hmm... odd thought here.

If I'm not mistaken the notion of creating or making something (act of creation) is bound by the standards of either the temporal or spatial (of course it could be both).

Is it just me or does it seem odd to suggest that omnipotence is bound by the same set of constraints of the temporal and spatial?

If indeed omnipotence is not bound by standards of the temporal and spatial, yet the act of creation is indeed bound by them would this be an indication that:

a) when discussing omnipotence the standards of temporal and spatial prove omnipotence as wrong?
b) when discussing omnipotence the standards of temporal and spatial play no role and prove nothing?
c) something else

Oh... and somethng else...

If indeed omnipotence is not bound by the standards of temporal and spatial, yet there seems to be a conflict in our perception of omnipotence not being able to hold it's end up against this standard of measure which is the case:

a) omnipotence is at fault as it just cannot hold up to the standard of measure binding it to the temporal and spatial?
b) the fault has to do with our inability to have a standard of measure that is not bound by temporal and spatial norms (implying perhaps that all language/experience is bound in the context of temporal and spatial standards); thus the fault here is due to our inability to coherently (or consistantly) speak of omnipotence?
c) something else

How does one speak of omnipotence in a coherent manner with language that is itself bound by a standard of measure that omnipotence should theoretically not share as a constraint?

On a side note...

The act of creation is cause/effect.
Omnipotence, it seems, would/should include omnipresence; thus cause/effect in the face of omnipotence loses any and all meaning?

Perhaps this is all but a race to the pot at the end of the ranbow filled up with gold pins and we somehow feel counting the number of angels who sit atop those gold pins grants or denies credence to the entire folly?

Meow!

G

That would make Mike Pence President and Nancy Pelosi Vice President. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Hey Sis!

That would not make Nancy Pelosi VP.

In the event of a resignation or impeachment, the current VP Pence would become President and he would nominate his own VP.

Nancy would not be acting in the place of the VP at all. She'd only become President if Pence cannot do the role. Even during the time that ther is no VP in place, she still would not be VP, but would only be the next in line to be President if something would happen to Pence and there was no current VP.

In short, Pelosi would not become VP unless Pence nominates her to the position.

Here's how it works:

Presidential Succession:

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 6, Constitution of the United States: In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

In the case that the president can no longer serve, the vice president would serve as president.
If the vice president cannot serve, the line of succession falls to the speaker of the House, then to the Senate president pro tempore, then to Cabinet members.

The Cabinet line of succession is:

1. Secretary of State
2. Secretary of the Treasury
3. Secretary of Defense
4. Attorney General
5. Secretary of the Interior
6. Secretary of Agriculture
7. Secretary of Commerce
8. Secretary of Labor
9. Secretary of Health and Human Services
10. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
11. Secretary of Transportation
12. Secretary of Energy
13. Secretary of Education
14. Secretary of Veterans Affairs
15. Secretary of Homeland Security
The 25th Amendment allows the vice president to serve as acting president temporarily in the case that the president is ill or otherwise temporarily unable to fulfill his or her official duties.


This is the current line of sucession at the moment (things seems to change so quickly this could be out of date as I write this): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession#Current_order

btw... The office of VP was listed as vacant from October 10 – December 6, 1973 until Gerald Ford nominating Nelson Rockefeller as VP.

Meow!

G

As far as I know the laws of logic, the rules of syllogisms, an introduction in deduction and induction are not taught in primary school, and because of this I think a lot of people don't know how to reason or use logic well. — Josh Alfred

Just imagine how different things would be if indeed these were taught and we included an understanding of logical fallacies (such as argumentum ad passiones or hasty generalizations)?

I somehow think Facebook and Reddit would be far less of an addictive frustrating entertainment. ;)

Meow!

G

While I'm thinking of it you can also use Venn Diagrams in the effort to illustrate and validate (also defend - defeat) Categorical Syllogisms. https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/syll_venn.html

Meow!

