Philosophy Now Forum

chaz wyman wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:[

This is not the case. All you have done is fallen into the trap that I set for you, because your statement demonstrates a relationship between object and subject, you are bound to fail again and again.
It is not that my understanding precludes your position; it is your own presentation of what you think is true that destroys your argument. You are incapable os escaping your own subject, unless you are God. But the that is exactly what you think you are.

The trap is in your mind and it pertains to language. Your logic is flawed. The subject has and does escape itself relative to time, such is the result of the scientific method, such that it is absolute truth over time, so as we have come to know, of some of the absolute truths of some objects, not all, but some of the more simpler ones.

Yeah that is what Ptolemy said when he wrote the final word on his geocentric cosmology.
This is a lame analogy, as you seem to have missed the word, "time," and not understood it's significance.


You are caught up in a circular vortex of language, and thus reasoning, it has ensnared you. Mans God has absolutely nothing to do with it. It is you that believes himself a god, as with the immature tactics you employ when faced with not getting your way.[/color]

So what you are saying is that I am like god because I employ immature tactics? You are insane.
No, are you? The point is, that for you to stoop to such childish tactics as demeaning labeling, as with name calling and such, you assert that you are clearly correct, universally speaking, otherwise how could one say such things with certainty? Only a god could know the absolute truth of everything, moment to moment, such that they could know of the truth of this slanderous labeling you supply. You then clearly must think you are a god, or else you would curb such things, with the knowledge that you, like your opponent, are merely mortal, and thus subject to error, possibly lost in this limited text based forum, of one attempting to convey, what it is that they see, as the possibilities, as only flawed human mortals are capable.

I do not see, within your words, the humility, that only being a mere human affords. Which is, at least, curbing your unfounded childish outbursts.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: No, are you? The point is, that for you to stoop to such childish tactics as demeaning labeling, as with name calling and such, you assert that you are clearly correct, universally speaking, otherwise how could one say such things with certainty?

Let's just unpack this statement from a man who has just accused me of thinking myself God.

You will see that you are doing what you claim that I am doing.

You are claiming I am universally correct. I am not making that claim, no. That is what you do, and continue to do.
The simple fact is that in our tiny human world certainty does not entail the 'universal'. I cannot know if there is another species that has a handle on truth, but I am certain that when you clim to know the universal and absolute truth what you are ACTUALLY doing is claiming a thing to be true from your personal perspective. Unless you are a God, you simply cannot make this claim. All your truth like statements are actually a demonstration of a relationship you have with an object of your interest. That is inescapable. Each time you make a true utterance, what you are in effect doing is saying 'this subject believes X". Such statement have no universal or absolute standing, nor can they. The universe is no interested. In literal and metaphorical terms there is not interest, in the way of a conceiver, or interest in the way of a fact gathering entity.

Were the universe conscious, if it were to have an interest, then we might say that such things as universal truths exist. They could exist in the mind of god and be self interested. But you are just a speck in the infinitude of the universe, with your petty interests that die when you die.
So too with me and my statements




Only a god could know the absolute truth of everything, moment to moment, such that they could know of the truth of this slanderous labeling you supply.

So, why is it you keep making claims of this nature?
As you can see you are doing what you falsely accuse me of doing.


You then clearly must think you are a god, or else you would curb such things, with the knowledge that you, like your opponent, are merely mortal, and thus subject to error, possibly lost in this limited text based forum, of one attempting to convey, what it is that they see, as the possibilities, as only flawed human mortals are capable.

I think you are now talking to yourself.

I do not see, within your words, the humility, that only being a mere human affords. Which is, at least, curbing your unfounded childish outbursts.

But this is exactly what I claim , and you fail to again and again.

If you read through this carefully without rancour, you will see why I think you insane to make such comments.



[/color]

SpheresOfBalance wrote:PURPLE

chaz wyman wrote:BLUE

SpheresOfBalance wrote: RED
No, are you? The point is, that for you to stoop to such childish tactics as demeaning labeling, as with name calling and such, you assert that you are clearly correct, universally speaking, otherwise how could one say such things with certainty?
Let's just unpack this statement from a man who has just accused me of thinking myself God.

You will see that you are doing what you claim that I am doing.

