order is prior to the brain and thus the eye, and if this were not, it would be impossible for parts to become synthesized into wholes for a purpose. purpose implies reason, reason implies order — TheGreatArcanum
This is convoluted. You deny the reality of irrational numbers, and thus don't believe in imaginary time as Hawking called it? "The spiritual" is nothingness because truth is nowhere. How much truth have you touched? — Gregory
The first principle of philosophy is that philosophy has a first principle.
(That ought to be right.) — god must be atheist
each truth is contingent upon a higher truth — TheGreatArcanum
Statements have truth values — god must be atheist
Statements don't have truth values, but some have truth labels. — A Seagull
Hegel wanted to see himself in objects and the objects as Forms, and thus himself as the forms. — Gregory
That it be true and that "true" be meaningful (as opposed to meaningless). That means some set of criteria under which this particular true is established as true. Once established in this way, then eternal - how not? Truth then is an accident of philosophical inquiry, a waypoint, if you will.Take a truth, any truth, and then ask yourself, what must first be true for it to be true, — TheGreatArcanum
If you think that there is, go for it; make your case.But is there not some underlying unchanging aspect that grounds it all? — TheGreatArcanum
Why are you starting with truth? What is meant by 'truth'? — A Seagull
To say Spirit has substance is to be a pantheist — Gregory
A giraffe has a long neck.
A giraffe has a short neck.
Would you call the corresondence to truth a value, or a label? Why? This is not a rhetorical question. I don't know why you would call them labels instead of values. So please explain. — god must be atheist
Why are you starting with truth? What is meant by 'truth'? — A Seagull
I am not starting with truth, but with the undeniable fact that I am self-aware, which is simultaneously an object of awareness and a truth. This is because truth and being are identical. Truth does not necessitate language, otherwise, the necessary truth "mind is necessary for language," is false. — TheGreatArcanum
It is to do with the process by which one chooses which statements, if any, merit the label of 'true' — A Seagull
Peter is John.
John is Paul.
Therefore Peter is Paul
The conclusion is right in logic. — god must be atheist
Does your system have a special name to it? If I guessed your system correctly, and it has a specific name, would you please give it here? — god must be atheist
:up: :smirk:The first principle of philosophy is that philosophy has a first principle.
(That ought to be right.) — god must be atheist
I don't.(B) the principle of insufficient reason (PIR), or random (i.e. acausal) events occur and are ineluctable (i.e. unbounded);
— 180 Proof
How is it that you think teleology and acausality can co-exist? — TheGreatArcanum
"Chaos" =|= randomness; the quote above refers to the latter not the former.Is not all chaos, controlled chaos, and thus bounded by order?
Non sequitur.Aren't all infinities bounded by some a priori set, or concept?
I don't know what "infinite randomness" pertains to; my point is that there are random events and, as such, they are not bounded with respect to - encompassed by - reasoning (i.e. causal explanations (e.g. scientific modeling)), and therefore reason is, while indispensable, nonetheless insufficient (pace Leibniz, Hegel).In a world of infinite randomness, how is that things in the world never become anything other than what they have the a priori potential to become? A seed can become a tree ...
I don't.How is [it] that you reconcile the [a p]riori orderliness and limitedness of Nature with the notion that all events are "unbounded" and "random?"
"Teleology" is an artifact of antiquated folk epistemology (pace Aristotle) refuted handily by the advent of Galilean-Cartesian-Newtonian mathematical physics, etc. — 180 Proof
Is not all chaos, controlled chaos, and thus bounded by order?
"Chaos" =|= randomness; the quote above refers to the latter not the former. — 180 Proof
Aren't all infinities bounded by some a priori set, or concept? — 180 Proof
eluctab — 180 Proof
Non sequitur. — 180 Proof
In a world of infinite randomness, how is that things in the world never become anything other than what they have the a priori potential to become? A seed can become a tree ...
I don't know what "infinite randomness" pertains to; my point is that there are random events and, as such, they are not bounded with respect to - encompassed by - reasoning (i.e. causal explanations (e.g. scientific modeling)), and therefore reason is, while indispensable, nonetheless insufficient (pace Leibniz, Hegel). — 180 Proof
Again, my point is that there are a class of events - random - that are unbounded with respect to reason (i.e. ineluctable). — 180 Proof
"that which was not may be what it was" — Gregory
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.