G

So basically it sounds as if you are concered with how we have such things as Modus ponens and other valid arguments (inference)?

If so, in this case I'd say you can use a truth table to justify it.

Modus ponens p → q



The other rules of inference follow that same sort of means of validation. It's not all too difficult to justify them as reliable tools with which one can infer conclusions and such. Perhaps the application of these tools of logic is another kettle of fish.

Meow!

G

My question for you is: can we be certain that the laws of logic are valid? — Towers

As BrianW stated above:

What do you mean by logic?

It has various incarnations such as:

Syllogistic logic
Propositional logic
Predicate logic
Modal logic
Informal reasoning and dialectic
Mathematical logic
Philosophical logic
Computational logic
Non-classical logic

I find it a bit difficult to handle each of these fields of logic as a one size fits all general notion called logic.

Meow!

G

Interesting application of CORNEA.

I usually see it associated with the "problem of evil" in term of skeptical theism (Wykstra), but I imagine it could be applied here as well.

If anyone needs this for context: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skeptical-theism/

Meow!

G

Here's a somewhat odd approach to the odd problem that I'm not really sure I endorse, but anyway...

Is it at all possible to do any of the following:

Can one define omnipotent (almighty or infinite in power) by placing omnipotent into context?

If the omnipotent is infinite, how exactly does one define it or place it into a context that is finite?

Would not any attempt to speak of a finite definition or context for something that is infinite be incorherent?

---------------------------------------------

Other worthless nonsense I'd toss into the frey regarding my thoughts about such a matter:

- Our understanding of a stone is in terms of natural sciences and moving a stone in terms of physics. Facts and conclusions are of an empirical nature bound/checked by scientific method.

- Our understanding of an omnipotent god is in terms of supernatural notions and in terms of metaphysics. Truths and comclusions are of an anecdotal nature held together/controlled by religious faith.

Perhaps it's just me, but I feel the standards of measure do not match up well enough to speak in any way cosistantly and coherently about the issue.

Why do I have the feeling that this sort of line of question is on the level of calculating the drag coefficient of tassels on flying carpets?

Meow!

G

Have philosophers of the past and present something to say about it? — FranckFriends

Camus... The Myth of Sisyphus?
Kierkegaard... Fear and Trembling and Either/Or?
Ecclesiastes 1:4-11... "nothinng new under the sun"?
Jean-Paul Sartre... Being and Nothingness?

I'm sure there's more, but why pile on...

Heck...

... even pop culture via Morty Smith:



Meow!

G

btw... if you simply need an excuse, then Bojack Horseman

Are you morally superior to someone else?

No.

Now for a different question regarding you.

Since I became vegan, many people have told me, "You think you're better than everybody else, sitting on your high horse." — chatterbears

Why are they telling you this?

Are you tossing it in their face as if it has some sort of universal moral superior value?
Are they simply assuming that anyone who claims to be "vegan" has a self-assuming moral superiority?
Are there other impication and hasty generalizations at work?

Honestly I have far too little context to field any conclusive position.

All I can do is field even more question and vague observations founded up the limited content of the OP.

So for what it's worth...

The thing is, everybody has values in which they deem as higher than another person's values — chatterbears

Odd, as that itself seems to be a rather bold assumption regarding the formation of values of other; thus it sort of appears to be a very judgemental statement. (it's less and indictment, but rather something that made me giggle a bit)

Anyway...

... is it possible to hold values that are not founded in a competition with the values of others... so to say, can one hold/create values without it being a reaction to/against the values of others?

I bet most of the people in this forum could confidently state that they are morally superior to a child rapist. — chatterbears

In what context and by who's standard of measure?

It seems that majorality here is being discussed as if it is a singular thing that can be measured by an unseen standard of measure; thus I could not answer the question with more context in respect to an established standard of measure being presented.

If so, then it wouldn't be surprising for a vegan to feel morally superior to a non-vegan. — chatterbears

Non-sequitur/equivocation alert?

