Silent philosophy is a philosophy where the underlying truth of an inanimate substance gives birth to a new sense of life within man. — Mohammad Asaduzzaman Chowdhury
Laozi said that, so I guess he doesn't know? — Daemon
Laozi said that, so I guess he doesn't know? — Daemon
Its a lousy (Laozi) statement after all! I'm sorry, I couldn't resist the pun — Philosophim
Does saying something deny it its own validity at a certain level of understanding? — Constance
Does saying something establish its own validity at a certain level of understanding? I think they call that begging the question, eh? — Garrett Travers
To speak is to imply that which you speak of can be spoken (nothing you can sing that can't be sung, sort of thing). — Constance
One cannot "say" an apple, rather, one speaks about it, contextualizes it, and without a context, it is not an apple at all. — Constance
Nor is it a sensory field's impressions — Constance
aggregation of atoms. — Constance
Nor is it even "there" (where is there if not contextualized against a "here"?). — Constance
So there is something very interesting about our being able to on the one hand have our understanding bound to language and logic, and on the other, apprehend the world not-as-language. — Constance
Of course, my not-as-language utterance is itself a performative contradiction. — Constance
Or is it? Perhaps in speaking about that which cannot be spoken I am not speaking "it" at all. But I am speaking "around it," "pointing" to it. — Constance
Question begging? How would this problem be cast as QB? — Constance
to say the true tao cannot be spoken assumes that it CAN be spoken — Constance
and so this is an unproved assumption because it is unprovable, and it is unprovable because it is a contradiction. — Constance
All philosophy is question begging, eventually, down the road of explaining what is meant. — Constance
But then, this is true of all claims whatever, as well. I say the bank is across the street, but can I give a determinative account of what "across from" means? — Constance
It is a spatial designation that has to be in space somewhere, but being in space somewhere is always indeterminate for space itself is indeterminate. — Constance
Apple is a symbolic representation of a coherent enough amount of data accrual on a given percept, or group of perceptions reinforced by emotional valence and correspondence. This is a cognitive process. The "apple" is an abstraction from genuinely accrued data on the part of the brain. The existence of the apple presupposes its capacity for perception in conscious beings. In other words, your premises are correct, but your conclusion is wrong. It is the exact opposite. — Garrett Travers
That's exactly what it is, if by sensory field impression you mean the brain accruing data through the use of its plethor of instruments designed by nature to do so. — Garrett Travers
Everything in the macroscopic realm is an aggregate of atoms of varying types, irrespective of experience or knowledge. — Garrett Travers
Where is defined by relativity, which also does not require conscious recognition, but only an individual domain of influence as a result of its existence in relation to other phenomena across time and space. An atom is defined in space by its relation to other atoms in a given domain, with or without your recognition of such. — Garrett Travers
No, it's just a conceptual tool, like math, used to validate correspondence and build coherence. "Cup" is a symbolic mapping of a perceived objective phenomenon to an applicable/actionable group of potential behaviors. The more applicable/actionable that potential behavior becomes, the more coherence is built around that original conclusion established via correspondence. — Garrett Travers
No, it is your brain exploring an idea for applicable/actionable actions associated with your current perceptual understanding of such an abstraction. It isn't performative, you aren't pretending to explore this, I am witnessing you explore it. Exploration is a data accrual function of the brain, not performance. Performance would be you showing me what you can accomplish as a result of the framework you've built through that data accruing exploration. See what I'm saying? — Garrett Travers
See? Exploration, not performance. Perhaps "that which cannot be spoken" is itself a conceptual framework worth exploring for validity that is clearly not established with a feasible amount of coherence, eh?
