Philosophy Now Forum

chaz wyman wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

Any true triangle is only thus because we choose to identify it as such.

Yes, this would be an example of a category error.


String Theory presents itself as a elegant mathematical possibility for a Grand Unified Theory. It may turn out to present us with a perfect understanding of the universe. The problem of course is that this theory may have nothing to do with the way the universe actually is. Same problem as before.

I concur exactly.
~Cosmologies and scientific paradigms are of the kind of a best fit- in the sense they are always s best fit for human understanding, and conform to human logic, perception and interpretation.
The universe will always be just beyond our grasp.

False statement, as if you can see the future. But then I'm all too familiar with your megalomaniacal falsehoods.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:So says the blind fool!

Then explain where numbnuts.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote: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.
Changing the subject again, moron!

Read again numbnuts.

And you'd not last 10 minutes in the ring, so what does any of this prove, fool. That you can't keep track of a conversation to save your life, so what's new?.

Show me where fruitloop.

But at 'the ring' as my comment was about philosophy and its discussion and yours is about combat. But at "And you'd not last 10 minutes in the ring" as of course not! As they don't allow weapons, biting, gouging or the sneak attack, instead its all done to nice rules that have fuck-all to do with fighting but much to do with the over-blown ego of the modern male fantasist.

First the Def, don't be afraid now, Arising:

It's not me who's shouting?

knowl·edge /ˈnɒlɪdʒ/ Show Spelled[nol-ij]
noun
1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.
2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.
3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.
4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.
5. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.
6. something that is or may be known; information: He sought knowledge of her activities.
7. the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.
8. the sum of what is known: Knowledge of the true situation is limited.
9. Archaic . sexual intercourse. Compare carnal knowledge.
adjective
10. creating, involving, using, or disseminating special knowledge or information: A computer expert can always find a good job in the knowledge industry.
Idiom
11. to one's knowledge, according to the information available to one: To my knowledge he hasn't been here before.
And:
be·lief /bɪˈlif/ Show Spelled[bih-leef]
noun
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

Now your examples:
"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.
Not knowledge, merely belief, based upon a posteriori knowledge, as to existence potential.

"The grubblesnuckle exists", "The grubblesnuckle is blue or it is pink", "Its raining or its is sunny" - aposteriori.
Not knowledge, merely belief, based upon a posteriori knowledge, as to existence potential.

Saying it twice doesn't make it any truer.

Whats this "existence potential" when its at home?

You appear to be doubting or at least not understanding Logic and Language. Let me help you, what I said fits 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 in your first definition. Its also definitely doesn't fit 2 in the latter one. They still also fit the definitions of apriori and posteriori. As do the old saws "All bachelors are unmarried" and "Some bachelors are very happy". Unless of course you happen to know what a 'grubbersnuckle' is and how 'grep' applies to one? Or an unmarried bachelor?

I pointed out to you that its a philosophical truism that everything is 'experience' and its all 'belief', you are promoting a form of Idealism but think it Materialism of some sort?

You think the Logicians and Kant, et al, did not consider such things? You think Spheres of Bubbles has hit upon a metaphysical thought thats not been thought? Think again or at least do a little less selective reading.

chaz wyman wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

Any true triangle is only thus because we choose to identify it as such.

Yes, this would be an example of a category error.


String Theory presents itself as a elegant mathematical possibility for a Grand Unified Theory. It may turn out to present us with a perfect understanding of the universe. The problem of course is that this theory may have nothing to do with the way the universe actually is. Same problem as before.

I concur exactly.
~Cosmologies and scientific paradigms are of the kind of a best fit- in the sense they are always s best fit for human understanding, and conform to human logic, perception and interpretation.
The universe will always be just beyond our grasp.

Then the nihilist pint would be: what's the point?

But then even the nihilist must act, it must be. Ethics, to repose, becomes the determination and determining of reality : the universal is the ethical. And then we begin again from the posit of freedom and it's question. Right? The eternal recurrence.

