Or one might simply say that if an apporach works, it tells us something about how the world actually is (it's structure is such that the approach works, at least in our perception). I think that's less confusing, anyways. — Echarmion
If there is no way to progress in philosophy, how did we come up with it, and why did it only happen a few hundred years ago? — Echarmion
I'd argue that philosophy has come up with quite a few useful results over the last 2000 years. — Echarmion
Ah, but that causes an infinite regress, because "working" also needs to be defined. That's easy to do for empirical science (because we were all brought up with the scientific method already part of the culture), but how do we know whether or not, say, a theory on moral philosophy "works"? — Echarmion
Deciding that a device works and should therefore be kept is a deduction. — Echarmion
No, I haven't. Neither have you. That was my point. Your original argument relied on that definition being "right". — Echarmion
If you don't think so, then why the hell are you still here? — Echarmion
Some interpretations of qm are just nonsensical in my view. But I have no problem accepting the general notion of indeterminacy. — Terrapin Station
I think people will be utterly confounded if we start trying to say that the word "dog" doesn't have anything that could be called a meaning the moment the last user of the word dies. That just seems like nonsense to me, so I'm immediately curious as to what advantage people think that way of talking has. — Isaac
If you genuinely can't think of any reason someone might write for a forum such as this other than to 'prove' they're right, then that explains quite a lot a lot about the direction of your posts. — Isaac
, but to at the same time take a position within the argument, namely that it's "better" to consider meaning to be objective.that it cannot be resolved and is just a result of confusion over terms — Isaac
Have you read Kuhn? I think your account of 'the scientific method' and the history of its development is flawed. — Isaac
This is very interesting, care to name a few? — Isaac
Not one that can be carried out entirely 'from the armchair' though, that's the point. One must use it an observe the results. One cannot simply deduce that it will work. — Isaac
The difference is, I have no intention of doing so. — Isaac
I don't think there is a 'right' here in an objective sense. You're the one who thinks that there can be a 'right' and answer based on logical deduction, so I expected to read those deductions. — Isaac
am getting the impression that you are on the one hand taking a position in a specific discussion but on the other hand deflecting any criticism by denying the value of the discussion itself. — Echarmion
I am vaguely familiar with his concepts of paradigm and the paradigm shift, which I consider fairly useful. What I know of his theories doesn't seem to be opposed to what I said. If you think it's worth considering, perhaps you could sketch the argument for me? — Echarmion
In no particular oder: Stoicism, Kant's categorical imperative, the collection of different forms of logic, universal human rights, the concept of a social contract, various arguments against religious dogma, economic theory and of course the philosophy of science. — Echarmion
it looks to me like you started making a specific argument, which you now claim you never intended to follow up on. — Echarmion
If it's the latter, I can provide you with some quotes from my past posts. — Echarmion
Empirical methods don't judge arguments. — Echarmion
you are imagining a scenario without humans, but when you are then trying to look at that which remains, you are looking at it from a human view — Echarmion
You are imagining a scenario without humans, but when you are then trying to look at that which remains, you are looking at it from a human view
— Echarmion
Finally. Tacit understanding it is absolutely impossible to do otherwise, and only the rationally inept will attempt it. — Mww
That still doesn't mean that I can't imagine a scenario with no humans, and therefore no human perspectives. — S
Note: Suddenly found myself wearing my “silly” hat ... I’ll take it off now :/ — I like sushi
You both still don't seem to realise that that, in itself, is beside the point. Yes, of course I'm imagining it from my human perspective. I am a human after all, and I can't imagine something without doing so from my perspective. That still doesn't mean that I can't imagine a scenario with no humans, and therefore no human perspectives. You're just playing with the language to make it superficially appear as though there's an impossibility which is logically relevant. It involves a sleight of hand, and is therefore an example of sophism, rather than philosophy.
It's impossible for me to imagine something without imagining something: if you're saying something like that, then that's true, but trivial and irrelevant. There's a number of related truisms I could mention here. I can't imagine something without being alive, or without being capable of imagination, or without knowing anything about the thing that I'm supposed to be imagining, and so on. None of them are of any logical relevance.
It's not impossible for there to be a scenario, which can be imagined, whereby in that scenario, there are no humans, and therefore no human perspectives; and that in that scenario, there are rocks, and a sign which says "Caves up ahead". Obviously, I am not in that scenario, so it doesn't matter that I'm human or that I'm imagining it and so on.
If you don't get this, then you're rationally inept, Mww. — S
The idea is the same as "You can't have a perception without it being a perception (obviously), but the perception can be of something that's not itself a perception." The mistake that's often made there is one of the things that leads to general, overarching idealism.
So obviously you have to be imagining things, it has to be from your perspective, etc., but what you imagine can be a world without people imagining things, and having perspectives, and so on. — Terrapin Station
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.