Vorlon: could you explain what your problem is with me?

Or my belief system, or whatever it is…

Here is what you seem to hate so much:

[1] Goodness is the most valuable aesthetic

[2] Love is the facilitation of goodness

[3] God is love

Whenever and wherever I have stated my belief, you have felt compelled to disparage it. You have attacked the logic. You have demanded definitions. You have demanded definitions of the terms in the definitions. And you have demanded definitions of the terms in the definitions of the terms in the definitions.

I’ve shown you scholarly references from universities that indicate what is common knowledge and common sense; namely, that definitions are circular in nature because they are comprised of terms that themselves have definitions. And I’ve shown you scholarly references that all deductive systems begin with undefined terms.

In my case, I do not define “goodness”. That’s because that’s where I start — with “goodness”". Here is one of the many links I have provided for you. It’s probably the simplest and easiest to understand:

Why am I such a nutball for believing the meaning of “goodness” to be very common and self-evident? Granted, a person intent on obfuscation can screw with the word and pretend it means anything under the sun. But all that means is that the obfuscator is a dickhead. The term is still nearly universally understood by normal, ordinary, and reasonable people.

And if you are obsessed with riding my belief system about an undefined “goodness”, why is it you do not ride the system of arithmetic about an undefined “successor”. Why do you not ride geometry about an undefined “point”? Why do you not ride logic about the undefined concepts of “true” and “false”?

Why me? Why do you single out my deductively derived belief system as uniquely qualified for derision?

“Goodness”, in my belief system, is what is called a primitive. That is, it is a term upon which definitions and axioms are built. In every deductive system there are primitives. The reason for this is that without primitives, definitions would go in circles forever because there are a finite number of words and eventually, one or more of them would have to be reused.

Goodness is the whole foundation upon which everything else is built. Without goodness, there would be no God. There would be no love. There would be no sin. As you know, I define sin as the obstruction of goodness.

The first conclusion that I draw, after the statement of my axioms is this: Goodness is the aesthetic most valued by God. It seems to me to be a reasonable inference from the premises as they are stated. But you have called me a moron for stating the conclusion.

Now, Peanno concluded, after his premises, that 1 + 1 = 2. And yet, I have not seen you going around the boards — even hijacking General Questions threads — in order to ridicule Peanno and demand that he define the term “successor” that he used in his Induction Axiom.

As shown here (and a bazillion other places), Peanno introduced his arithmetical system beginning with certain undefined terms, including “successor”. He then proceeded to state his famous five axioms, four of which use the undefined term “successor”. But I have not seen you crying out that Peanno is a dishonest idiot who does not have even a basic understanding of logic.

Is it that you like him, but don’t like me? Or you respect him, but don’t respect me?

See, that’s a line of argument that I could understand, and that, in light of the reams of documentation I have supplied you, would make sense: you just don’t like me, or you just don’t respect me; therefore, you don’t like or don’t respect my belief system.

But his business of attacking my belief system because it is logically flawed makes no sense. It uses perfectly normal and acceptable principles of deductive systems — the same perfectly normal and acceptable principles used by competent people everywhere who devise deductive systems.

But you say that my belief system is stupid and dishonestly derived. And you insist that you are some sort of expert in logic. That’s all. That’s the totality of your argument: “It’s wrong. Trust me.”

The time has come for you to back up your complaints with cites. You have never — never — provided a cite to show that there exists a deductive system with no undefined terms. (Don’t even think of suggesting the MIU system: all its terms are undefined.)

You have attempted to hold me to a made-up standard that flies in the face of Hilbert’s own standards. In case you didn’t know, Hilbert developed the modern deductive method.

You’ve jumped. You’ve dodged. You’ve flailed. You’ve screamed. You’ve insulted. You’ve abused. But you have yet to prove a damn thing.

What exactly is your problem?

He doesn’t like you.

I always wanted to take Peanno lessons, but I never had the patience.

Libertarian, you mixed first and second person in your rant.

How 'bout them Steelers! :wink:

Ask me that again after tomorrow. If they lose this one, then there is not much hope.

Hope springs eternal, my friend. I should know. I’m a Panthers fan. :smiley:

Thank you, Kal! You just made my day. :slight_smile:

Aesthetics is the branch of philosophy that examines beauty and “taste”. Those beliefs are meaningless gibberish unless they reference meaningful concepts.

What do you mean by


“Goodness” does indeed have a generally-understood referent in this culture. But your definition doesn’t reflect that implicit understanding – your “goodness” has nothing to do with “goodness” as it is generally understood. But when you attempt to reason, you use both your explicit and the implicit definitions.

