and marriage, swinging and swapping, all the way up to full blown polyamoury.
I'm tempted here to really expand this, but to keep it short, the situation is exceeedingly complex, and traditional social controls that once made it difficult to leave a dyad, once formed, have been replaced by social pressures that threaten to tear it apart form every direction - cybersex is the least of it: economic stressors are much more profound, when changing jobs every few years becomes not so much an option as a way of life, and fairly large sectors of the population are essentially nomadic.
To get back to fantasy, it can just as easily hold a relationship together as break it apart, relieving the boredom and tedium of lives that have become almost as stifling as the serfdom of our ancestors, even if we live them in relative luxury: fantasy can be a form of growth, intellectual and psychological freedom, and shared fantasies can take on the aspect of experience in ways that other mind altering experinces, drugs and alchohol, cannot, sicne these things simulate experience without emotional involvment.
Fantasy is much the same on the simplest level, it simulates and experience without emotional involvment - when fantasies are shared however, whether by accident or intent, emotions neccesarily become involved - even when we would prefer them not to.
In a sense, our fantasies are the most vulnerable aspect of our selves - they represent not what we resemble, what we model for the world, how we act but a more nebulous and unrealized inner self, free from the constraints of social control and coercion, of what is expected of us - even the tyranny of our own alleles.
Cliche, but true: the most important aspect of any relationship is communication, without it, your best bet is to have a house big enough so you don't have to run into each other very often.
xssve
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Posts
- 5,854
I should also mention that men and women both cheat for motives that reflect their different biological strategies: though both sexes tend towards monogamy which is simply the most successful strategy for maximizing their breeding potential and that that of their mutual offspring, at the margins, men seek to impregnate as many women as possible, without getting caught (when there are consequences), while women cheat in order to increase the genetic diversity of their progeny - again, ideally without compromising their male provider.
Knowing this, however, allows one to make rational judgments about both fantasy and actual behavior - what we really mean when we talk about sex without emotional involvment on one level, is simply sex without the biological and social consequences, and it is the ability to circumvent the potential bilogical and social liabilites inherent in engaing in sexual relationships outside the dyad that are currently influencing socio-sexual cultural evolution.
As biological organisms however, we are still prone to the behavioral adaptations of our alleles that cause alarm when the synergystic benefits of the dyad appear to be threatened.
Thus, a clear line exists between fantasy and recreational hanky panky, it's just that cybering blurs that line to the point where it becomes difficult to tell where exactly it is - one can always fall back on the social/biological consequences definitions as the baseline, but again, where emotions are involved, at what point does "fooling around" threaten to split you emotionally?
Personally, I cannot split myself emotionally, and I'm a very emotional person. If I get to fool around, my partner has to be involved, aware, and complicit: so I require a person of some philosophical equanamity - it would simply be cruel if she wasn't and I was unable to conceal it from her.
My ex for example was insanely jealous, and even though I never cheated on her - even when it no longer mattered for any practical purposes - perhaps because I am simply a compulsive fantasizer, always have been, always will be, and that's always going to represent competition to women who cannot control their jealousy.
To be fair of course, she could expect no less from me, and while I have almost inhuman self control, I can feel as threatened as anyone at the prospect of emotional abandonment.
I suspect there are probobly no few of you who feel similarly, and although I am, as I say, a very emotional person, I do have two things going for me in the mediation of jealousy department: one, I'm naturally objective, freakishly so for some people, and two, I've suffered enough emotional abandonment and outright emotional abuse that I've grown some pretty thick skin.
So, threatened with emotional withdrawl, I simply withdraw myself, and am able to remain on an even keep socially, a pretty typical way to be these days, it can be a disspointment, but you do survive usually, better to have loved and lost, etc..
Love is really - and this is the best definition I've ever heard, it was written by a submissive woman on another website and I'm paraphrasing, but essentially, love is not possession - you love someone when you love yourself when you're with them.
I think when you don't have that, you're not in love, you're co-dependent.