"Is it?" "Perhaps?" "it." "around it." "pointing." All expressions of exploration on a currently incoherent concept in your brain. Perhaps, you've already demonstrated to yourself that you are capable of speaking on any given topic. That's a cool idea to play with. — Garrett Travers
Yes, if it is in fact true. But, the truth of tao cannot be assumed to reach a conclusion, as that beggs the question: how do you know the tao is true? And if the truth of tao is already assumed, then so is its objective nature relative to reality. Cool how logic works. — Garrett Travers
Bingo. One thing you'll learn about valid propositional logic, that are also true, is that they are tautological in nature, and cannot be true without such. Here's where things get real fun. For example, A=A is a tautology, meaning it is unfuckwithably true. However, it is also begging the question, thus it is a logical fallacy. Objective reality is arranged in a self-evident manner, logically, as well as functionally. The key is to identify emergent characteristics of reality through induction. — Garrett Travers
All real philosophy is. The fake philosophers would have you believe that reality is a misapprehension, that logic outweighs factual emergence, and that you aren't capable of deriving an ethical code of morality from the facts of that reality within which you exist. I exist to demolish these false conceptions where ever, and whenever I encounter them outside of individual exploration for the sake of exploration itself. — Garrett Travers
You think accurately, friend. The position of that bank doesn't give a shit about whether or not you can mathematically, or linguistically prove its position and existence, it stands there to mock any attempt you may fail at to attempt to do so by declaring itself to your lying eyes. — Garrett Travers
Indeterminate as a premise, does not follow to the conclusion that spatio-temporal existence is to be negated. That would be a fallacy from ignorance. It is basically making an argument that is predicated on no clear premise, which does not produce a tautology characteristic of that which is true in terms of logic, or induction. — Garrett Travers
I apologize in advance for all the writing. — Constance
I claim that this is also a way to deal with the Toa that cannot be spoken. — Constance
No. I am saying that in order to talk about brains and sensory fields one does this through language, and so before empirical science even begins, there is this presupposition of language. — Constance
Of course it is. But then, philosophy proper goes beneath this, into the world of assumptions talk about atoms works through. — Constance
There is this game deconstructionists play that gets very childish sometimes; it is the "what's that" game, the point of which is simply to show how language can only refer to other language. — Constance
The trick, if you will, is to bring the understanding OUT of the language that is used to talk about things. Turns out that this cannot be done because the things one is trying tot talk about are, as things, of-a-piece with the language, and language is this historical phenomenon, its "paradigms" in constant play. — Constance
We can talk about it, obviously, but the "presence" of pain as a actuality transcends the spoken possibility. — Constance
This, I would add just to make matters worse, is why I am a moral realist: the pain of this affair intuitively speaks through moral language. (A tough issue, granted). — Constance
Note this: when we talk about brains, observe actual brains and study them, the perceptual/cognitive that in the very act of gathering data is itself as opaque as an object can be: a brain. Brains talking about brains? Nothing could be more question begging that this. — Constance
Without a feasible amount of coherence. Right you are. This is the way scientist would talk, along the lines of, We are on the cutting edge of discovery and our collective paradigms ("conceptual frameworks") are realizing something true about the world.
