Someone named Chris Halliquist attacks my arugment in a thing pompously entitled "How not to do Philosophy." But Halliquist shows us how not read a text and how not to make arguments. Here are the comments I made to this person on that blog.
Just to make it clear enough this genius who lambastes me for "sloppiness" and showing how not to do philosophy read the page I did explaining the background of the argument and takes it to be the argument itself.
You don't know anything about Derrida or philosophy. I studied Derrida with Alex Argyros at UT Dallas, who in turn studied with Derrida. I was a Ph.D. candidate so I am qualified to tell you what Derrida said. I got it right and you did not.
your ignorance is a example of how not to do criticism:
1. Being sloppy with definitions: The minute he defines “transcendental signifier,” he defines it both as a “mark (word)” and a principle. It’s not at all obvious that these could even be the same thing; this is not the kind of thing you cram into a definition.>>
Sorry, you are sloppy in understanding what you read. Since you obviously know nothing about the subject matter, read slow, try to think: "signifier" means a word. The word refers to something "signified." The thing eh word signifies is a principle, that's what the words refers to an organizing principle which gives meaning to all other meanings, or marks (words). Understand now. It's not saying signifier is both a word and a principle its' saying the word refers to a principle.
<<2. Being sloppy with logic: A good logical argument will have starting assumptions that are as clearly true as you can make them, and then proceed one step at a time to show how the desired conclusion follows in a clear and inevitable manner from these assumptions. The seven numbered steps of Hinman’s argument don’t do this. It’s hard to see how you could re-write them to make them do this, but as an example you’d say something like:>>
In making the argument since it is a reverse of Derrida, and I said this up front, in fact I call the argument "the reverse Derrida" and I said, I am limited by how Derrida argued it and how what he argued. Do you understand that? Do you need me to explain that?
moreover, I don't think you understand what arguments are. The argument produces along a row of proportions each one related to the other, and numbered 1,2,3, ect. I don't think you get how that works.
<<“There is a transcendental signifier. If there is a transcendental signifier, there is a transcendental signified. Therefore, there is a transcendental signified. “God” is a version of the transcendental signifier. If “God” is a version of the transcendental signifier, then God is identical with the transcendental signified. Therefore, there is a God.” Not great, but then it’s at least clear what the key assumptions are that need to be debated.>>>
that's not even the argument. I don't really know what you are quoting from. My argument goes like this:
P1) TS's function is mutually exclusive, no other principle can supercooled that of the TS since it alone grounds all principles and bestows meaning through organization of concepts.
P2)We have no choice but to assume the relaity of some form of TSed since we cannot function coherently without a TS
P3) We have no choice but to assume the reality of some form of TSed since the universe does seem to fall into line with the meaning we bestow upon it.
P4) The logical conclusion would be that There must be a TSed which actually creates and organizes the Universe.
P5) The signifier "God" is one version of the TS, that is to say, God functions in the divine economy exactly as the TS functions in a metaphysical hierarchy.
P6) Since "God" is a version of the TS, and since TS and God concept share a unique function which should be mutually exclusive, the logical conclusion is that: God and TS share identity.ie "God" concept is discretion of the Transcendental Signified.
P7)Since the TS should be assumed as real, and TS and God share identity, we should assume that God is the Transcendental Signified, and thus is an actual reality.
rational warrant for belief in God's existence, QED.
<<3. Explaining a philosophical system in detail does not make it right: >>
but you got to start somewhere don't you? You are making the mistake and the dishonesty of pretending (because you can't really be that stupid) that that page on the blog was the argument! Talk about sloppy! The page on the blog that you read was the background that explains what you must know to understand the argument. is said this clearly and up front and I linked tot he argument. It's not my fault if you can't figure out what you read becuase you are too dense to comprehend. maybe next time you can pay more attention to what you are doing?
do I? I rather thought that by saying it's the background you need to know and linking to the argument someone with some brains will get the drift that I'm not trying to do that but merely to tell you what one must know to understand the argument, which apparently you aren't clever enough to find.
<<4. Relating your philosophical system to a historical narrative does not make it right: Pretty much the same problem as point 3.>>
But showing how a thinkers arguments can be reversed might do that. The necessary first step to reversal is to explain what you are reversing. why do I feel like that's wasted on you?
<<5. Shun the homeopathy of ideas: The historical discussion of thinkers from Plato to unnamed atheists often involves descriptions of their views that will be barely recognizable to people familiar with what they actually wrote. You do not get to act like you gave a serious discussion of someone’s views just because you described an idea vaguely resembling their ideas.>>>
something tells me you don't know enough about the world of thought to really make any difference on that anyway.
Filed under: philosophy, stupidity>>>
why would this argument have anything to do with social science. My God atheists are stupid. I am thunderstruck and dumb and dead pan idiotic atheists are and how unable they are to comprehend what's being said. you understanding of my work is pathetic, abysmal.
Metacrock (J.L. Hinman)