What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[MJA]

Well done MJA, you must be The Internet Chat Room Whisperer. You have calmed everyone down.

Good work

The power of truth!
Be One,

=

[Arising_uk]

Quit trying to change the subject, coward. Is that why you engage me, just to be nasty and rude?

Get a grip you big-girls blouse! I'm on the subject.

I make a statement minding my own business, and you just have to deliver an unsolicited answer in some sarcastic condescending way, grow up and take responsibility for a change. ...

On a public forum!! You want to mind your own business then PM your interlocutor otherwise expect responses idiot.

You seem to be such a child, arguing over the most ridiculous childlike things. You don't like me and I don't like you, as you are a nasty lying person. Oh, and the loon is only to be found in your mirror!

When will you get it through your head that its not to do with emotions and feelings and your delusions that someone is trying to deceive you, you paranoid loon! You'd not last ten minutes in an academic philosophy seminar with an attitude like that.

Its pretty much a truism that without existence there'd not be experience and without experience there'd not be 'knowledge' and without knowledge there'd not be true nor false, so in this sense all 'knowledge' is aposteriori. The point of the apriori and aposteriori classifications is that there appear to be propositions that are to be understood as true without the need of direct experience to confirm, "The grubblesnuckle exists or the grubblesnuckle does not exist", "The grubblesnuckle is grep or is not grep", "The grubblesnuckle cannot exist and not exist", "Its either raining or it is not raining"- apriori. "The grubblesnuckle exists", "The grubblesnuckle is blue or it is pink", "Its raining or its is sunny" - aposteriori.

[Ginkgo]

I think you are on the right track Arising. If you are arguing for some type of 'oneness' position when it comes to science then this necessarily means that you must put forward a metaphysical explanation. I have no problem with metaphysics. In fact it may well turn out to be the case that metaphysical knowledge can manifest itself in science. String Theory is a perfect example. Are string theorists doing metaphysics or science? I am sure the answer is both.

The important point is that a posteriori knowledge is not metaphysical knowledge (as you are pointing out). Therefore, we are talking about at least two different types of knowledge. I think you are pointing this out as well.

[chaz wyman]

Quit trying to change the subject, coward. Is that why you engage me, just to be nasty and rude?

Get a grip you big-girls blouse! I'm on the subject.

I make a statement minding my own business, and you just have to deliver an unsolicited answer in some sarcastic condescending way, grow up and take responsibility for a change. ...

On a public forum!! You want to mind your own business then PM your interlocutor otherwise expect responses idiot.

You seem to be such a child, arguing over the most ridiculous childlike things. You don't like me and I don't like you, as you are a nasty lying person. Oh, and the loon is only to be found in your mirror!

When will you get it through your head that its not to do with emotions and feelings and your delusions that someone is trying to deceive you, you paranoid loon! You'd not last ten minutes in an academic philosophy seminar with an attitude like that.

Its pretty much a truism that without existence there'd not be experience and without experience there'd not be 'knowledge' and without knowledge there'd not be true nor false, so in this sense all 'knowledge' is aposteriori. The point of the apriori and aposteriori classifications is that there appear to be propositions that are to be understood as true without the need of direct experience to confirm, "The grubblesnuckle exists or the grubblesnuckle does not exist", "The grubblesnuckle is grep or is not grep", "The grubblesnuckle cannot exist and not exist", "Its either raining or it is not raining"- apriori. "The grubblesnuckle exists", "The grubblesnuckle is blue or it is pink", "Its raining or its is sunny" - aposteriori.

Looks like SoB has finally lost the plot.

[lancek4]

Quit trying to change the subject, coward. Is that why you engage me, just to be nasty and rude?

Get a grip you big-girls blouse! I'm on the subject.

I make a statement minding my own business, and you just have to deliver an unsolicited answer in some sarcastic condescending way, grow up and take responsibility for a change. ...

On a public forum!! You want to mind your own business then PM your interlocutor otherwise expect responses idiot.

You seem to be such a child, arguing over the most ridiculous childlike things. You don't like me and I don't like you, as you are a nasty lying person. Oh, and the loon is only to be found in your mirror!

When will you get it through your head that its not to do with emotions and feelings and your delusions that someone is trying to deceive you, you paranoid loon! You'd not last ten minutes in an academic philosophy seminar with an attitude like that.