I agree with science. But science does not address its own preconceptions. I cannot, and its not its job. — Constance
Yeah, I get this. Wittgenstein said this, and I took logic courses once upon a time. The question begged is, of course, why should I believe tautologies? — Constance
logic cannot determine its own generative source, for it would take an act of logic to do so. — Constance
He, like Kant, condemned thought to its own devices, and this is absolutely right, but it is also rather vacuous since it says nothing at all about content. — Constance
Taoist "truth" is not propositional. — Constance
The Taoists are just telling us to shut up and stop interpreting because your are missing something in the presence of Being. — Constance
Not sure what fake philosophies you have in mind. — Constance
If you are a physicist and tell me you are making discoveries about the nature of reality in, say, string theory, I will nod in appreciation. — Constance
Good common sense. I use this common sense 24/7. Then I think about what common sense stands on and things become problems. That's life. — Constance
Negated? No. Not this. Recontextualized. When is an atom not an atom? When I am not talking about atoms, but something else that makes talk about atoms irrelevant. Meanings are bound to the ways we talk about things. — Constance
This conclusion is the result of us only recently understanding that all of our actions are computationally informed by senory data accrual and assessment as conducted by the brain through its functions. Everything you said leading to this is the result of numerous years of data collection building conceptual frameworks through which you navigate reality. The Tao, in other words, is not something you are designed to speak about, but to explore experientially and build waysto speak about,including speaking itself. — Garrett Travers
That flies in the face of the fact that humans produced langauge as the result of experiencing reality over vast swathes of time and determining for themselves that having reliable communications between in-group members maximized homeostasis and well-being. So, langauge generation is in fact a form of primitive empirical scientific development. Langauge is presupposed by a reality that requires the necessity of its development on the part of conscious individuals who have determined its utility through inductive data accrual. — Garrett Travers
Not this philosopher, not until it is clear that something beneath reality, or above it exists. If your philosophical explorations are not correspondent with reality, then they are useless, irrespective of how much coherence you build around themlogically, theoretically, or linguistically; just ask the string theorists, whose theory has now been dispensed with by the scientific community for just that reason. — Garrett Travers
All one has to do in response to this type of gaslighting nonsense, is repeat the question back to them until they answer the question themselves. And then explain to them that "that," is a word used to describe a self-evident fact of reality that can be used to achieve greater outcomes in association with one's self-directed goals. You'll not be hearing anymore of that shit from them thereafter. — Garrett Travers
A fair point, as far as general perception, but not 100% accurate. The things is itself so. The sun does not require your explanation. It stands in defiance the human concept of "what for?" Becuase it says so, that's why, and such is logically the case with all objective phenomena, and all logical validity. A=A, tautologically, and it does not care that such does not make sense to anyone. — Garrett Travers
The presence of pain is the production of the exact same computational system that produces consciousness, and thereby all known concepts in the universe used to navigate it: the human brain. It doesn't transcend it, it IS it, just as language is thought, or consciousness, or desire. It is all the same system of systems, producing these phenomena in accordance with the data retrieved from the reality within which it exists, and existing in unrivaled sophistication and complexity as realities greatest known productive achievement. — Garrett Travers
Again, this is why saying "philosophy looks to presuppositions for possibility," is inaccurate. Logical analysis is only a singular framework by which to navigate the truth of reality, and oddly enough, do you know what reveals to us? I'll show you:
If P then Q
P
_________
therefore Q
All logically valid propositions are distinguished a tautology of true premises, leading to a true conclusion. Logic itself demonstrates that reality and truth are of themselves so. A=A is both factually correct, and logically fallacious. Brains think because they do. Evolution created species because it did. You and I are speaking online because we chose to. Speaker speaking about speaking??? See how that line of inquiry doesn't make sense when you think about it? — Garrett Travers
That's why you don't expect such a thing. What I expect science to do is reveal to me through inductive art the nature of the reality that is self-emergent. It has done this marvellously from a full perspective of the scope of the art. — Garrett Travers
Because the logical framework developed to determine what tautologies were are exactly the framework with which you asked the question. Furthermore, because such a property is an intrinsic characteristic of that which exists. However, belief is just a concept itself. You will be made to accept reality, irrespective of whether or not you believe it, and it will tautologically dominate your every thought and motion. — Garrett Travers
Logic is itself a, self-generated concept. It cannot be expected to account for self-emergence. By proxy, because nature is self-generated, it is also impossible to understand it from within itself as a conscious observer created by it, to develop a way in which to break this universal law. Thus, exploration is the only path open to us for answers on anything. — Garrett Travers
Common sense is not what is useful. That concept has been behind the justification of many, many things that were either incorrect, or evil. Reason is your tool. Common sense is an ambiguous term that means nothing and is often employed by people to insult you. — Garrett Travers
The sun is not the sun without explanation, I mean, without the language that says, there is the sun. — Constance
It's this "what it IS" dimension is a language affair. I think you don't appreciate this as much as you should. — Constance
And this brain talk has to stop. — Constance
You think that thought is produced by the brain, but in order to conceive if this, the thinking comes first. — Constance
This is worst possible case of question begging one can even imagine. — Constance
That there is is obvious. The problem is when you try to reduce the latter to the forme — Constance
Analysis reveals it is the other way around: the concept of a brain is FIRST conceived, then applied interpretatively to that three and a half pound mass. No thought, no talk at all of brains, mass, neurons and axons. — Constance
Also, just try the opacity test: consider that the only access to a brain is "through" a brain, and a brain is NOT a mirror of nature, at all. (Rorty wrote a book denying this). It is as opaque as a fence post,or a rock.