Yet this to then resides in a truth that is always out of reach.

I do not agree with this limit. This limit is the universal. So I ask: how do we reconcile this situation. ?

SOB, I find it strange that you reject the synthetic apriori so vehemently when these types of judgements would be well suited to supporting your theory.

In other words, empirical statements that are both scientific and absolutely true at the same time. Both Kant and yourself seem to be saying that natural science depends on them.

lancek4 wrote:But then even the nihilist must act, it must be. Ethics, to repose, becomes the determination and determining of reality : the universal is the ethical. And then we begin again from the posit of freedom and it's question. Right? The eternal recurrence.

Yet this to then resides in a truth that is always out of reach.

I do not agree with this limit. This limit is the universal. So I ask: how do we reconcile this situation. ?

Hello Lance,

I guess the answer to that question is that there are a number of competing ethical theories.If you are talking universal ethics ( seems to be the case) then this would be classified as deontological, or rule based ethics. The important point is that these rules are set in stone and do not change overtime. They are universal and apply equally well in all times and all places. Another way of saying it is that the individual has a moral obligation or duty to adhere to these rules.

So I guess the answer to your question is that 'the truth' is not out of reach. Kantian ethics would be of interest here. So, it's no so much a case of the truth being out of reach, rather it would be that other ethical theories promote different 'truths'. For example, Utilitarianism talks about promoting the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Utilitarianism can be seen as a consequentialist theory in that it talks about right and wrong actions as opposed to good or bad actions.

Ginkgo wrote:SOB, I find it strange that you reject the synthetic apriori so vehemently when these types of judgements would be well suited to supporting your theory.

In other words, empirical statements that are both scientific and absolutely true at the same time. Both Kant and yourself seem to be saying that natural science depends on them.

Look, the truth is that all knowledge can only be obtained after exposure to it, one can use knowledge that they have already found, to extrapolate the possibilities of things they have yet to witness, but at that point it's not truly knowledge, it's just probabilities of varying degrees, so I see that "true" knowledge can only be a posteriori.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Look, the truth is that all knowledge can only be obtained after exposure to it, one can use knowledge that they have already found, to extrapolate the possibilities of things they have yet to witness, but at that point it's not truly knowledge, it's just probabilities of varying degrees, so I see that "true" knowledge can only be a posteriori.

I like what you have to say here, sob. But here is what I am visualizing.....let's say you are correct and every ounce of knowledge is obtained after exposure to it...for everyman. Then how did the first man come up with the idea? How did language even come to be? There would have to be at least on person who had the knowledge first....right? There had to be an agreement between people that it was a good idea...right?

For example, the first person to use the word 'bachelor' to describe an unmarried male...would have to have communicated it to someone else...and that person would have had to have understood that there was a thing called marriage and that there was a difference between a married man and a non married man...right?

So, let's suppose that no language had been created....do you think we would all be able to instinctively tell the difference between a man who had a partner and a man who did not? I think we still would be able to make that distinction, even if we had never been taught.

Would that be considered a type of a priori knowledge? Or do you think we would not be able to tell the difference between 2 lovers and a poor schmuck all alone until after we were taught the distinction between married and unmarried?

Arising_uk wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:So says the blind fool!

Then explain where numbnuts.

OK, corpse! Here you go, since you were too dense to get it the first time, though you won't get it this time either:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:... 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.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote: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.
Changing the subject again, moron!

Read again numbnuts.
See above, you halfwit!

And you'd not last 10 minutes in the ring, so what does any of this prove, fool. That you can't keep track of a conversation to save your life, so what's new?.

Show me where fruitloop.
See above, moron!
But at 'the ring' as my comment was about philosophy and its discussion and yours is about combat. But at "And you'd not last 10 minutes in the ring" as of course not! As they don't allow weapons, biting, gouging or the sneak attack, instead its all done to nice rules that have fuck-all to do with fighting but much to do with the over-blown ego of the modern male fantasist.
You're such a dumb son of a bitch, it had nothing to do with fighting, yet more proof of your craniums density.