You are claiming I am universally correct. I am not making that claim, no. That is what you do, and continue to do.
Incorrect, not only are you misquoting me, but you missed an extremely important contextual reference. I'm saying that you are claiming as such as evidenced by the 'absurd' lengths that you go.

The simple fact is that in our tiny human world certainty does not entail the 'universal'.
Never said that it does!

I cannot know if there is another species that has a handle on truth, but I am certain that when you clim to know the universal and absolute truth what you are ACTUALLY doing is claiming a thing to be true from your personal perspective.
First, that is incorrect because there is not one absolute or universal truth, but there are potentially a googolplex to the googolplex to the googolplex, etc, absolute and universal truths. Second your assertion that the human animal is incapable of surpassing it's own personal perspective, for a universal one is incorrect. Many that we have come to know, started out that way, but many are no longer, and are universal in scope.

Unless you are a God, you simply cannot make this claim.
Incorrect!

All your truth like statements are actually a demonstration of a relationship you have with an object of your interest. That is inescapable.
Not necessarily!

Each time you make a true utterance, what you are in effect doing is saying 'this subject believes X".
You are confusing truth with belief. I'm not saying that many don't try and sell their beliefs as truth, because they believe them to be so, but the fact that this is done, does not negate any particular humans knowledge of an actual universal/absolute truth.

Such statement have no universal or absolute standing, nor can they.
It depends upon the particular statement.

The universe is no interested. In literal and metaphorical terms there is not interest, in the way of a conceiver, or interest in the way of a fact gathering entity.
First this is conjecture on your part, as you are in 'fact' doing the exact same thing that you 'believe' I'm doing. Based upon your miniscule powers of human perception, you 'believe,' this particular, is of 'truth,' and say as much. Yet, I'm not saying anything to the contrary, but indeed this is what you 'believe,' I am meaning. I am not saying the universe is an entity, because in this time one could never know this, but I am speaking of a universal perspective, where one detaches themselves from themselves, so as to see themselves amongst everything else contained within the universe, which includes what we believe we have come to know, of the truth of the universe, at this particular time.

Were the universe conscious, if it were to have an interest, then we might say that such things as universal truths exist.
You cannot possible 'know' that this is not true.

They could exist in the mind of god and be self interested. But you are just a speck in the infinitude of the universe, with your petty interests that die when you die.
So too with me and my statements
It looks like you are finally starting to get it, that you are not a god, notice how at first you speak as if it's only me, to which your words apply, as initially you say 'you' and 'your'. Then as an afterthought, the acknowledgement that we are the same, equal, as humans, finally sinks in, and you add "So too with me and my statements." Maybe there's hope for you yet.


Only a god could know the absolute truth of everything, moment to moment, such that they could know of the truth of this slanderous labeling you supply.
So, why is it you keep making claims of this nature?
As you can see you are doing what you falsely accuse me of doing.
You cannot see that this is different? I have never made claims that either of us "know the absolute truth of everything, moment to moment," as I say only a god could do that. This is merely a statement that excludes you as being correct in your treatment of others.

You then clearly must think you are a god, or else you would curb such things, with the knowledge that you, like your opponent, are merely mortal, and thus subject to error, possibly lost in this limited text based forum, of one attempting to convey, what it is that they see, as the possibilities, as only flawed human mortals are capable.
I think you are now talking to yourself.
Then you must be insane or have Alzheimer's, as around here everyone knows that you are the king of needless defamation of character or abilities. Though I have to admit, I have noticed that you have slightly improved and become more civil lately. So I commend you on your effort. You're becoming more believable and respectable every day.

I do not see, within your words, the humility, that only being a mere human affords. Which is, at least, curbing your unfounded childish outbursts.
But this is exactly what I claim , and you fail to again and again.

If you read through this carefully without rancour, you will see why I think you insane to make such comments.
Then you are blinded by self or quite possibly a victim of the insanity that you try and project upon me and others. Have you been checked recently, to see if your cancer is still in remission and hasn't spread to your brain? Seriously, You now have me worried about you.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:[ Have you been checked recently, to see if your cancer is still in remission and hasn't spread to your brain? Seriously, You now have me worried about you.[/color]

chaz wyman wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:[ Have you been checked recently, to see if your cancer is still in remission and hasn't spread to your brain? Seriously, You now have me worried about you.[/color]

chaz wyman wrote:Here is an example of absolute truth from Logic.

