inability to support the excluded middle as an a priori law of reason — Gary M Washburn
You are taking your conclusion as axiomatic. Taking what you find as what you were looking for, because it comes to your mind. — Gary M Washburn
Predication is an assertion that a subject has something of the character of a predicate — Gary M Washburn
Your prejudice toward the hermetic proposition puts the brakes on that dynamism, and ultimately puts you out of sync with all humanity save those few sorry dogmatists you probably hooked up with in a classroom somewhere. — Gary M Washburn
Socrates is a man
All men are Mortal
Therefore:
Socrates is mortal.
I assume you subscribe to this. — Gary M Washburn
If "is" is the qualifier between subject and predicate, and not a quantifier, as analysts (like yourself?) would have it — Gary M Washburn
Ever had a romance? — Gary M Washburn
Ever had a fight with your boss — Gary M Washburn
If any of these, and so much more, it is hard to see you still believing in the excluded middle. — Gary M Washburn
why can't you at least entertain the possibility I have a legitimate area of inquiry? — Gary M Washburn
Drop the quantifiers ("a" and "all') and the "deduction" falls to pieces. — Gary M Washburn
though a computer, for all its utility — Gary M Washburn
though a computer, for all its utility, is nothing more than an automatic - not autonomous - filing system! — Gary M Washburn
George is like Sam.
Sam is vain.
Therefore, George is vain????? — Gary M Washburn
Both your comments are question begging. — Gary M Washburn
These dogmatic shifts are a crime against mind, not a discovery of its law. — Gary M Washburn
"rationalists" — Gary M Washburn
reply
quote
All the signs of rationalism as I understand it. Certainly not Platonic. — Gary M Washburn
The reason to drop the quantifier is because it instills false belief. Also, it seems to disprove what is true. — Gary M Washburn
and given us a wonderful way of exploring the world of abstract things?George is like Sam.
Sam is vain.
Therefore, George is vain????? — Gary M Washburn
Isn't anything 'beyondly' immortal? Is man 'beyondly'? — Gary M Washburn
The law of the excluded middle is a basis for proof? Because you say so? — Gary M Washburn
Doesn't A is B, in the sense you define it, mean A counts of B? — Gary M Washburn
You can convince yourself that the subject is fixed by predication, put in a bin where it will keep even when you go off elsewhere. — Gary M Washburn
Reckonil? — Gary M Washburn
You do understand, though, there is no such thing a a randomness generator? Presumably, what passes for one gives fodder to the pre-programed system for finding and assessing patterns. — Gary M Washburn
something AI will never achieve — Gary M Washburn
We tried that for explaining evolution, — Gary M Washburn
but if the creature does not put the mutation to use, — Gary M Washburn
nothing can come of random changes that is not part of it's programming. — Gary M Washburn
I have a thesis about that — Gary M Washburn
Lamarck shows us how differentiation comes about without randomness, but in response to biological needs. In other words, to a great extent (much greater than geneticist would have us believe) life creates, designs, and programs itself. — Gary M Washburn
Symbolic notation is used by logicians because they know it isn't really true. It's just about power. — Gary M Washburn
My question to them is, if you can't know which is which and yet count, and you can't count and yet know which is which, how many is 'one'? — Gary M Washburn
(My translation from German (Theech) into English)With that, however, the sense of the exclamation at the height of the Republic is inverted from the end: It is not the One which is invoked with the vocative “Apollo”, but rather Apollo himself as living doing god. He is no metaphor for the One; rather, the One has to be understood as god image of Apollo.
(My translation from Theech into English)But that means in the end: Platonic philosophy is religion (even if a special, shortened shape of religion), and indeed not philosophical religion in Hegel’s sense (philosophy is religion and religion is philosophy), but rather living religion, made up of cult and myth. It shows up, as E. Fink writes, “in the shape of a new roun”, which we call the roun of Apollo.