First the Def, don't be afraid now, Arising:

It's not me who's shouting?
At every turn you show your ignorance, it's all caps that's shouting, hollow head!

knowl·edge /ˈnɒlɪdʒ/ Show Spelled[nol-ij]
noun
1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.
2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.
3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.
4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.
5. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.
6. something that is or may be known; information: He sought knowledge of her activities.
7. the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.
8. the sum of what is known: Knowledge of the true situation is limited.
9. Archaic . sexual intercourse. Compare carnal knowledge.
adjective
10. creating, involving, using, or disseminating special knowledge or information: A computer expert can always find a good job in the knowledge industry.
Idiom
11. to one's knowledge, according to the information available to one: To my knowledge he hasn't been here before.
And:
be·lief /bɪˈlif/ Show Spelled[bih-leef]
noun
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

Now your examples:
"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.
Not knowledge, merely belief, based upon a posteriori knowledge, as to existence potential.
"The grubblesnuckle exists", "The grubblesnuckle is blue or it is pink", "Its raining or its is sunny" - aposteriori.
Not knowledge, merely belief, based upon a posteriori knowledge, as to existence potential.

Saying it twice doesn't make it any truer.
Saying it twice doesn't make it any falser either, shite for brains.
Whats this "existence potential" when its at home?
What tangent are you working now, airhead!

You appear to be doubting or at least not understanding Logic and Language. Let me help you, what I said fits 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 in your first definition.
No it doesn't, the conversation was about "knowledge," you're deluded!

Its also definitely doesn't fit 2 in the latter one. They still also fit the definitions of apriori and posteriori. As do the old saws "All bachelors are unmarried" and "Some bachelors are very happy". Unless of course you happen to know what a 'grubbersnuckle' is and how 'grep' applies to one? Or an unmarried bachelor?
A priori, no such animal!


I pointed out to you that its a philosophical truism that everything is 'experience'
OK, now you got it...

and its all 'belief', you are promoting a form of Idealism but think it Materialism of some sort?
..Oh forget it, you lost it again!

You think the Logicians and Kant, et al, did not consider such things? You think Spheres of Bubbles has hit upon a metaphysical thought thats not been thought? Think again or at least do a little less selective reading.
Coming from a girl that believes in magic and is afraid of the circular logic contained in dictionaries, oh you go girl, yep you got it!!! A case of: but I read it in a book, with pretty pictures, waaaaaaa!

artisticsolution wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Look, the truth is that all knowledge can only be obtained after exposure to it, one can use knowledge that they have already found, to extrapolate the possibilities of things they have yet to witness, but at that point it's not truly knowledge, it's just probabilities of varying degrees, so I see that "true" knowledge can only be a posteriori.

I like what you have to say here, sob. But here is what I am visualizing.....let's say you are correct and every ounce of knowledge is obtained after exposure to it...for everyman. Then how did the first man come up with the idea? How did language even come to be? There would have to be at least on person who had the knowledge first....right? There had to be an agreement between people that it was a good idea...right?

For example, the first person to use the word 'bachelor' to describe an unmarried male...would have to have communicated it to someone else...and that person would have had to have understood that there was a thing called marriage and that there was a difference between a married man and a non married man...right?

So, let's suppose that no language had been created....do you think we would all be able to instinctively tell the difference between a man who had a partner and a man who did not? I think we still would be able to make that distinction, even if we had never been taught.

Would that be considered a type of a priori knowledge? Or do you think we would not be able to tell the difference between 2 lovers and a poor schmuck all alone until after we were taught the distinction between married and unmarried?

I see that language for you, like many here, is a stumbling block. What you call, grunt, eyeball, shrug, twitch, etc something matters not, it is still a type of language. OK, let me put it into perspective for you. All the people in your little example are blind, now what say you?

SpheresOfBalance wrote: OK, let me put it into perspective for you. All the people in your little example are blind, now what say you?