Its pretty much a truism that without existence there'd not be experience and without experience there'd not be 'knowledge' and without knowledge there'd not be true nor false, so in this sense all 'knowledge' is aposteriori. The point of the apriori and aposteriori classifications is that there appear to be propositions that are to be understood as true without the need of direct experience to confirm, "The grubblesnuckle exists or the grubblesnuckle does not exist", "The grubblesnuckle is grep or is not grep", "The grubblesnuckle cannot exist and not exist", "Its either raining or it is not raining"- apriori. "The grubblesnuckle exists", "The grubblesnuckle is blue or it is pink", "Its raining or its is sunny" - aposteriori.

Since I skipped a few pages of this development, (probably) this is why I am not sure of your AUK point.
I would say the your paragraph here shows your orientation upon reality , and further add the apparently paradoxical point that without knowledge we could not know that existence is prior to knowledge. And then I would ask for an explanation that establishes the (your here) truism.

[Ginkgo]

Quit trying to change the subject, coward. Is that why you engage me, just to be nasty and rude?

Get a grip you big-girls blouse! I'm on the subject.

I make a statement minding my own business, and you just have to deliver an unsolicited answer in some sarcastic condescending way, grow up and take responsibility for a change. ...

On a public forum!! You want to mind your own business then PM your interlocutor otherwise expect responses idiot.

You seem to be such a child, arguing over the most ridiculous childlike things. You don't like me and I don't like you, as you are a nasty lying person. Oh, and the loon is only to be found in your mirror!

When will you get it through your head that its not to do with emotions and feelings and your delusions that someone is trying to deceive you, you paranoid loon! You'd not last ten minutes in an academic philosophy seminar with an attitude like that.

Its pretty much a truism that without existence there'd not be experience and without experience there'd not be 'knowledge' and without knowledge there'd not be true nor false, so in this sense all 'knowledge' is aposteriori. The point of the apriori and aposteriori classifications is that there appear to be propositions that are to be understood as true without the need of direct experience to confirm, "The grubblesnuckle exists or the grubblesnuckle does not exist", "The grubblesnuckle is grep or is not grep", "The grubblesnuckle cannot exist and not exist", "Its either raining or it is not raining"- apriori. "The grubblesnuckle exists", "The grubblesnuckle is blue or it is pink", "Its raining or its is sunny" - aposteriori.

Since I skipped a few pages of this development, (probably) this is why I am not sure of your AUK point.
I would say the your paragraph here shows your orientation upon reality , and further add the apparently paradoxical point that without knowledge we could not know that existence is prior to knowledge. And then I would ask for an explanation that establishes the (your here) truism.

I think the problem of existence is not really an issue in when dealing with the Kantian distinction. It is of course important, but it is more of a case of looking at the structure of the propositions in order to determine their truth value. For Kant a priori judgements consist of propositions whose truth can not be determined by reference to any experience but solely on the basis of the terms used in the sentence. For example, 'All green apples are green'. In other to determine the truth value we need only to look at the sentence. Other types of statements that Kant thought were a priori were,"All triangles have three sides" and " 5+2=7". The important point when it comes to a priori judgements is that when we try and negate them this invariably will lead to a contradiction. To claim that all green apples are not actually green is a contradiction. The same argument apples to triangles. To try and deny that a triangle has three sides makes no sense.

A posteriori judgements on the other hand are based on experience and don't involve contradictions. For example, "All living things reproduce", while being true, it is logically consistent to deny the truth of the statement. In other words, if I were to say, "All living things don't reproduce", this wouldn't create a problem in terms of logic. Unlike a priori statements, this makes perfect sense. This doesn't mean it is correct, it just means that it is not contradictory to say so.

Basically we can say that Kant was not happy with this classification. So he came up with the synthetic a priori propositions. He though that judgements could be proven true via their meanings through certain truths about the world. For example, "All bodies are extended". Kant believed that this statement, as the name suggests was both apriori and a posteriori at the same time. Basically we can say he just calls it synthetic apriori. The important point is that is based on experience. The other important point is that we cannot deny the truth of the statement. To do so would lead to some sort of contradiction.

[marjoramblues]

What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

127 pages
1895 replies

stop and think
for a moment
what is going on here?

[chaz wyman]

What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

127 pages
1895 replies

stop and think
for a moment
what is going on here?

Very little.
I stopped contributing anything more than an occasional dig weeks ago.
The guy who started the thread is long gone.

[marjoramblues]

What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

127 pages
1895 replies

stop and think
for a moment
what is going on here?

