Philosophy Now Forum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 9:59 am I figured with how much the word "nonsense" is used, it make be best just to place this in the general section:

1. That which is sensed is subject to a point of view.

2. Thus that which is not sensed is a negative limit to a point of view; it is what the point of view is not.

3. All points of view, as subjective, are fallacious.

4. Nonsense is valid.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 1:09 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 9:59 am I figured with how much the word "nonsense" is used, it make be best just to place this in the general section:

1. That which is sensed is subject to a point of view.

2. Thus that which is not sensed is a negative limit to a point of view; it is what the point of view is not.

3. All points of view, as subjective, are fallacious.

4. Nonsense is valid.

GIBBERISH.

I figured with how much the word "nonsense" is used, it may be best just to place this in the general section:

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 2:13 am

I figured with how much the word "nonsense" is used, it may be best just to place this in the general section:

The common argument isn't to exclude subjectivity, but rather that observation must be subject to various strictures and to confirmation or acceptance by persons with a rigorous training. The main thing excluded in the common view on nonsense is not subjectivity, but rather free approach to the thing. In a free approach it is inevitable that one bring in the presence of possibility or future in the thing observed. And, most of all, absence as a want of something that ought to be. All understanding implies an ought. In the extreme that one ought to measure and physically describe things. That is, that one ought to do science.

The main form of the nonsense talk is: Anything that does not fit with scientific rigor is nonsense. In the strict sense scientific rigor is quantifiable measurement. This is an extreme question begging and not a serious proposition from the logical point of view. But, in the light of the modern view that the theory or law of entropy and evolution are real it is taken as the gate with which one must enter to be human in the modern sense. The talk of nonsense is the dogmatic counterpart to the superstition of the object without an ought or future.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 2:13 am The common argument isn't to exclude subjectivity, but rather that observation must be subject to various strictures and to confirmation or acceptance by persons with a rigorous training.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 2:13 am That is, that one ought to do science.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 2:13 am The main form of the nonsense talk is: Anything that does not fit with scientific rigor is nonsense.

TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 2:13 am In the strict sense scientific rigor is quantifiable measurement.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 2:59 am Subjectivity is not sensed through an objective paradigm. That which is percieved through self reflection, or reflection between individuals, loses its subjective nature and becomes objective. Subjectivity is non-sense, the negative limits as to what objectivity is not, as not sensable.

Eodnhoj wrote:
All points of view as subjective are fallacious

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 3:53 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 2:59 am Subjectivity is not sensed through an objective paradigm. That which is percieved through self reflection, or reflection between individuals, loses its subjective nature and becomes objective. Subjectivity is non-sense, the negative limits as to what objectivity is not, as not sensable.

For that definition to work you have to exclude your perception from your set of senses.

I am not all that fond of the idea that my intuition is non-sensory. It's the loudest sense I poses.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 4:03 pm

Eodnhoj wrote:
All points of view as subjective are fallacious

One single point of view = subjective = false
Intersubjective consensus = objective = true

Therefore all collective or universal points of view cannot be fallacious
Or absolutely everything in science not falsified is automatically false

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 6:11 pm The subjective state, sensed by the self, becomes objective through self reflection.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 6:13 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 6:11 pm The subjective state, sensed by the self, becomes objective through self reflection.

The observer observes itself. Sure - that's how science works.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 6:32 pm Science, philosophy and religion. The assumption of assumption is the manifestation of objective form.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 6:40 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 6:32 pm Science, philosophy and religion. The assumption of assumption is the manifestation of objective form.

I am. It's not an assumption.