I'd say there'd be alot of touchy feely going on!

But I think I could still get the gist that someone was *ahem* "taken" by feeling their tangled mass of limbs....and so...I would keep feelin away...until I found one who wasn't. So before I knew what the word was for it...I would know that there was a difference between 'taken' and single.

lancek4 wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

I concur exactly.
~Cosmologies and scientific paradigms are of the kind of a best fit- in the sense they are always s best fit for human understanding, and conform to human logic, perception and interpretation.
The universe will always be just beyond our grasp.

Then the nihilist pint would be: what's the point?

I'll drink any pint you put before me - even an Nihilist pint.

However I think you might be wrong. The Nihilist would say 'so what?'. He would not be bothered, he has already say so what to everything.
The realist might ask what's the point, and go on pretending that human knowledge IS the same as absolute knowledge (or as good as).
The Idealist would say well you already knew that.

Ginkgo wrote:

lancek4 wrote:But then even the nihilist must act, it must be. Ethics, to repose, becomes the determination and determining of reality : the universal is the ethical. And then we begin again from the posit of freedom and it's question. Right? The eternal recurrence.

Yet this to then resides in a truth that is always out of reach.

I do not agree with this limit. This limit is the universal. So I ask: how do we reconcile this situation. ?

Hello Lance,

I guess the answer to that question is that there are a number of competing ethical theories.If you are talking universal ethics ( seems to be the case) then this would be classified as deontological, or rule based ethics. The important point is that these rules are set in stone and do not change overtime. They are universal and apply equally well in all times and all places. Another way of saying it is that the individual has a moral obligation or duty to adhere to these rules.

So I guess the answer to your question is that 'the truth' is not out of reach. Kantian ethics would be of interest here. So, it's no so much a case of the truth being out of reach, rather it would be that other ethical theories promote different 'truths'. For example, Utilitarianism talks about promoting the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Utilitarianism can be seen as a consequentialist theory in that it talks about right and wrong actions as opposed to good or bad actions.

Is this the truth you have reached? Is it deontological or is it just another promoted 'different' truth?

lancek4 wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

lancek4 wrote:But then even the nihilist must act, it must be. Ethics, to repose, becomes the determination and determining of reality : the universal is the ethical. And then we begin again from the posit of freedom and it's question. Right? The eternal recurrence.

Yet this to then resides in a truth that is always out of reach.

I do not agree with this limit. This limit is the universal. So I ask: how do we reconcile this situation. ?

Hello Lance,

I guess the answer to that question is that there are a number of competing ethical theories.If you are talking universal ethics ( seems to be the case) then this would be classified as deontological, or rule based ethics. The important point is that these rules are set in stone and do not change overtime. They are universal and apply equally well in all times and all places. Another way of saying it is that the individual has a moral obligation or duty to adhere to these rules.

So I guess the answer to your question is that 'the truth' is not out of reach. Kantian ethics would be of interest here. So, it's no so much a case of the truth being out of reach, rather it would be that other ethical theories promote different 'truths'. For example, Utilitarianism talks about promoting the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Utilitarianism can be seen as a consequentialist theory in that it talks about right and wrong actions as opposed to good or bad actions.

Is this the truth you have reached? Is it deontological or is it just another promoted 'different' truth?

Not really, there is a lot more to ethical theories than I have outlined. However, if we are talking very generally then I would say that 'truth' can be applied to deontological theories, but is irrelevant when applied to consequentialist theories such as utilitarianism. An action is right if it promotes happiness wrong if it promotes the opposite. There is no truth because what promotes happiness at one time may not be relevant at another. What promotes happiness in our society may not promote happiness in a different society.

Personally I never use the word truth because it only serves to create confusions. People end up talking past each other. That's why whenever I use the word I proviso it.

In answer to your last question. It is not a different truth it is a different theory.

ginkgo

I agree. After 1948 replies what have we gleaned

Personally I never use the word truth because it only serves to create confusions. People end up talking past each other. That's why whenever I use the word I proviso it.