How exactly would the general moral value of a member of this Forum as measured by a nondisclosed standard of measure as compared to the general moral value of a child rapist as measured by a subsequent undisclosed standard of measure serve as an accurate equivocation relating to the issue of vegan vs. non-vegan?

I am not comparing child rape to non-vegans, but I was trying to illustrate that we all make some value judgment on another person's actions. — chatterbears

Well... as a future suggestion don't write it out that way, as it reads as an "appeal to emotions" (appeal to the children) and directly implies what you claim not to be implicating; thus it might shed some light on why the "many people" have stated

"You think you're better than everybody else, sitting on your high horse." — chatterbears

.

Indeed, perhaps a more accurate and less emotionally charged/extreme illustration might not be as off putting when approaching this issue from the get go?

It's just a thought... ;)

And we have an internal model of one's self, in which we feel morally superior to that person. I'd say I am also morally superior to a husband who cheats and/or beats his wife. — chatterbears

Oh dear...

... here we go again.

Morally superior in what context and by what standard?
Also... now we have the implied equivocation of "non-vegan" with "a husband who cheats and/or beats his wife".

Sure it's not what you meant to imply, but it's what you have stated.

Déjà-vu?

I'm so sorry to be like this, but hey... isn't the real question why do many people say to me

"You think you're better than everybody else, sitting on your high horse." — chatterbears

Meow!

G

btw... (the "meow" is a signature I have used for many years, so for those who don't know me it's just a habit of mine leftover from the previous forums... as then it served as a check for my dyselxia and not a cheeky provocation. :) )

6 minutes and 41 seconds of my life well spent...

... jus' tryin' to get da funk outta me.



Meow!

G

You're only addressing the role of intuition vis a vis empirical matters, so since I already more or less agree, I can't find much to respond to. — Janus

Indeed.

I'm not really that interested in a long laundry list of the personal examples of intuition being a "great thing" (evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony... aka anecdotal evidence), as this simply become pleading special cases leading to errors of sample size.

At the risk of a tautology, intution is simply intuition... a potential beginning process for a more accurate and clearer investigation via empirical reasoning or it becomes a stubborn stopping point for those who wish to have an investigation/answer in one breath; thus ending investigation or the continuation of a carefully protected investigation in a hermetically sealed worldview allowing nothing more than believing in believing and faith in faith supported by anecdotal evidence.

Indeed anecdotal evidence does have a value, but only when in combination with empirical methods/evidences. I view intuition in the same manner... it only has a value when combined to checked by empirical methods. When alone intuition is the breeding ground for superstitious thinking and dangerous pseudosciences with no checks in place to control the danger.

My take on this whole muddle is that intuition has had a protected status and has been quite romanticized and overestimated for the sake of granting credence to knowledge assumed to be true knowledge that has no foundation. Oddly enough the ones granting the credence to intuition tend to be the same ones who field the notions of knowledge assumed to be true knowledge that has no foundation.

Strange thought now... I can't get this moment out of my head... I wonder why?



Anyway... I'm off to go to Paris... Pompidou, d'Orsay, Sacré-Cœur... ;)

Meow! (Miaou!)

G

I'm getting a little frustrated here. Nowhere did I say intuition was an end. You seem to read into my argument a lot. So do you consider reasoning a beginning, an end, or what? — Noble Dust

No you didn't say intuition was an end... I did.

If intuition is the ability to acquire knowledge without proof, evidence, or conscious reasoning, or without understanding how the knowledge was acquired, would not intuition simply be a non-supported assumption of how things are without bothering to continue an investigation?

One's intuition tells one "this is evident to me that..." and subsequently moves on building upon that notion with further intuitions and suddenly applied reasoning.

I consider reasoning a process. Indeed we can know things to, but only to the best possible evidence or support we can have at the time. What is known can change and refine via this process. The problem with intuition is it does not have the process of reasoning involved in it's decision making; thus often falls short or stagnates in stubbornness.