Very little.
I stopped contributing anything more than an occasional dig weeks ago.
The guy who started the thread is long gone.

Very little ? Quite a lot - and probably a few gems. This place is frustrating when we can't find them - never mind the 'truth'


Yeah, rather enjoyed your response below - on the first page...

Wonder how Bill is getting on ?

Hi Bill how's it going in the US?

I think the big problem is that people thing that there is ONE TRUTH, and as soon as their personal truth is clear to them, they set about demanding that it has to fit everyone else.
The only truth is that there just ain't one truth, except the truth that there ain't no truth that fits all.

Should I add yet another post to this long thread...or perhaps somebody could summarize the main points ( as if ! ) and ? start a new thread, same topic ( part 2) - perhaps as a 'refresher' for anybody new leaping into the depths of the PN forum ?

Otherwise - it's a never-ending foggy smog of a 'conversation' with a few juicy insults thrown in...which is fine, if that's what y'all want...and why not indeed...

Hmmm, I suppose I could have DEMANDED that MY TRUTH - be heard and acted on...

I demand that there is a maximum number of posts per thread; and that each thread should be no longer than...erm...10 pages with all £$$^%^* type posts deleted.

So there !

Do your worst...tie me to the PN pole and get those wild tongues whip lashing - you know you want to

[MJA]

"I think you are on the right track Arising. If you are arguing for some type of 'oneness' position when it comes to science then this necessarily means that you must put forward a metaphysical explanation." Ginko


How about a mathematical explanation?
Doesn't science like it this Way?

=

Or would you rather an empirical One?

[chaz wyman]

What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

127 pages
1895 replies

stop and think
for a moment
what is going on here?

Very little.
I stopped contributing anything more than an occasional dig weeks ago.
The guy who started the thread is long gone.

Very little ? Quite a lot - and probably a few gems. This place is frustrating when we can't find them - never mind the 'truth'


Yeah, rather enjoyed your response below - on the first page...

Wonder how Bill is getting on ?

Hi Bill how's it going in the US?

I think the big problem is that people thing that there is ONE TRUTH, and as soon as their personal truth is clear to them, they set about demanding that it has to fit everyone else.
The only truth is that there just ain't one truth, except the truth that there ain't no truth that fits all.

Thanks for the comment. I'm not sure that anyone has seriously addressed my point. And far from moving the discussion on, I think that people have tended to re-iterate their own points (when not simply being abusive) rather than developing an good argument.

If you want something a little more calm and considered why not try....

http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/

[marjoramblues]

Very little ? Quite a lot - and probably a few gems. This place is frustrating when we can't find them - never mind the 'truth'


Yeah, rather enjoyed your response below - on the first page...

Wonder how Bill is getting on ?

Hi Bill how's it going in the US?

I think the big problem is that people thing that there is ONE TRUTH, and as soon as their personal truth is clear to them, they set about demanding that it has to fit everyone else.
The only truth is that there just ain't one truth, except the truth that there ain't no truth that fits all.

Thanks for the comment. I'm not sure that anyone has seriously addressed my point. And far from moving the discussion on, I think that people have tended to re-iterate their own points (when not simply being abusive) rather than developing an good argument.

If you want something a little more calm and considered why not try....

http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/

Maybe, your point could be the start of a refreshed thread ?

Oh Lordy - 'calm and considered' - heaven help us all...OK, some of the time but...
No, I like the fun and games, and characters - just voicing my frustration at... well, I've already said...ad nauseam.
Thanks, Chaz, I've already followed that link - and - Oh Dear, not for me - all dem rules and grammy correctness...

The PN forum is still my cuppa tea...

[artisticsolution]

I think the problem of existence is not really an issue in when dealing with the Kantian distinction. It is of course important, but it is more of a case of looking at the structure of the propositions in order to determine their truth value. For Kant a priori judgements consist of propositions whose truth can not be determined by reference to any experience but solely on the basis of the terms used in the sentence. For example, 'All green apples are green'. In other to determine the truth value we need only to look at the sentence. Other types of statements that Kant thought were a priori were,"All triangles have three sides" and " 5+2=7". The important point when it comes to a priori judgements is that when we try and negate them this invariably will lead to a contradiction. To claim that all green apples are not actually green is a contradiction. The same argument apples to triangles. To try and deny that a triangle has three sides makes no sense.