All cars are horses.
My BMW is a car
Therefore my BMW is a horse.

The logic is prefect.

Arising_uk wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:Here is an example of absolute truth from Logic.

All cars are horses.
My BMW is a car
Therefore my BMW is a horse.

The logic is prefect.

The logical deduction may well be correct but the conclusion is not true as truth is not found this way in Logic, you need true premises to produce logically deducible true conclusions. The first premise is false, cars are not horses.

I thought philosophy has given us absolute truth/s with Logic?

chaz wyman wrote:But what you have allowed me to demonstrate is that LOGIC is wholly dependant on premises, and so does not provide truth, unless those premises are already truth.
QED philosophy has not given us absolute truth on any version of it.

Arising_uk wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:But what you have allowed me to demonstrate is that LOGIC is wholly dependant on premises, and so does not provide truth, unless those premises are already truth.
QED philosophy has not given us absolute truth on any version of it.

Not true, as what you talk about is the deductive part of Logic, so its true the premises have to be true for deduction to deduce true conclusions but I'm talking about the propositional tautologies and contradictions, so take any proposition P, P or not P (Pv¬P) is a tautology and P can be true or false and it'll still be true, always, necessarily and absolutely. Same, in a sense, with the contradictions, negate any of them and it'll be a tautology, i.e. its true that a contradiction is always false.

chaz wyman wrote:You must think I am a fool. ...

All you have is just another set of mechanisms.
Logic can only expand an existing truth, it has no power to decide one truth from another. ...

All logic expands tautologies; and identifies paradoxes.
Truth requires more than that. Logic cannot provide empirical evidence.
All contradictions are true. Chew on that! ...

Maths, like logic, can tell you that 2 +2 makes 4, but it cannot tell you if there are 4 oranges on the table.

Arising_uk wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:You must think I am a fool. ...

All you have is just another set of mechanisms.
Logic can only expand an existing truth, it has no power to decide one truth from another. ...

Where have I said that Logic decides whats true or not?

You said that in the original phrase that I first brought up;"I thought philosophy has given us absolute truth/s with Logic?"
Which I corrected for the reasons previously given, which you attacked.

If I thought that I'd not understand Logic. What it does do is put the boundaries upon whats necessarily true, whats impossible and whats contingently true upon the world.

All logic expands tautologies; and identifies paradoxes.
Truth requires more than that.
Logic cannot provide empirical evidence.
All contradictions are true. Chew on that! ...

Only in that they are necessarily false.
Have you not heard of a paradox?


Where do I not agree that empirical evidence is the best way to decide the truth or falsity of the contingent propositions? As this is what they are concerned with, whereas the tautologies and contradictions do not directly concern themselves with the empirical world.

Which means they have nothing to say about what is the case. They do nothing more than expand that which as already been stated. All Logic does is to expand those tautologies.

Maths, like logic, can tell you that 2 +2 makes 4, but it cannot tell you if there are 4 oranges on the table.

Mathematics is exactly what says that there are 'four' oranges upon the table?

Rubbish. Observation gives us that. Maths is just another way of saying it.

Logic just says there can't be oranges upon the table and no oranges upon the table at the same time.

No. That is empirical induction. Logic can describe that.



But I agree that there has to be things upon the table, or states of affairs, for Logic to be, as its that there are such things that Logic describes.

chaz wyman wrote:You said that in the original phrase that I first brought up;"I thought philosophy has given us absolute truth/s with Logic?"
Which I corrected for the reasons previously given, which you attacked.

Have you not heard of a paradox?

Which means they have nothing to say about what is the case. They do nothing more than expand that which as already been stated. All Logic does is to expand those tautologies.

Rubbish. Observation gives us that. Maths is just another way of saying it.

No. That is empirical induction. Logic can describe that.

Which means that logic does not give us absolute truths; it is just a means of description and analysis.

Arising_uk wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:You said that in the original phrase that I first brought up;"I thought philosophy has given us absolute truth/s with Logic?"
Which I corrected for the reasons previously given, which you attacked.