As I asked above, what has logic to do with counting? — Tristan L
Socrates doesn't say he knows nothing, he says he knows that he knows nothing. He is not unsure. — Gary M Washburn
what constitutes the category — Gary M Washburn
Logic cannot outstrip its quantifier (save by lying to itself, which it does quite regularly and boldfaced). — Gary M Washburn
Truth is not an aspiration, however inspiring that aspiration is to you! — Gary M Washburn
Well, if he knows that he knows nothing, then on one hand, what he knows must be true – otherwise he couldn’t know (wissen) it –, so he indeed knows nothing, but on the other hand, he knows at least something, namely that he knows nothing. That’s a contradiction. However, I’m (likely :wink:) so careful as to say only that it almost certainly is a contradiction. — Tristan L
Over and over again, you make dogmatic claims like this one and many others without giving any justification (begrounding) or evidence whatsoever. It’s no wonder, though, that you haven’t given a right justification for your baseless accusing logic of lying, for a false claim cannot be rightly begrounded, and your claim is very, very likely false. — Tristan L
As I see it, witcraft (logic) works perfectly and does the exact opposite of lying. It it what uncovers lies, as well as fallacies arising from imprecise, incomprehensible, swollen language without soothfast substance or meaning. — Tristan L
Speaking English, eking is just getting by. This discussion is eking. — Gary M Washburn
All must be examined and reexamined. — Gary M Washburn
your notion of Platonism, and pay no heed to him at all otherwise. — Gary M Washburn
(My translation from Theech into English)That means: Plato, too [just as the Pythagoreans], wants to be understood from the epiphany of Apollo. Not only Pythagorean doctrine, but also Platonic ontology neededly presupposes the religious revelation of Apollo. This unsayable experience always already lies at the ground of all thinking and even all beonde [that which is; ‘beon’ means the “deed/state” of being]: it is the true ground of the opposite principles and their union, the last and most orspringly well from which the dialectical method springs and from which it unfolds. Without the experience of Apollo, there would be no philosophy at all for Plato. Without the epiphany of Apollo, there would be – nothing.
Is Apollo a category? — Gary M Washburn
Never ever does faith come into it — Gary M Washburn
1+1 doesn't equal 2 if 1 and 1 each is distinct, and you can't add 1+1 to get 2 if they are not distinct. — Gary M Washburn
As I see it, you don't like to speak English. — Gary M Washburn
"As I see it" is not an argument. — Gary M Washburn
In logic 101 you might be expected to swallow the lesson uncritically. — Gary M Washburn
There is no opinion I have expressed I am not prepared to justify with Plato's own work. — Gary M Washburn
Why should I need any other? — Gary M Washburn
I don't see the point in refuting all this. — Gary M Washburn
It just appeared as I posted the above. — Gary M Washburn
My answer to the quoted passage here is that you're lack of familiarity with Plato is quite shocking, considering the extensiveness and pretense to authority of your postulations. — Gary M Washburn
If my claim is dogmatic, why is it the most authoritative examples of the "law" of contradiction base their self-evidence on their quantifiers? As in "All A is B, some A is not B? — Gary M Washburn
The verb Is is a quantifier wherever it assigns hermetic membership. — Gary M Washburn
Must everything be black or white with you? — Gary M Washburn
The infinitesimal is dogmatically excluded. — Gary M Washburn
terms were universal — Gary M Washburn
Similarly in logic, the assumption we share terms could never be valid if terms were universal, because meaning is intimacy. There is no universal teacher, though somehow I suspect you will contradict that. — Gary M Washburn
Differences in the terms we do share may seem infinitesimal and therefore negligible — Gary M Washburn
BTW, my instructor studied with John Wilde and Raphael Demos, since you do like to cite any source other than the one in question. — Gary M Washburn
as Plato makes plain (if you read him) — Gary M Washburn
And that is why those of us who actually read Plato describe Platonism as inverted Plato. — Gary M Washburn
If only you understood your issue you would see what a tragedy that is for you. — Gary M Washburn
No, not really. Precise (Narrowkiry) mathematical theories about infinitesimals have been around for some time now. For instance, we have the hyperreal numbers, who reckon infinitesimals in their ranks. And LEM doesn’t dogmatically exclude infinitesimals: a hyperreal number is either 0 or not 0, and infinitesimals are the latter. They are included in the Second: Not-Zero. — Tristan L
mouthly — Tristan L
Please stop referencing extraneous sources. Table stakes please! — Gary M Washburn
But, if I must, please read 'The Analyst', by George Berkeley. As a mathematical term, the infinitesimal is contradictory. George will explain, and with the advantage it is not just my opinion. — Gary M Washburn
What? That's not even English! — Gary M Washburn
Do you really think sources from almost a thousand years later can be credible witnesses of what Plato taught 'mouthly'? — Gary M Washburn
This is Plato's prime message, one that gets lost to those who, like yourself, demand to be in possession of your terms. — Gary M Washburn
You don't pay attention anyway, not even to your own assertions. — Gary M Washburn
all this 'from on high' nonsense — Gary M Washburn
This dogma is the basis for all cruelty in the world. — Gary M Washburn
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.