Gone way beyond the OP, but it's hard for me to break it down into a more convenient sound byte, sorry.
Knowing this, however, allows one to make rational judgments about both fantasy and actual behavior - what we really mean when we talk about sex without emotional involvment on one level, is simply sex without the biological and social consequences, and it is the ability to circumvent the potential bilogical and social liabilites inherent in engaing in sexual relationships outside the dyad that are currently influencing socio-sexual cultural evolution.
As biological organisms however, we are still prone to the behavioral adaptations of our alleles that cause alarm when the synergystic benefits of the dyad appear to be threatened.
Thus, a clear line exists between fantasy and recreational hanky panky, it's just that cybering blurs that line to the point where it becomes difficult to tell where exactly it is - one can always fall back on the social/biological consequences definitions as the baseline, but again, where emotions are involved, at what point does "fooling around" threaten to split you emotionally?
Personally, I cannot split myself emotionally, and I'm a very emotional person. If I get to fool around, my partner has to be involved, aware, and complicit: so I require a person of some philosophical equanamity - it would simply be cruel if she wasn't and I was unable to conceal it from her.
My ex for example was insanely jealous, and even though I never cheated on her - even when it no longer mattered for any practical purposes - perhaps because I am simply a compulsive fantasizer, always have been, always will be, and that's always going to represent competition to women who cannot control their jealousy.
To be fair of course, she could expect no less from me, and while I have almost inhuman self control, I can feel as threatened as anyone at the prospect of emotional abandonment.
I suspect there are probobly no few of you who feel similarly, and although I am, as I say, a very emotional person, I do have two things going for me in the mediation of jealousy department: one, I'm naturally objective, freakishly so for some people, and two, I've suffered enough emotional abandonment and outright emotional abuse that I've grown some pretty thick skin.
So, threatened with emotional withdrawl, I simply withdraw myself, and am able to remain on an even keep socially, a pretty typical way to be these days, it can be a disspointment, but you do survive usually, better to have loved and lost, etc..
Love is really - and this is the best definition I've ever heard, it was written by a submissive woman on another website and I'm paraphrasing, but essentially, love is not possession - you love someone when you love yourself when you're with them.
I think when you don't have that, you're not in love, you're co-dependent.
Gone way beyond the OP, but it's hard for me to break it down into a more convenient sound byte, sorry.
Joe Wordsworth
Logician
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2004
- Posts
- 4,085
Or it could be *gasp* refferential, merely inaccurate, or even True.
You make a /lot/ of assumptions.
tickledkitty
Precious.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2007
- Posts
- 6,753
Dear God, the verbosity on this thread.
Edward Teach
Mellow
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2003
- Posts
- 3,157
tickledkitty said:Dear God, the verbosity on this thread.
EmeraldKitten
Sweet & Twisted
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2004
- Posts
- 4,844
I'm glad you guys are stil debating this, for lack of a better word.
I've thought about it some more. I never had huge popularity with guys in real life, even though I'm cute as can be.
But seriously, I didn't. It's because of my weight I'm sure. Who wants a fat chick?
So now I've got a guy, and have had one, but it's like..... I'm afraid of something 'better' coming along, even though he says he's more than completely happy with me. Which I don't doubt for one minute, but ya never know.
There was a comic on some show.. she was a big girl, and she said that those skinny women let their men run off, but them big girls fight for their men.. it took 'em too damn long to get 'em. It was funny as hell.. but I guess I relate.
So the more I think about it, it comes back to my insecurities. This is the first real, meaningful, long-term relationship I've had. I love him with all my heart, and I want nothing more than for us to work. I want to marry him, get a house, have a dog, maybe get a minivan one day.. the whole thing. Maybe I am just scared he'll find someone better than me.
When he and I first got together, he had a pretty extensive porno collection. He boxed it up and put all of them in the shed. He kept his three favorite. I guess I took that as a compliment.
He did purchase 'A Night in Paris' a couple months back at the flea market. He plans on giving it to his dad, lol. They discussed it, lmfao... (I'll tell ya what, that was the most boring thing I've ever watched. First of all, Paris Hilton is not cute at all, second of all, she looked bored as hell.)
