This is a topic by itself!Logic itself is the paradox. — Constance
Can you explain this please?It is because logic is a quantitative delimitation of anything it applies to. — Constance
I can see some truth in all this, esp. concerning "divisibility". However, I think that Zeno's "paradoxes" are much easier to explain --or rather, to reject: space and time are assumed to be discontinuous and thus divisible. Which is a fallacy. Space and time are continuous and thus indivisible. Neither of them has a start, middle or end. We can only divide them arbitrarily for description purposes. Thus, we get distances in space and periods in time. These serve to measure and compare things with each other.Zeno's paradox: Why do we think the arrow never should reach the target?
... The distances between the archer and the target are eternally divisible, but it is not the world that is divisible, it is the logic that imposes a principle on the world that says any given determinative distance is divisible, which is true, but in the world as an actuality, nothing is determined. Everything is indeterminate. — Constance
This is catastrophically false, but none of your co-respondents noticed nor cared, even though every single one of them is fully immersed in it, so.....you got off scot-free. Almost. — Mww
I agree with what you have written.
The question is why are geometry and reality very different
For me, the reason is that relations are foundational to our logic, yet relations have no ontological existence in the external world.
This explains why geometry and reality are very different, the world is alogical, language is self-referential, we live in epistemology and the world is utterly metaphysical.
If there was a more persuasive explanation why logic and reality are very different than because of the the nature of relations, then this would be of interest. — RussellA
Perhaps it is sufficient to know what pragmatically works. I turn the ignition key on my car and the engine starts. I don't need to know why the engine starts, all I need to know is that turning the key starts the car. Why not treat the external world as an empirical experience and not search for any sense beyond this. — RussellA
My belief is that logic and reality are very different because of the nature of their relations, and this I can justify. However, my justified belief that logic and reality are very different because of the nature of their relations can never be knowledge, as I can never have a true understanding of a reality that is relation-free using reasoning where relations are fundamental. — RussellA
This is a topic by itself!
Can you at least describe it shortly? — Alkis Piskas
It is because logic is a quantitative delimitation of anything it applies to.
— Constance
Can you explain this please? — Alkis Piskas
I can see some truth in all this, esp. concerning "divisibility". However, I think that Zeno's "paradoxes" are much easier to explain --or rather, to reject: space and time are assumed to be discontinuous and thus divisible. Which is a fallacy. Space and time are continuous and thus indivisible. Neither of them has a start, middle or end. We can only divide them arbitrarily for description purposes. Thus, we get distances in space and periods in time. These serve to measure and compare things with each other.
Every so-called "paradox" that based on a fallacy is a "pseudo-paradox". Zeno's are among them.
I can talk also about the remaining elements --God and Einstein's space time-- but that would overburden this post! — Alkis Piskas
Knowledge and belief can be indeed connected: what we believe as true --but it is not proven or established as fact-- can be proven to be true --always for us-- through reasoning (justification), experience or actual, physical proof. Then, it becomes knowledge, i.e. a fact. But only some of our knowledge is obtained in this way. We don't have to justify the fact that it is raining, that the price of tomatoes has risen, etc. So it would be better if one says "some" instead of "all "knowledge is justified belief".One way to look at it is to note that all knowledge is justified belief — Constance
There's a circularity and self-contradiction here ... It is as if we are asking what is the logic of the logic. The basic error in this question-statement is that logic cannot be justified or validated. Logic itself is a way of justifying and a proof of validity. Logic is reasoning based on principles of validity.justification is always presented in a logical form ... But where is the justification for logic's validity?" — Constance
Indeed! Nice that you brought this up! :up:You might find Kierkegaard's take on concept of time enlightening — Constance
If language is self referential, the there are two ways to think about this. ..................................One way says the world as the world is bound up with the ways we know it; ontology and epistemology cannot be separated and my coffee cup IS a coffee cup AS a bundled phenomenon. The idea of the cup is literally the cup-thing itself. So, I point to my cat, and the pointing, the concept, the predelineation of the past informing the present occasion as well as the anticipation of what the "future cat" will be, do, all of this is constitutive of the occurrent apperception of my cat. All of a piece. Any separation of parts would be an abstraction, which is fine because this is what analysis is, as long as we don't think analytically determined entities ae entities in their own right............................................. Another way is to understand that the knowledge that brings the palpable thing into understanding and familiarity is qualitatively distinct from the palpable thing. To me, this is a very strong and even profound claim. It is not about some noumena that is postulated but beyond sight and sound; it's about the palpable presence of the thing, and its being alien to the understanding, so their you are, confronting metaphysics directly. This is called mysticism. — Constance
Kant wrote in his Critique of the Power of Judgement : "We can only cognize objects that we can, in principle, intuit. Consequently, we can only cognize objects in space and time, appearances. We cannot cognize things in themselves". (A239). Foundational to all our understanding of what we observe is our innate understanding of space and time: "Space and time are merely the forms of our sensible intuition of objects. They are not beings that exist independently of our intuition (things in themselves), nor are they properties of, nor relations among, such beings". (A26, A33) — RussellA
It is not as if I expect you to see this and it does take work to familiarize yourself. But if all you read is science, you will never grasp phenomenology — Constance
It is not the case that we have certain intuitions and they happen to correspond with the world, rather, our intuitions were created by the world and therefore of necessity correspond with the world. Through the process of evolution the mind gradually models the world around it. If the model had not been correct, then the mind and body would not have survived. — RussellA
both these show the inherent limits to our understanding of the world, in that we will only ever be able to understand those aspects of the world for which we have an a priori ability to understand. — RussellA
Phenomenoa lay at the base of knowledge. — EugeneW
Theology is a firmer base of knowledge — EugeneW
the gods lay at the foundation of all there is. — EugeneW
Know the gods and you know the universe. — EugeneW
People can read about cosmology or theology. — EugeneW
If so, then heaven is as full of disturbing occurrences as the natural world, so why would I prefer one over the other? Why would there be copies anyway? — Mww
Your accounting, or sourced from secondary literature? — Mww
gods have power of creation. — EugeneW
So, if indeed it is the case that our perceptions and conceptions are solely the product of evolution, then why should there be any basis for trust in the independent capacity of reason to arrive at truth? — Wayfarer
Isn't confidence in reason justifiable because it is not solely dependent on biological evolution? — Wayfarer
In other words, to rationalise what we take to be true in terms of what is advantageous to survival, sells reason short - a very common tendency in modern philosophy. — Wayfarer
I mistakenly wrote in my post Critique of the Power of Judgement... — RussellA
I think it only wise to also refer to secondary sources (...) Don't you agree ? — RussellA
lifespan..............just wondering. — Mww
today we can explain Kant's "a priori" knowledge as innate knowledge, — RussellA
Perhaps they do — Mww
On the other hand, human understanding is obviously capable of conceiving an unconditioned possibility, and pure reason has the authority to establish an idea of its object — Mww
If for any reason that affirms an idea, there is an equally valid reason that negates it..... — Mww
And any thesis or proposition for which a definitive, non-contradictory judgement regarding the reality of its object is lacking, or ill-gotten, properly belongs to imagination — Mww
Perhaps they do
— Mww
For certain they do (have the power to create the universe). — EugeneW
If so, then human understanding is capable of perceiving — EugeneW
Pure reason is a fairytale. — EugeneW
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.