We appear to think differently about what 'absolute' means here? I think that if something is necessarily true then its absolutely true, as there is going to be no case where its not. What do you mean by it?

If a thing is necessarily true then that things implies a set of criteria; causal criteria. So why is it you think absolute and necessary are interchangeable? Surely a thing that is absolute is, by definition, not reliant on any criteria. The clue is in the word absolute.

Have you not heard of a paradox?

What's paradoxical about the contradictions and what happens when you negate them?

You might need an example. The point about a paradox is that it is an apparent contradiction without a clear solution.

Which means they have nothing to say about what is the case. They do nothing more than expand that which as already been stated. All Logic does is to expand those tautologies.

Where did I say that the tautologies and contradictions applied to the world? In fact I thought I said that its because they don't that is the reason why they are what they are, i.e. the boundaries of it.

Rubbish. Observation gives us that. Maths is just another way of saying it.

I'm not disagreeing that there are oranges upon the table, i.e. an orange, an orange, an orange, an orange but just saying that Mathematics gives us precision, Logic only gives us All or Some. Observation has given some cultures Logic but not Mathematics.

I think it is the word given that I object to. Maths and Logic are the means of description. It is the world that gives.

No. That is empirical induction. Logic can describe that.

I'd have thought description is saying? What do you mean by 'empirical induction'? Reason? As that is what Logic describes.[/color]

Induction is a form of reason based on the habit of observations that lead to general observations. Those roundiish things that are on a thing we usuall call a table are most often know as oranges, when this event occurs it is usually described by 'oranges on a table'. You can call it reason if you like, but it is just observation.

Which means that logic does not give us absolute truths; it is just a means of description and analysis.

Since the tautologies and contradictions are not concerned with the empirical world I'd have thought them 'absolute' truths but see above for where I think we differ.

chaz wyman wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:You said that in the original phrase that I first brought up;"I thought philosophy has given us absolute truth/s with Logic?"
Which I corrected for the reasons previously given, which you attacked.

We appear to think differently about what 'absolute' means here? I think that if something is necessarily true then its absolutely true, as there is going to be no case where its not. What do you mean by it?

If a thing is necessarily true then that things implies a set of criteria; causal criteria. So why is it you think absolute and necessary are interchangeable? Surely a thing that is absolute is, by definition, not reliant on any criteria. The clue is in the word absolute.

Have you not heard of a paradox?

What's paradoxical about the contradictions and what happens when you negate them?

You might need an example. The point about a paradox is that it is an apparent contradiction without a clear solution.

Which means they have nothing to say about what is the case. They do nothing more than expand that which as already been stated. All Logic does is to expand those tautologies.

Where did I say that the tautologies and contradictions applied to the world? In fact I thought I said that its because they don't that is the reason why they are what they are, i.e. the boundaries of it.

Rubbish. Observation gives us that. Maths is just another way of saying it.

I'm not disagreeing that there are oranges upon the table, i.e. an orange, an orange, an orange, an orange but just saying that Mathematics gives us precision, Logic only gives us All or Some. Observation has given some cultures Logic but not Mathematics.

I think it is the word given that I object to. Maths and Logic are the means of description. It is the world that gives.

No. That is empirical induction. Logic can describe that.

I'd have thought description is saying? What do you mean by 'empirical induction'? Reason? As that is what Logic describes.[/color]

Induction is a form of reason based on the habit of observations that lead to general observations. Those roundiish things that are on a thing we usuall call a table are most often know as oranges, when this event occurs it is usually described by 'oranges on a table'. You can call it reason if you like, but it is just observation.

Which means that logic does not give us absolute truths; it is just a means of description and analysis.

Since the tautologies and contradictions are not concerned with the empirical world I'd have thought them 'absolute' truths but see above for where I think we differ.

They are 'necessary' within the framework. But most often these objects don't exist except in abstract form. Thus in a framework in which 2 and 2 oranges is 4 oranges it is necessarily true that 4 less 2 is 2. What the fuck is absolute about that?
It is not always true, and it is only true when we have agreement about the meaning of 2,4, and 'orange'. What makes that absolute. It is not true in another language. It is not even true for each orange.