What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[Ginkgo]

S O B You say:

"Incorrect my proof was deductive not inductive and even if it could be said to be inductive, then it was indeed STRONG induction. No, VERY VERY STRONG induction".


I say it doesn't really matter how deductive it is, or how inductively strong it is because this form of reasoning had it beginnings with Aristotle so it is outdated. Right?

[SpheresOfBalance]

It's kind of true that Philosophy is the Father of all Science, but it's more accurate that it's the Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great Grandfather of Science and as such many of it's older propositions and their philosophers are antiquated. So why do fools still play age old games with age old words that are in fact meaningless in the face of today's science, which has superseded these dated propositions. Where does the 'truth' of modern philosophy stand?

If you are unhappy with old philosophers such as Kant and old propositions, perhaps we can consider modern scholars and their updated version.

Do you think a posteriori propositions require to be further extended into necessary a priori propositions?

Is it meaningful to talk about synthetic a priori propositions or is it more accurate to classify them as analytical apriori propositions?

I see that a priori is non existent, it is fiction, and that all knowledge is in fact a posteriori.

[SpheresOfBalance]

S O B You say:

"Incorrect my proof was deductive not inductive and even if it could be said to be inductive, then it was indeed STRONG induction. No, VERY VERY STRONG induction".


I say it doesn't really matter how deductive it is, or how inductively strong it is because this form of reasoning had it beginnings with Aristotle so it is outdated. Right?

I'm obviously not like you. I pick and choose from any particular philosophers assertions, the ones that I find are of value. Actually that's the way I am with everything. Just because someone is right about one thing doesn't necessarily mean they are right about everything. For instance as a foundation to start in philosophy I believe that Socrates' quote 'I only know that I know nothing,' is priceless, and is a very good place to start, so as to ground oneself. I love that Kant holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be traveled. I refuse to rely on one's propositions that to me, make no sense, that contradicts what it is that I see is the truth of the matter.

[Arising_uk]

... Where does the 'truth' of modern philosophy stand?

Where it should, in Formal and Symbolic Logic.

[SpheresOfBalance]

... Where does the 'truth' of modern philosophy stand?

Where it should, in Formal and Symbolic Logic.

Sorry but the word "should" as used, from my perspective, is an opinion, and in this case is merely self ego stroking, therefore it's useless, to anyone but you.

[Arising_uk]

What are you burbling about now? 'Truth' in modern philosophy lies in Formal and Symbolic Logic, philosophy's only claim to fame.

I see your emotions and psycho-babble still colour your words.

[SpheresOfBalance]

What are you burbling about now? 'Truth' in modern philosophy lies in Formal and Symbolic Logic, philosophy's only claim to fame.

I see your emotions and psycho-babble still colour your words.

You know you're pretty stupid for someone that thinks they're so smart.

[MJA]

... Where does the 'truth' of modern philosophy stand?

Where it should, in Formal and Symbolic Logic.

I am a modern philosopher and I stand on my own two feet.

=

[Arising_uk]

You know you're pretty stupid for someone that thinks they're so smart.

Easy to say, harder to prove, so why don't you?

Tell me why, if someone thinks themselves a 'philosopher' and are concerned with the notions of truth, falsity, validity, necessity, certainty, etc, that they don't look to the one subject that Philosophy can truly call its own and which distinguishes it as a subject, one that modern philosophy has only improved upon from its origins in Aristotle.

[Arising_uk]

I am a modern philosopher and I stand on my own two feet.

=

Good for you, the rest of us stand with them upon the shoulders of giants.

[SpheresOfBalance]

You know you're pretty stupid for someone that thinks they're so smart.

Easy to say, harder to prove, so why don't you?

(Snipped the attempt to sidestep.)

I already have, idiot! Tell me when your dumb ass can figure it out, shouldn't be too hard, as you only instigated this round, 3 exchanges back, and it should help you, that very few words were exchanged. But then you are a coward, so I figure it'll take a cold day in hell.

[MJA]

I am a modern philosopher and I stand on my own two feet.

=

Good for you, the rest of us stand with them upon the shoulders of giants.

I think it was Newton who made the same mistake.

=

[John]

I am a modern philosopher and I stand on my own two feet.

=

Good for you, the rest of us stand with them upon the shoulders of giants.

I think it was Newton who made the same mistake.

=

He was underselling himself?

[Arising_uk]

I already have, idiot! Tell me when your dumb ass can figure it out, shouldn't be too hard, as you only instigated this round, 3 exchanges back, and it should help you, that very few words were exchanged. But then you are a coward, so I figure it'll take a cold day in hell.

What are you burbling about now?

You think lance's post-modernism is all that modern philosophy is about? Its not,its pretty much from English Literature and the Continentals. In the Anglo-American tradition Formal Logic is where its at and its where truth and falsity is discussed as applied to all propositions. You asked where the 'truth' was in modern philosophy and I've just told you, you can argue it if you wish but please stop with the psycho-babble.

Nice to see your emotions colouring your words as usual.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I already have, idiot! Tell me when your dumb ass can figure it out, shouldn't be too hard, as you only instigated this round, 3 exchanges back, and it should help you, that very few words were exchanged. But then you are a coward, so I figure it'll take a cold day in hell.

What are you burbling about now?

You think lance's post-modernism is all that modern philosophy is about? Its not,its pretty much from English Literature and the Continentals. In the Anglo-American tradition Formal Logic is where its at and its where truth and falsity is discussed as applied to all propositions. You asked where the 'truth' was in modern philosophy and I've just told you, you can argue it if you wish but please stop with the psycho-babble.

Nice to see your emotions colouring your words as usual.

Again, you're such an idiot, with your lying, false assumptions, speaking for people as if you know, condescending tone, holier than though attitude, arguing childish notions. Just shut up with your self sucking and go your own way, I've got no time for your sorry ass, which shows 90% of the time.

P.S. The reason you see burbling and babbling, is because you are good at delivering it, sounding most often like a broken record.