Anyway, that's fine.
It's really just the chatting that gets to me. But, since he and I discussed it, he hasn't really gotten on and chatted all that much. Like I said though, he wasn't sitting 6 ft away from me cybering. But what if he likes her attitude better... what if she likes the exact same shit as him.. what if she'll go out and party all the time and he'd find that appealing.. etc. That's the crap that gets to me.
So, in hindsight, I guess I'd rather him look at a local girls tits than have an intelligent conversation with her, LMFAO.
But maybe... my issues stem to him saying a three-some would be fine with him, lol. I don't know.
But whatever really causes my issue, I'm glad I'm not the only one that has had these thoughts or whatnot. And thanks to those who don't share my opinion, for showing me the other side of things.
Love you guys!
I've thought about it some more. I never had huge popularity with guys in real life, even though I'm cute as can be.
But seriously, I didn't. It's because of my weight I'm sure. Who wants a fat chick? So now I've got a guy, and have had one, but it's like..... I'm afraid of something 'better' coming along, even though he says he's more than completely happy with me. Which I don't doubt for one minute, but ya never know.
There was a comic on some show.. she was a big girl, and she said that those skinny women let their men run off, but them big girls fight for their men.. it took 'em too damn long to get 'em. It was funny as hell.. but I guess I relate.
So the more I think about it, it comes back to my insecurities. This is the first real, meaningful, long-term relationship I've had. I love him with all my heart, and I want nothing more than for us to work. I want to marry him, get a house, have a dog, maybe get a minivan one day.. the whole thing. Maybe I am just scared he'll find someone better than me.
When he and I first got together, he had a pretty extensive porno collection. He boxed it up and put all of them in the shed. He kept his three favorite. I guess I took that as a compliment.
He did purchase 'A Night in Paris' a couple months back at the flea market. He plans on giving it to his dad, lol. They discussed it, lmfao... (I'll tell ya what, that was the most boring thing I've ever watched. First of all, Paris Hilton is not cute at all, second of all, she looked bored as hell.)
Anyway, that's fine.
It's really just the chatting that gets to me. But, since he and I discussed it, he hasn't really gotten on and chatted all that much. Like I said though, he wasn't sitting 6 ft away from me cybering. But what if he likes her attitude better... what if she likes the exact same shit as him.. what if she'll go out and party all the time and he'd find that appealing.. etc. That's the crap that gets to me.
So, in hindsight, I guess I'd rather him look at a local girls tits than have an intelligent conversation with her, LMFAO.
But maybe... my issues stem to him saying a three-some would be fine with him, lol. I don't know.
But whatever really causes my issue, I'm glad I'm not the only one that has had these thoughts or whatnot. And thanks to those who don't share my opinion, for showing me the other side of things.
Love you guys!
xssve
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Posts
- 5,854
Joe Wordsworth said:
Lacking any empirical evidence it must be assumed to be a fantasy until such time as empirical evidence can be demonstrated and substantiated.
Logically. that is the only assumption one can make: certainly one cannot base public policy on it, though personally you are welcome to hold your breath.
Joe Wordsworth
Logician
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2004
- Posts
- 4,085
It must not be assumed to be anything. Assumptions are particularly poor reasoning.xssve said:
Logically, there are many more possibilities than that and more rational ways of treating and parsing them. You really shouldn't use words like "logically" when you're not going to participate in them--that's just insincere.
Chantilyvamp
Confidently Neurotic!
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2006
- Posts
- 10,242
Joe Wordsworth said:
Joe Wordsworth
Logician
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2004
- Posts
- 4,085
I did good?Chantilyvamp said:
somberReality
Taking a Lit break
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2007
- Posts
- 2,080
My ex had a huge issue with me talking to men/males online, but I didn't care if he talked to women online.
I guess it varies from person to person. Everyone sees things in his/her own way. Personally, online is different from real life so i don't see online as cheating or whatnot.