Having said that (which will resist your every attempt to deny it) we do have to deal with the apparent "sight" we have of affairs around us. Alas, this will not go well for science. — Constance
Logic demonstrates reality and truth are OF themselves? — Constance
Truth is propositional. — Constance
Only propositions can be true of false, strictly speaking. — Constance
Why logically fallacious and what has this to do with it? — Constance
Saying brains think because they do is simply ignoring the problem stated above. Evolution? this is an empirical theory. Quite respectable, of course, but irrelevant. Philosophy is not an empirical science. It examines the presuppositions of science. — Constance
Evolution? this is an empirical theory. Quite respectable, of course, but irrelevant. Philosophy is not an empirical science. It examines the presuppositions of science. — Constance
Language is an interpretative medium, and even as I write these words, I am working within a framework of meaning that is OPEN. — Constance
Language is not a closed system; think of all we do and say as Thomas Kuhn thought about science: paradigms are inherently open, waiting for revision, and their is no finality to this, no Hegelian God at the end ot this process; or, if there is, it would take a God to finalize for what is "final" would have to reveal eternity itself).
Truth is Made, not discovered (This IS the pragmatist's pov.). — Constance
Self emergent? But how do we characterize what is emergent? — Constance
Saying something is an emergent affair is still dealing with an intuitive givenness which is what is presented. If you're a pragmatist, you are still going have accept that the calling something emergent is merely a pragmatic construct. — Constance
dealing with that which is foundational, or better, as foundational as possible. — Constance
You seem to think that because thought is a rule governed activity, our affairs in the world can produce nothing but tautologies. — Constance
If my every thought and motion is tautologically dominated, then so what? — Constance
It is not the case that there is such a thing as logic. There are no actual conditional propositions, e.g. This is just a token of speech. — Constance
You had me to this point right here. The sun is undefined as an entity that plays a specific role in the universe with or without observation? This, simply, is not, and will never the case. The sun is not the word, or the group of characteristics we have used to build coherence around the word used for its identification, but is most certainly itself so, and of itself so; and will likely outlast human existence, just as it preceded it. — Garrett Travers
No, I dismiss it as I aught to, as it is a fallacy of reduction. What "IS" is beyond langauge, or any language affair, even if it has a linguistic dimension for us to analyze, it is not confined to it. If one claims it is a dimension of assessment, you have an ally in me. If one fallaciously claims that it IS a language affair, then I'm gonna have to remind you that language was use to identify what IS as a self-evident IS in the universe before we came along. And IS, more accurately, is an entity in a vast number of systems that are also not linguistically dependent or confined. And that such an assertion is also a reductionist fallacy. — Garrett Travers
Hmm. Um, No. That's exactly the kind of thing that someone who didn't want to venture into objective territory in philosophy would say: "This talk of established neuroscience has to stop."