A posteriori judgements on the other hand are based on experience and don't involve contradictions. For example, "All living things reproduce", while being true, it is logically consistent to deny the truth of the statement. In other words, if I were to say, "All living things don't reproduce", this wouldn't create a problem in terms of logic. Unlike a priori statements, this makes perfect sense. This doesn't mean it is correct, it just means that it is not contradictory to say so.

Basically we can say that Kant was not happy with this classification. So he came up with the synthetic a priori propositions. He though that judgements could be proven true via their meanings through certain truths about the world. For example, "All bodies are extended". Kant believed that this statement, as the name suggests was both apriori and a posteriori at the same time. Basically we can say he just calls it synthetic apriori. The important point is that is based on experience. The other important point is that we cannot deny the truth of the statement. To do so would lead to some sort of contradiction.

Hi Ginkgo,

I have a hard time with generalizations, i.e. starting points that are black or white or axioms. It just seems to me that this is what is stopping us from seeing 'truth'. Axioms to me are like starting from an agreed to beginning and then only going forward from there when it is obvious that one can not only go forward but backwards, diagonally, or jump out of the line all together and go any which way.

Now take for example your statement about triangles. Yes, there is a definition to the word triangle that we all have agreed upon. But I don't think we can say that saying a triangle has more than three sides is a contradiction if there is no way to prove there is even such a thing as a perfect triangle in the first place.

I remember watching this program on fractals...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal

...and they were showing how intricate shapes become when broken down into larger images and/or repeated. And I thought to myself, this idea we have of 'truth' may be based in our inability to step outside of aesthetics in order to imagine a different viewpoint than we feel comfortable with.

For example, if we use fractals to look at the point(s) where the lines in a triangle meet that we have magnified, we may see where the angles meet are not an exact angle, but rather a very small line or a series lines which make an acute bend but not actually an angle. If this were the case then we would be fallible to say there was such a thing as a triangle in the first place! This is even more apparent when we consider there may be no such thing as true 'flat' as that anything that has substance or that can be seen and touched (such as a dimensional triangle...as opposed to the abstract thought of a triangle) would at least have some depth and 3D quality to it.

So literally speaking, there could not be a 'true' triangle. There could only be an image our senses want us to 'believe' a true triangle should be. Similar to the way we want to believe in Santa Claus, God, etc. the only difference being is that believing in a triangle is more socially acceptable. Personally, I believe this amounts to aesthetic appeal, as I don't believe any of us have ever 'seen' a real triangle by definition. What we have seen is what we want to believe.

It just seems like "contradicting" ourselves is only possible because we are are adamant language = truth and words must mean something in the strictest sense. Like since man has deemed it so...words must have 'truth'. This would be more of a contradiction, I would think...as what makes us so sure the definition to any word is ultimate 'truth.' It may be that the essence of language stops us from seeing truth....or at least our stanch ideals of the aesthetics of such language meaning some sort of unwavering 'truth.'

Why should we convince ourselves definitions like "a triangle has three sides" must be strictly adhered to or else we commit the 'sin' of contradiction?

I don't think that words would necessarily become meaningless if we venture into more specific definitions. As we could still use the word's definition as a generalization, while also knowing that a triangle has much more than just 'three sides' and not contradict ourselves on a deeper level. I think Fractals may prove this.

I just don't see the problem with being honest about a thing...it's not like the world will cave in if we are. There will still be the idea of a triangle.

[chaz wyman]

Oh Lordy - 'calm and considered' - heaven help us all...OK, some of the time but...
No, I like the fun and games, and characters - just voicing my frustration at... well, I've already said...ad nauseam.
Thanks, Chaz, I've already followed that link - and - Oh Dear, not for me - all dem rules and grammy correctness...

I know what you mean - I've already been reprimanded for a minor bit of sarcasm. I'm on warning "level1" whatever that is.

[marjoramblues]

Oh Lordy - 'calm and considered' - heaven help us all...OK, some of the time but...
No, I like the fun and games, and characters - just voicing my frustration at... well, I've already said...ad nauseam.
Thanks, Chaz, I've already followed that link - and - Oh Dear, not for me - all dem rules and grammy correctness...

I know what you mean - I've already been reprimanded for a minor bit of sarcasm. I'm on warning "level1" whatever that is.

That cannot be true !

and this is the point where under MY TRUTH, the Mod would enter, stage left - to hisses and boo's, bellowing:

'You two get a room - if you wanna gossip about other forums take it to the mattresses...'

and MB whispers to Chaz - so, where is your naughty bit ?