Just my 2 cents.
I guess it varies from person to person. Everyone sees things in his/her own way. Personally, online is different from real life so i don't see online as cheating or whatnot.
Just my 2 cents.
rgraham666
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2004
- Posts
- 44,062
Joe Wordsworth said:
That doesn't mean they're incorrect.
Chantilyvamp
Confidently Neurotic!
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2006
- Posts
- 10,242
yes dear you did, but that just means you hit my favorite thing of never assume anything...its the right way to have something to bite you in the ass. But, thats a whole other thread!Joe Wordsworth said:
xssve
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Posts
- 5,854
It is not logical to base assumptions on that which cannot be demonstrated to exist, either directly or through effect - insofar as it's logical, it's confined to games theory.
Lacking any empirical evidence for the existence of god, I cannot logically base any assumptions on the possiblity that it does, I'd just be making shit up.
The only logical assumption one can make is that one does not know, and in not knowing, avoid basing any assumptions on an absence of information, but stick to basing any assumptions on what one does know, and is capable of knowing, with the usual caveats.
One cannot control for that which there is no evidence or effect, the fundamental existence of which cannot be demonstrated.
It has nothing to do with whether or not in fact that thing exists or not, it's a simple acknowledgement that if it does, it's being very coy - and in such a circumstance, one has no choice but to ignore it until such time as evidence appears - it is not possible to do anything else, logically speaking: if one is forced to make assumptions, the logical approach is to make them based on the empirical evidence.
The belief in god, by contrast is a real, psychological fact, and can be controlled for, probobilities generated, etc.
Lacking any empirical evidence for the existence of god, I cannot logically base any assumptions on the possiblity that it does, I'd just be making shit up.
The only logical assumption one can make is that one does not know, and in not knowing, avoid basing any assumptions on an absence of information, but stick to basing any assumptions on what one does know, and is capable of knowing, with the usual caveats.
One cannot control for that which there is no evidence or effect, the fundamental existence of which cannot be demonstrated.
It has nothing to do with whether or not in fact that thing exists or not, it's a simple acknowledgement that if it does, it's being very coy - and in such a circumstance, one has no choice but to ignore it until such time as evidence appears - it is not possible to do anything else, logically speaking: if one is forced to make assumptions, the logical approach is to make them based on the empirical evidence.
The belief in god, by contrast is a real, psychological fact, and can be controlled for, probobilities generated, etc.
Joe Wordsworth
Logician
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2004
- Posts
- 4,085
Of course not, but it does mean that one should not present them as truth or possessed of a truth-value greater than "indeterminate". Rather, the idea that an assumption being merely "not known as incorrect" makes it of any greater value than "unknown" is hazardous--the Bush administration has made a lot of use out of presenting information that is "unknown" or "assumed" as "well, it's not /incorrect/".rgraham666 said:
Bad habit. I don't advocate it at all
Its not logical to assume at all--except for the express purpose of analogy or exploration of logical possibility.xssve said:
Lacking any empirical evidence /against/ the existence of God, you shouldn't base any assumptions on the actuality that He does not. That constitutes "making shit up" as well. Regrettably, three thousands years of philosophy and three hundred years of science haven't disproven the existence of God--you'll forgive me for thinking you slightly less capable that the collective whole of all of those thinkers. As it represents a mere possibility, it remains possible--as it remains possible, it is not strictly "fantasy".
That's just logic. You keep using the word, but you keep missing the meaning.
That's intellectually safe, yes.
One doesn't need to "control" anything with regards to the question at hand--I think you're starting to wander a bit.
Well, it can be more than "coyness". It can be based on the theory of divine naturalization, or divine illumination (I was always a big fan of that one), or a dozen other theories of how it is God can exist (I say /dozen/, but there are a few more than that).
Logically speaking, it is entirely possible to entertain the possible existence of God or divine metaphysics. If one /is/ forced to make assumptions--then one should make them however suits one best... afterall, one /is/ being forced. If that means basing them on empirical evidence, then we have much evidence for the existence of things associated with God and we have many instances of a lack of finding God in other things.