Not just no, dude. Fuck no. If dismissing science is what you'd like to do, then go talk to a mystic — Garrett Travers
Nope, no evidence suggests this. And boy, did I get the feeling you were going in this direction with your ambiguous rambling about nothing. You are not correct. Thinking is not something that comes before the production of thoughts by the brain that produces them via the most complex data computational networks in the known universe. Such an assertion isn't even entertained in neuroscience, it's absolutely laughable. Disregard of known science fallacy, and a bad one. — Garrett Travers
You lost me at "it is most certainly itself so" I'm beginning to suspect you haven't read Kant. — Constance
You're objections, all of the, are simply based on this kind of thinking being so unfamiliar. You have never turned your analytical gaze to the intuitive foundations of science. — Constance
But as I recall you were amenable to the suggestion that objects in the word were a synthesis of intuition and concept (this is Kant). — Constance
Before "we" came along? What could this be about? — Constance
What would Thomas Kuhn say about this? Before we came along, people lived in a paradigm of belief. Paradigms are evolving dispositions to believe. These have no grounding in some absolute about the universe that labels things according to the way we believe. Our beliefs rise up and address the universe up in historical paradigmatic terms, and work to deal with it. — Constance
"Dealing with it" is pragmatic — Constance
But the basic pragmatic attitude never asked foundational ontological and epistemic questions until "WE" came along. THAT was paradigm shift. — Constance
If my understanding is essentially pragmatic, just taking up what is there, familiar, and making food and shelter and eventually making surgical needles and cell phones, does this exhaust an account of what is real? — Constance
This is where thinking takes a turn, asking questions like this. The quest for the nature of what is real, what exists, what being IS, is philosophy. — Constance
Science does not explore the intuitive foundation of being in the world. It only deploys paradigms that are grounded in utility and familiarity. — Constance
Principle of philosophy's prerogatives is ethics. Science has no interest in ethics for a very good reason. It cannot examine ethics empirically. — Constance
It is not dismissing science, as I said, Science is fine; we love science. It is merely realizing that there are questions that do not belong to the domain of inquiry of empirical science. — Constance
Einstein would tell you this. — Constance
But neuroscience is an empirical account. Of course, we "see" the brain there on table. But explain how this works. What are you seeing when you "see"? How are you, in the familiar language of material science, NOT seeing just neurobiological entities? — Constance
How are you, in the familiar language of material science, NOT seeing just neurobiological entities? — Constance
Think hard about the opacity of the brain and ask yourself simply this question: how does anything out there (on the material model of the world, something Neil DeGrasse Tyson would accept) get in here (pointing to your head)? You can ignore this question, but note that the term 'ignore' is the grammatical basis of ignorance. This is the kind of thing the church did to early scientists. — Constance
Cute. Kant's philosophies are immoral and I wish nothing to do with them. Of course I've read, I reject him. And the sun is of itself so, irrespective of if you've been lost, that was clear when you said brains don't produce thoughts. It is not deniable that the sun is of itself extant in accordance with the strictures of reality, just like every other star, in all of the billions of galaxies, also of themselves so and universally present long before we discovered them. But, you can't keep asserting as much while the plants photosynthesize inspite of such non-arguments. — Garrett Travers
No, it's quite the opposite. Their based on the ideas being familiar, and being rejected because they aren't correct. And don't bring up science as a standard, you were just called out for disregarding known science, that's not something you care about. It's in writing above numerous time, anybody can read it. — Garrett Travers
No, they are amenble in the world as data integration and concept generation to embody behavior in association with them. Very different, more scientifically consistent idea. — Garrett Travers
The human species. There's about 3.5 billion years of biological history, and about 2-300k years of human. That definitively ends your reality synthesis, Kantian mysticism that never made sense to begin with, and was predicated on Christian influence, which isn't philosophy. But, you know that. — Garrett Travers
Very true, about the most reasonable thing you've said so far. Paradigms of belief, just like logical validity, in no way imply knowledge of truth, systems of accurately accruing said knowledge, implementing it, or any other rational metric along which we could analyze such a thing. In fact, as Kuhn has mentioned, it is exactly the paradigms themselves, and the cultures they generate - which is actually what that was all about - that inhibit scientific progress, in the same way and for the same reason they inhibit philosophical progress, which science is a direct derivation of. — Garrett Travers