If you’re establishing a definition for the word, you can’t use that meaning in circumstances where the other meaning is used. I can say that " ‘water’ is a human artifact constructed to aid transportation" if I wish. I’ve done nothing but established a short label – a name – for the concept of “a human artifact constructed to aid transportation”. I could then say that shoes, cars, and trains are all waters. I could NOT then say that human artifacts constructed to aid transportation rain down from the sky and cover 75% of the planet.

But that is precisely what you’re doing! You’re accepting the implicit definition, then adding another “definition” that permits you to derive the conclusions you wish. Using both definitions poisons the well – it presumes a relationship between two concepts.

If I define the President of the United States as the leader of a branch of government of a particular political entity that controls the region of the world we’re currently in AND as a disguised alien plotting to take over the world, I’ve made a grave error.

But when you define love as both “the facilitation of goodness” AND the implicit “caring/valuing emotion” (which is the concept most commonly referred to as “love”; there are actually dozens of distinct concepts that are given that name), you’re presuming that particular emotional state actually furthers the cause of goodness.

It’s like accepting as axiomatic that the Bible is literally true in all respects and then proclaiming that you can prove that the world was made in seven days. It’s not particularly meaningful because it was explicitly contained in the assumptions. Your claims about the nature of love, God, and goodness aren’t meaningful because they’re based on faulty assumptions and hidden reasoning.

You constantly spout off about complex mathematical and logical systems, but it’s obvious to everyone but you and your flunkies that you have failed to understand even basic aspects of rationality and logic.

strange noise

“After the avalanche has started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote.”

strange noise

I thought the Vorlons left the galaxy.


I’m just the Aide, Steelerphan. The Ambassador returned to the Void from which he came, I’m afraid. :frowning:

Libertarian has flunkies?

And I just realized that TVAA stood for the The Vorlon Ambassador’s Aide. And then I realized why TVAA had been here for so long and had so many posts without me remembering him being here for so long.

It all comes together.

Yes. I had the administrators change the name after some polite and reasonable people complained to me that it was too long (and quite some time after Lib made the same complaint). :slight_smile:

Like Kal said (and I’m glad you signed off on it), you just plain don’t like me. That’s why you come up with stuff like…

…immediately after I’ve said…


I explicitly do not define it, and yet you wail about my “definition”.

I really do wish you’d just be honest about this. See, I think you’re full of shit. I think you’re a pathetic windbag who can’t logicate himself out of a gazeebo. I think you’re a dishonest skuzz-bucket without a shred of intellectual decency. And that’s why I don’t like what you say.

Since you can’t find any errors of logic in my belief system, and since you can’t provide a single cite to support your strange claims about undefined terms and whatnot, you should just admit that you don’t like what I say because you don’t like me.

You just defined it at the beginning of this thread! You said that it was the most valuable aesthetic. Of course, that’s not a meaningful definition, but it is one nevertheless.

You suggest that you start with “goodness”, then claim that the meaning of such is common and self-evident. Contradictory positions!

Libertarian - I sometimes feel that your belief system is a bit silly, but it’s a nice belief, in any case - I wish I had the heart to subscribe to it, but that’s really not the kind of person I am. Anyway, despite some recent blowings of various gaskets, you’re a very solid debater, and your contributions to this board are very much appreciated.

Rock on, dude.

That’s not a definition, you dumb twit. It’s an axiom that uses the undefined term “goodness”.

Did you think Euclids’ First Postulate was the definition of “line”? :smiley: “Line” is an undefined term in geometry, just like “point”.

TVAA explained in quite precisely what he finds wrong with your belief system, Lib.

That’s what you’ve done with your last post.

That’s a question you should ask of yourself.

My take on it is that you seem to regard GD as a high school debating match, where winning points against the opponent is what counts. It makes you seem ill-educated and boorish, and gives the lie to any claim you might make of being a seeker of truth.

Thanks, Gadfly. Blown gaskets are easily replaced. :slight_smile:


I haven’t even been in GD for quite some time now.

Your “axiom” contains several complex concepts, which axioms are incapable of doing. Axioms define relationships between basic concepts.

You also accept the general and implicit definition of “goodness”. Either you accept your “axiom” and view the implicit definition as an argument you are presenting, or you accept the inplicit definition and view your “axiom” as an argument you are presenting. You can’t do both.

If I say “the color of that ball is blue”, there are two possible interpretations. The first: I take for granted that the word ‘blue’ refers to a particular color, and I am asserting that an object is that color. The second: I am defining ‘blue’ to mean “the color of that ball”.

Are you capable of understanding this argument so far, or do I need to make it even simpler?

(A) Goodness is the most valuable aesthetic.

(B) For every point P and every point Q not equal to P there exists a unique line that passes through P and Q.

Why exactly does (A) contain “several complex concepts” whereas (B) does not.

In case you don’t recognize it, (B) is Euclid’s Postulate #1, and I don’t see you dissing it.