The belief in unicorns, gravity, and rocks are also real psychological facts (though your terminology is a little weird--keep in mind that I hold degrees in Psychology, Philosophy and Religion and you sound like a lay-person with regard to all three due to your vocabulary). All three can be controlled for. Stats generated, etc.
I don't see how that's relevant.
Last edited:
xssve
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Posts
- 5,854
[/QUOTE]
I have avoided calling you a sophist until now.
I don't see anything about this thread hijack that's relevant to the OP.
That's quite an assumption.Joe Wordsworth said:
Prove it.Joe Wordsworth said:
Joe Wordsworth said:
"Sound is the word I would have chosen.Joe Wordsworth said:
Joe Wordsworth said:
That's not a theory, it's a hypothesis - you need at least a minute shred of empirical evidence to call it a theory.Joe Wordsworth said:
"If one /is/ forced to make assumptions--then one should make them however suits one best..."Joe Wordsworth said:
I have avoided calling you a sophist until now.
See propaganda: appeal to authority.Joe Wordsworth said:
Joe Wordsworth said:
I don't see anything about this thread hijack that's relevant to the OP.
Last edited:
Joe Wordsworth
Logician
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2004
- Posts
- 4,085
Well, it's not an assumption that its not logical to assume. As logic deals with analytic truths and the formulation of propositional coherance--to assume would only de-stabilize that system. The science is concieved around the idea of what is indivisibly true, and to assume is to provide something that can be divided.xssve said:
So... yeah... why would you say "That's quite an assumption"?
Prove that it is possible that God exists? Or prove that you're not as accomplished/learned as three-thousands years of philosophy and three-hundred years of science? Or prove that basing assumptions on truth based on a lack of emprical information is fallible?
You need to be a little more clear about what you're talking about and asking for. We've been through this already, xssve.
"Intellectually safe" is the phrase I use. Because its a description of purpose--not formulation.
Divine Naturalization is, yes, a theory. So is Divine Illumination. You seem to be framing the whole situation in terms of "what is a scientific theory"--but as we're dealing with philosophical questions, you should account for philosophical theories. But, I mean--I don't really care whether you call it a theory of divine naturalization or a hypothesis of divine naturalization (another science-y that doesn't really relate to the philosophical question) or "idea" of divine naturalization.
If you nothing intelligent to say about the /content/ of what I'm saying, you should make that clearer.
Meh. You can call me a sophist, if you want. I'm not--and if you look to what a sophist is and what I'm doing you'll see there is a great divide of difference. Along with your use of the word "logic" I think you need to rethink how you're applying language if you're going to start calling /me/ a sophist--of all things.
Again, if you have nothing substanitive to say to my point, make that clearer. You're doing a fine job of avoiding discussing my points in any kind of reasonable way.
"Appeal to Authority" is applicable if I'm using some manner of authority to claim you're false or that I'm true. Its a fallacy entirely tied to the idea of conclusiveness. I don't see where appeal to authoriy is an issue here. I was stating an opinion about you, your terminology, and how it is that I may not understand how you use it.
Although, you're lack of fluency with basic fallacies doesn't bode well for you being "more of a philosopher" or having any real formal logic training.
I don't either. But you're the one who brought up that God's existence was fantasy--and then got all buh-jiggidty when I disagreed.
Incidentally, my disagreement was perfectly accurate.
xssve
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Posts
- 5,854
We done here? I have things to do that actually matter to me, and this hijack has gone on long enough, I for one am more interested in the questions posed in the OP than I am with trying to sort out when you're eating your cake and when you're having it.
Start an interminable philosophy thread if you want to.
Joe Wordsworth
Logician
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2004
- Posts
- 4,085
We? No. But that's because I'm not. You? Possibly and I really don't blame you.xssve said:
I'm interested in convincing you to participate more deeply in logic and reason, but if you have things to do that actually matter to you--by all means attend them.
You brought up religion... I thought you were doing just that.
Similar threads