No, it isn't. Dealing with it has 'a' pragmatic element, it is not exclusively relegated to such a label, as your post-modernist teaching would have you attempt. Meaning, you are only 1% correct about this assertion, as you have done yourself in by another reduction fallacy. You'll understand in time. — Garrett Travers
I don't have any issue with this assertion. However, there is no conclusion actually implied by the truth of it that is relegated to a single aspect of viewing the very complex manner in which humans accrue data, and generate concepts for better navigation of the world within which they are suspended. Broaden your analysis. — Garrett Travers
The reason why this seems strange to you, is because you are concluding with just "Pragmatic" as an essential. You're not an automaton, there is nothing simply pragmatic about you, or any other human to ever exist, or any other system to ever exists. That's what's messing you up, fellow. And no, there's no such thing as exhausting the account of what is real. You are talking about complexity beyond human reckoning. Complexity of which can be shown to be astronimcal, exponential, adaptive, self-contained, and self-emergent. — Garrett Travers
Which is absolutely brilliant, I love the process myself. I'm fully committed to it. But, if you are really thinking, which is self-contained to your brain and senses, which can be used to verify things, and matter how many people we get on the subject, how many advanced tools we build to investigate, the only evidence that emerges as existent is that of material entities and systems, operating under universally understood pretenses, and arranging themselves in ways most closely approximating homeostasis; if that's the case, which it is, then thinking beyond the point of verification, or potential verification that one may strive for, is NOT philosophy, it is mysticism. — Garrett Travers
There's truth here, but it does attempt to get to the bottom of things. The greatest piece of art in human history was designed for exactly that reason, the LHC. The problem there is, if the univeres is tauological in it's nature of emergent truth, which it is, the odds of us being able to break that universally set paradigm may be out of our reach, as a stricture of reality, which so far has proven to be the case. So, we'll have to go from there. That being said, no amount of mystery can, or will ever be an argument for a reality that hasn't been observed, understood, philosophically explored with both correspondence and coherence together, and applicable utiliized. That's all there is to that. — Garrett Travers
Again with the reduction. It's fucking up your entire worldview, man, no kidding. NO, not true at all. The person that posited the idea of empirically, rationally investigating reality, as an ethical code, to avoid fear of bullshit mysticism, was in fact, not just a philosopher, but the philosopher whose legacy brought us out of mystic science, and into empiricism. That would be none other than Epicurus, to whom humanity in it's current form, owes so much to. Science, inductive investigation, was FOUNDED as ethics, my friend. You seriously need to take your training to this point, stash it away, and begin investigating where philosophy really comes from, and why Plato and Aristotle were miserable failures in practice in competition with Epicureanism, just as Christianity was. Problem there is, mysticism has this way of murdering those it can't take in open intellectual combat. — Garrett Travers
Then never say to me, or anyone elseif you desire this statement to EVER be taken seriously, that I need to stop incorporating it into my philosophical analysis, which is exactly what you did, and was in fact a disregard of science that I will let slide this one and only time, as you seem to be willing to correct yourself. — Garrett Travers
Empiricism is a philosophical tradition. It works in a vast network of highly complex, evolutionarily evolved organic systems of computation and control by way of elctromagnetic and chemical interactions that it is self-emergently designed to conduct to achieve homeostasis of the body its body. It happens to be the most complex system in the known universe. Here's a good source to start with, plenty more where that comes from too. What one is seeing are computational representations of data accrued through evolutionarily designed means of perception that correspond to objectively existential elements of reality that have developed as the result of achieving greater and greater homeostasis as a species in accordance with environmental and sexually mutative pressures placed on the species through the course of 3.5 billion fucking years of the most intense system generating and destroying crucible fathomable to ultimately give rise to a brain powerful enough to ask just that very question you did before receiving just this very answer from a being just like that individually represents that which is constituted as the Pinnacle Predator of this world, respectively: The Human Being. — Garrett Travers
