What dictionary, please? And what is the entire entry?And then telling me that my description --which I took from a dictionary of Ancient Greek language-- is not correct! — Alkis Piskas
I skimmed. The metaphysical basis of logic, as you say, and Wittgenstein: you know such an idea is an oxymoron in his thinking? — Constance
As to the tutorial, I found it a bit elementary. Not wrong, but a bit off the mark. Such discussion of perceptual knowledge relationships begs the question, what is knowledge? — Constance
Occam's Razor is god?Well then, the proof is in the pudding. Clarity simpliciter is not the issue here. It is clarity at the sacrifice of substance. The substance I have in mind is the final confrontation of philosophy whereby the world reveals it own inner militation against any thesis that would possess it. The simplicity here is the final simplicity, whereby one acknowledges that all along it is not the pursuit of conceptualization and its endless inventiveness that is sought by philosophy, but value, and here, not the endless valorization of novel amusements, but existential simplicity: the eternal present. Herein lies God. — Constance
Remember Wittgenstein in the Tractatus was adamant about stepping beyond what the rules of logic prohibited. — Constance
And he had much to say about the identification of simples. What is to count as a simple depends on what one is doing. There's a deep tendency for folk to choose this or that to be the ultimate simple - Logos, information, dialectic (@Pop); but any such choice will be relative to this or that activity - that language game.
So answering the question "what was at the beginning..." - the beginning of what? That'll tell us what game we are playing. — Banno
Here begins the world of informational structure. What came first - the thought or the physical structure that enabled it? How are these different? Can one exist without the other? — Pop
:100:What is to count as a simple depends on what one is doing. There's a deep tendency for folk to choose this or that to be the ultimate simple - Logos, information, dialectic ... but any such choice will be relative to this or that activity - that language game.
So answering the question "what was at the beginning..." - the beginning of what? That'll tell us what game we are playing. — Banno
I don't think you have derailed the thread. — Valentinus
I'll admit not seeing much in it at all. Saying "forms can be anything physical" doesn't ring with Wittgenstein's analysis. Saying that it's all interactions of forms doesn't clarify anything. Proscribing a definition of information as "the evolutionary interaction of form" simply looks confused. — Banno
So answering the question "what was at the beginning..." - the beginning of what? That'll tell us what game we are playing. — Banno
Wit did not have the benefit of any of the theories that I mention. So he could not go deeper than word games. — Pop
Seems to me you are just offering yet another game. — Banno
As I mentioned before, it has an almost religious fervour. Sure, it explains lots. That's not the same as explaining everything. That's the overreach. — Banno
Systems theory enables a view of the universe as an evolving articulation of systems...(and so on) — Pop
https://isideris.gr/?product=mega-lexikon-tis-ellinikis-glossisWhat dictionary, please? — tim wood
Good question. I'm guessing they mostly run on emotion. Their memory is emotional instead of intellectual. — frank
Why must you concoct such odd solutions to the question of how goats remember? My dog's behavior (and my cat's and my chickens to some degree) all exhibit behaviors strikingly similar to memory based behavior that I see in those with language. — Hanover
If the roof collapses one day on their head, it'll probably be some time before they go back in, having remembered the time they got bumped on the head. — Hanover
We assume goats are doing something extra, that involves some sense of self even if mostly unanalyzed. — frank
. It seems you're trying to sustain some language based intelligence philosophy and are willing to bend your observations for that. — Hanover
But to talk about possibility of impossibility points first to the "'words or logic" that constructs concepts like possibility and impossibility. Perfect relation? What is this if not a language construction? Absolute interconnectedness in the logos? What is this if not a logical interconnectedness? That is, the "saying" is always analytically first.The Greek ‘logos’ as presupposed by a beginning has precedence. Yet the ultimate in logos means not just ‘word’ or ‘logic’ - it points to the possibility/impossibility of experiencing the perfect relation or absolute interconnectedness (omniscience). And logos is not alone. — Possibility
What else is presupposed by a beginning? Aristotle refers to logos alongside ethos and pathos in terms of one’s capacity or potential to persuade. Except an ultimate notion of ethos is not just about character, but points to the possibility/impossibility of achieving quality, or excellence (omnibenevolence) through distinction. And the ultimate in pathos is not just about feeling or motivation, but points to the possibility/impossibility of tapping into an infinite source of energy (omnipotence). — Possibility
It is at the intersection of these possibilities/impossibilities of absolute, infinite perfection, which both limit and are contingent upon each other, that we find a beginning, the origin of ideas and meaning, to potential and value, and from there to events and ‘beginnings’. No relation, however perfect, could even exist without experience: the possibility of energy source differentiated by quality. And no source of energy, however infinite, is even useful without identity: the possibility of distinguishing the quality of proper relations. And finally, there can be no distinction of excellence or quality without the fundamental laws of physics: the possibility of ideal relation in the use of energy. And vice versa. — Possibility
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.