Philosophy Now Forum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:26 pm And reductionism, dividing one part into another...one space into another, is not action?

Your taxonomy is yours to design as you see fit. By whatever criteria you think matter.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:27 pm 1. All empirical sensory knowledge is the observation of a simple point of contact with variations through that point of contact.

2. All intepretation stems from a localized axioms, accepted as is, as a point of origin.

3. The "point", or rather "space", is simultaneously empirical and abstract.

Gibberish. Write it out in logic.

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:27 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:26 pm And reductionism, dividing one part into another...one space into another, is not action?

Your taxonomy is yours to design as you see fit. By whatever criteria you think matter.

And did I design the Munchausseen Trillema?

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:28 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:27 pm 1. All empirical sensory knowledge is the observation of a simple point of contact with variations through that point of contact.

2. All intepretation stems from a localized axioms, accepted as is, as a point of origin.

3. The "point", or rather "space", is simultaneously empirical and abstract.

Gibberish. Write it out in logic.

I don't understand what you mean by "gibberish" as it is relative to your point of view...which is well "gibberish". Please explain to me what logic and structure are?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:29 pm I don't understand what you mean by "gibberish" as it is relative to your point of view...which is well "gibberish". Please explain to me what logic and structure are?

What explanation would satisfy you?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:28 pm And did I design the Munchausseen Trillema?

Did anybody design it or simply recognise the fact that our own "rules" for what knowledge are nonsense?

Which is why I don't care about any epistemic theories except pragmatism.

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:31 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:29 pm I don't understand what you mean by "gibberish" as it is relative to your point of view...which is well "gibberish". Please explain to me what logic and structure are?

What explanation would satisfy you?

The one you hold too.

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:32 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:28 pm And did I design the Munchausseen Trillema?

Did anybody design it or simply recognise the fact that our own "rules" for what knowledge are nonsense?

Which is why I don't care about any epistemic theories except pragmatism.

Pragmaticism is subject to the Trillema.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:38 pm The one you hold too.

How would you know that my explanation would satisfy you?

Surely your expectations are your own?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:39 pm Pragmaticism is subject to the Trillema.

The Trillema is subject to the Trillema.

Pragmaticism is a choice despite the Trillema.

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:39 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:38 pm The one you hold too.

How would you know that my explanation would satisfy you?

Surely your expectations are your own?

You are the one "pushing" about satisfying. I am asking what is your "stance" and why?

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:41 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:39 pm Pragmaticism is subject to the Trillema.

The Trillema is subject to the Trillema.

Pragmaticism is a choice despite the Trillema.

So pragmaticism is effectively irrational and random? Or not?

The Trillema inverted leads to the Prime Triad I argue in the "death of philosophy" thread in the general section. The trillema still exists and will always exist.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:43 pm You are the one "pushing" about satisfying. I am asking what is your "stance" and why?

Because I understand that the majority humans do not understands complexity or risk management.

What I do know about complexity is that it's too complex for us to compute all the consequences of our actions.
And I know that making changes to complex systems has many, undesirable side effects which need to be taken into account.

What I do know is that making changes to systems we do not understand is unlikely to result in success.

And what I do know is that structures such as society (which have endured entropy for millenia) are anti-fragile as per the Lindy effect.

Humans who think they can "fix" it cause more harm than good.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:44 pm So pragmaticism is effectively irrational and random? Or not?

We seem to have different definitions of "rationality"?

Pragmatism is about pursuing one's own goals. The world' your playground - what do you want to build today?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:44 pm The Trillema inverted leads to the Prime Triad I argue in the "death of philosophy" thread in the general section. The trillema still exists and will always exist.

And, so we must sit and twiddle our thumbs because knowledge is impossible then?

It was a sigh of relief to find out that Truth is a lie... Hamster wheel.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:I am so glad you decided to come in and join the conversation...please tell me how "order" is restored...or even if this is the right question to ask. ...

Where did I ask a question?

You are so witty and clever....err "try to be", I want to be entertained.

I am listening.

Good for you.