More reduction reduction reduction. There's no such fucking thing as "Just," and damn sure not in regards to biological systems of such complexity and sophistication as to be incomprehensible. You're not going to get away with this kind of statement with me. Broaden. Your. Analysis. For your own sake. — Garrett Travers
So what? That's the truth of things is so what. Nothing more. And any attempt to derail this conversation from this recognition on your part is going to be met with swift opposition. — Garrett Travers
You have to show how one gets "out" of the brain to a perspective that is independent of the brain to affirm brains as a scientist would desire — Constance
logic cannot explain its own generative source, for it would require logic to do this. Question begging. — Constance
It is about a reduction of mind to this. — Constance
If mind were reducible to brain activity, then all that is in the mind is localized in the brain. Period. — Constance
But you know Kant?? Well then how do you solve the issue of synthetic apriority? — Constance
I haven't once disregarded science. I claim you have done this. See the above. And see the latter part of what I wrote: The difference here is between science on the one hand, and the intuitive foundation of science on the other. These are not the same kinds of inquiry. — Constance
Remember, Kuhn was a Kantian. "Accurately accruing" begs the question, obviously. What is accurate apart context, and what is contextual in science? The rational metric you need to discover is called phenomenology. Again, you are working in a set of values that ignore foundational matters. — Constance
I agree with some of this, though being an automaton is off the mark; it's not about human freedom. — Constance
You think the inexhaustible nature of what stands before an inquirer lies in the extension of science's paradigms into a future of evolving thinking. — Constance
I am telling you that in order to grasp what is before the inquirer that eludes science foundationally is already there, at hand, in the world, and to access this and realize the dimensions of its epistemic possibilities, you have to perform the Husserlian reduction to acknowledge the intuitive ground of all things. — Constance
No, I don't think it is self contained in my brain. — Constance
I put that out there to demonstrate a reductio ad absurdum that issues from the assumption of materialism. — Constance
You see, you cannot produce meaningful knowledge claims out of this. — Constance
And I love science. But when I say it is not philosophy. See where I've said this many times. Mysticism?? and Kant is immoral, and...you can't talk like this and call yourself reasonable informed person. — Constance
Wittgenstein said something close to this, one could argue, when he said that all facts are states of affairs constrained by logical structures. He has been, on this, considered a phenomenologist and a Kantian of sorts. — Constance
Apart from this it is bewildering. Unless you refer to the hypothetical deductive method which looks at possibilities for future discovery to be deductively predelineated: all there is to discover is possessed by what is known by analytic discovery. Analytic philosophers seem to hold something like this. But that ship has sailed, wrecked and sunk to the bottom of the sea. — Constance
My views here are about metaethics, and if you think Derrida is not plausible, because you haven't read him, then metaethics will send you screaming. — Constance
First, you have to read G E Moore's Ethica Principia, then Wittgenstein's Lecture on Ethics, and parts of his Nature and Culture, then John Mackie, then of course, Heiddgger, then Levinas. Look, you're not equipped for this. And put mysticism out of your mind. this is just a pejorative reaction you have to unfamiliar thinking. You work from a position of deficit: you really don't understand anything that is being put before you. — Constance
See my comments on the distinction between doing science and bringing inquiry to bear on the intuitive foundation that science presupposes. Don't just ignore this. And you don't have a philosophical analysis. Not yet, anyway. You have to make that qualitative leap into philosophy. — Constance
When I say philosophy is radically different from this, you have to at least be curious. — Constance
Physics is subsumed under philosophy in just this way. But such is the way of impertinence. — Constance
When an interlocutor starts using fuck a lot, it means s/he's exasperated, which compromises objectivity. There is only on e reduction that makes the qualitative difference: the phenomenological reduction, or "epoche" of Husserl. You don't know what this is and this is the reason why you can't even begin to make sense of any of this. You have my sympathies, but then, it is up to you to find out. — Constance
I mean, how is it tautological? I don't say that it's not, I just want you to explain it since there is more than one way to understand it. Ethics has it s existential grounding in something that is not tautological, e.g. — Constance
