HexHammer wrote:What has this P stuff to do with Kant?!?!?
Well apart from it being about Reason fairly little, I was just pointing out that the equations from Physics and Mathematics that you used to demonstrate relevance in the world are equally matched by the logical forms from Philosophy.
Oh! And "P stuff" You know bugger all about the only thing that is Philosophy's own.
Not pretending to know much about the topic, but I do know that the example, dogs, at least as they are today, wouldn't exist but for their relationship with man. So perhaps this is not the best example to base the discussion on. How about something we didn't have a hand in creating by our long association? Didn't we create both the concept of what we wanted the dog to be, and the dog itself as a result?
Another thought occurred to me, in a similar vein. If we conceptualize something that clearly has no basis in reality except for the concept itself eg. an undead vampire; is this situation discussed in Fodor's book, by any chance? If so, how does he deal with it? I'm asking out of genuine curiosity. It sounds interesting.
If I'm misunderstanding the topic, which is quite possible, please pardon the intrusion.
Last edited by Dalek Prime on Sat Feb 20, 2016 2:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
HexHammer wrote:What has this P stuff to do with Kant?!?!?
Well apart from it being about Reason fairly little, I was just pointing out that the equations from Physics and Mathematics that you used to demonstrate relevance in the world are equally matched by the logical forms from Philosophy.
Oh! And "P stuff" You know bugger all about the only thing that is Philosophy's own.
I'm not sure you know what you are talking about, but once Math was part of Philosophy, but in modern times became a separate thing.
HexHammer wrote:I'm not sure you know what you are talking about, ...
That's because you have no idea about Logic and Philosophy.
but once Math was part of Philosophy, but in modern times became a separate thing.
So?
..so ..what are you really saying?!?!
I was just pointing out that when you use the formulas and equations from Mathematics and Physics to justify the irrelevance of Philosophy to the modern world(I accept that you were talking about Fodor and Kant but think that since Kant was about reason then Logic applies) you ignore the forumulas from Logic which are used day-in-day out and in fact you are using the last two on my post right now.
HexHammer wrote:..so ..what are you really saying?!?!
I was just pointing out that when you use the formulas and equations from Mathematics and Physics to justify the irrelevance of Philosophy to the modern world(I accept that you were talking about Fodor and Kant but think that since Kant was about reason then Logic applies) you ignore the forumulas from Logic which are used day-in-day out and in fact you are using the last two on my post right now.
Then tell me the difference between math, and philosophical math, please!
HexHammer wrote:Then tell me the difference between math, and philosophical math, please!
A difficult question but it's not philosophical maths, it's Logic. The difference, I think, is that Maths uses Logic as a tool. Another thought is that Maths is about form, number and geometry of things or states of affairs whereas Logic is about reason and declarative propositions about and of things or state of affairs.
In physics mathematical logic can only be used to codify a particular narrative of reality which must first be specified by the physicist. However this form of logic cannot be used to derive truth statements about the validity of this pre-determined narrative. For instance Ptolemy modelled the universe as if the earth were at the centre of it and for 1400 years this model could make perfectly accurate predictions about the motions of the planets within the solar system. In fact Ptolemy's geocentric cosmology could still be used today if we chose to do so. The mathematics would be horrendously complex but there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why all of modern physics couldn't be modelled in this way. We could send successful missions to the moon and all the planets and we could explain all of the observations of our cosmos from this same geocentric point of view.
Have we then proved that the earth is at the centre of the universe?
HexHammer wrote:Then tell me the difference between math, and philosophical math, please!
A difficult question but it's not philosophical maths, it's Logic. The difference, I think, is that Maths uses Logic as a tool. Another thought is that Maths is about form, number and geometry of things or states of affairs whereas Logic is about reason and declarative propositions about and of things or state of affairs.
Aren't we just lucky, a tiiiny bit of philosophy has relevance!!! ..congratulations!
HexHammer wrote:Then tell me the difference between math, and philosophical math, please!
A difficult question but it's not philosophical maths, it's Logic. The difference, I think, is that Maths uses Logic as a tool. Another thought is that Maths is about form, number and geometry of things or states of affairs whereas Logic is about reason and declarative propositions about and of things or state of affairs.
Aren't we just lucky, a tiiiny bit of philosophy has relevance!!! ..congratulations!
How are you lucky, Hex? You haven't learned the relevant bit.
HexHammer wrote:Aren't we just lucky, a tiiiny bit of philosophy has relevance!!! ..congratulations!
Not a tiny bit hex, the core of it but then you'd not know this as you have a limited view of Philosophy, if any view at all other than internet forums. There's also Philosophy of Politics which has had a tiny bit of relevance too.
You know bugger all about the only thing that is Philosophy's own.