And logic doesn't need to do so, as it is a concept generated by a self-perpetuating, and concept generating brain. And again, A=A. It does not matter if our methods do not know how to square that, it is already the case. Question begging is only applicable to non-correspondent claims of truth. Correspondent claims are not subject to our need for an answer to "why?" And never will be. — Garrett Travers
you have still not explained what you think the mind is if it isn't a function of the brain. — Garrett Travers
This is correct as far as any known evidence has ever been concerned. — Garrett Travers
I don't regard it as an issue. It is propositional, and all propositions are created by words that are created and coherently understood before being placed in the proposition. Synthetic a priori is a mental distraction from a non-problem. "Some items are heavy." Every one of these words means something understood by all people in experiencial or emotional valence before being placed in the proposition. Let me demonstrate: Some x are X. See how that doesn't meaning, or truth value corresponding to anything with out the x values. Ah, except where the other words that are presnt have meaning. So, SOME x ARE, in fact, X. "Some are" has meaning, because they had meaning before being placed in the proposition. — Garrett Travers
Notice how this isn't any form of argument? It's the rational metric being removed from phenomenology in accordance with modern neuroscience which is the issue. The brain accrues data, data that is used to navigate the world in pursuit of its basic function of achieving and maintaining homeostasis. If that isn't where you start from phenomenological as regards thought, you aren't using a rational metric, you're using dogma. — Garrett Travers
The concept of a brain is itself an empirical concept, and empirical concepts like brains and beetles do not constitute a basis for tautological reasoning. — Constance
I can accept this, generally, there's definitely some stuff there worth checking out. But, no, Kant and Decartes beneath me. There's nothing they have posited that I can't dispense with in seconds using empiricism. You have to provide me either examples of something I have to deal wih from them, or provide some other contenders, Gassendi dispensed with both during the Enlightment, anyway. Probably didn't hear about him because of the mysticism.Brains are "accidents" meaning they don't have to be by design of logic, and with analyticity (though there is that paper by Quine that denies even analytic propositions are true that because different terms are not identical. In fact, the notion of identity itself suffers from this). You will have to deal with Descartes then Kant on this. — Constance
A=A does not get you anything. You're thinking on this doesn't really count as thinking. — Constance
THAT would be an massive post. — Constance
how does anything out there get in here? — Constance
We experience a world, not a brain. On that we agree. — Constance
But how can there be an explanatory basis for this? You will have exceed the limitations of the positing of a brain as the sole material counterpart to the phenomenal world we experience. — Constance
There is my cat on the sofa. I know this. Now, explain the epistemic relation. — Constance
Well, that is ...entirely not Kant. The Kantian matter has to do with the apriority of judgments made about the world of objects. How is this possible, he asks, that I know objects in space to conform to the laws of geometry, which are apriori, when understanding about the world only yields aposteriori affirmations.
You don't know what this is about do you. — Constance
This would require judgment and content. Phenomenology does not conceive of the world with the same content. It looks, rather, to the broad intuitive field of "givenness" that goes unexamined in scientific work. — Constance
Time is an essential past present and future of the given moment in which the perception occurs. I see my cat, but this is not a perception simpliciter, but an apperception whereby the past issues forth content that entirely qualifies the future anticipation; but then this future looking event is never past nor future as the past presents itself as an adumbration of what was past and the future a present anticipation. — Constance
Certainly, the analysis here suggests that there is only one palpable account of time, and this is a "present" givenness. Simply put, past and future are never experienced, only their vestigial remains in the one timeless reality, which is the timeless present. This has a long history called nunc stans. Absolutely fascinating the way this works if you read through the literature. — Constance
This is something close to what Wittgenstein picked up from Kierkegaard and Augustine. Read his Tractatus. — Constance
Look, you don't read philosophy, and you don't have a clue about any of this. Why bother pretending you do? Just give it a rest. Phenomenology takes a lot of work. In the beginning nobody gets it.
I'm out, really. :smile: — Constance
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.