Again, "inspired or magical" is a pretty uncharitable response here, simply based on the tone. — Noble Dust

Sorry for the selection of terms, but honestly if the term require charity to hold up then is it really worth as much as one might believe it to be?

To be honest I believe that far too much charity has been granted to intuition and perhaps it's overdue for a reality check.

Do you really think that that's why I'm placing importance on intuition? — Noble Dust

Honestly I have really no idea why you'd place more importance or even equal important upon intuition.

Do you think that's why Janus is making an argument in regards to intuition? — Noble Dust

I think we've sort of cleared that up, as I will only consider this vis a vis empirical matters. I'll answer that to Janus in my reply to his/her post.

You seem to have a charicature in your mind, probably based on those days in which you placed importance on intuition, of what people who place value on intuition are like. And furthermore, a feeling of "inspiration" (not sure what "magical" means) is natural when the intuition is used. I openly take that feeling for what it is and listen to it; I don't disparage it. — Noble Dust

Not really... I'm simply placing the two concepts intution and reasoning acrossed from one another and looking at the pros and cons.

I'm not interested in the private or social placebos that make one "feel better", but rather I'm looking at the two concepts to determine which of them is the better process to gaining knowledge that is less biases and information that is less narrow of a perspective. So far reasoning is far in the lead.

Ugh...again, where did I say intuition is a conclusion? What does that even mean? It doesn't even make grammatical sense. — Noble Dust

Again... I said it was a conclusion, as illustrated by it's definition.

Intuition deals with the immanently personal; sample size isn't important. You're using the rules of the game of reason to try to eliminate intuition (which doesn't play by reason's rules in the first place), from whatever game it is you're playing here — Noble Dust

This seems a bit silly now, as the alternative would be to use my intution about what intuition means; thus why are we bothering having a debate and attempting to reason out what intuition means?

Why not simply call it whatever one chooses to call it and move on? Why the post and the relies?

Essentially, intuition can never have a place in that game if the rules of intuition aren't allowed into the ring. — Noble Dust

Intution has rules?

I thought the point of intuition was to simply call it as one sees it according to what one sees.

Are the rules of intuition "anything goes"?

If intuition has to play by reason's rules, then intuition is indeed worthless, which is basically what you're trying to set up here. But again, that's an uncharitable charicature of what intuition is, and it reveals your own lack of intuition. — Noble Dust

So you did get my point.

Intuition alone or without subsequent reasoning is indeed not worthless, but is only of worth to the one who fielded the intuitive notion.

- Accupuncture works!
- The earth is flat!
- The sun revolves around the earth!
- Air is breathable as long as I don't see smoke!
- My rally hat caused the team to come back and win!
- The Comulians are the one true gods as the literally control the weather I see (Rick and Morty)!

OK... that might have been uncharitable.

I suppose if there is any evidence to support intuition it would be anecdotal evidence, but my take on this type of debate regarding intuition/ancedotal evidence vs. reasoning/empirical evidence is reflected in this cartoon:



Let's avoid that.

No matter...

I'm going to be out of your hair for awhile. A trip to Paris for a week with no internet. Just art, food and my wife. I suppose I'll have an unfortunate (good) time applying my reason in experiencing the art. ;)

Meow!

G

I never tried to argue that intuition should be used "alone", or that it was better; I've already stressed that. Or, if something I said led you to believe that I think that about intuition, then I didn't word it right. The whole point I was making is that both intuition and reason are valuable. I'm making that argument because you don't seem to consider intuition valuable — Noble Dust

Fine...

My point here is that intuition without continual critical investigation can lead to far more errors (thus of less value when alone); thus intuition is only a beginning and not an end.

Reasoning without intuition is not as plagued by this error prone short-sightedness found in intuition alone. Sure it might not seem so inspired or magical, but I'm more concerned with outcomes than appearance.

I said your interpretation of intuition as "forcing an answer" was uncharitable, because it's inaccurate. Maybe uncharitable isn't the right word; it was just an inaccurate interpretation of what I mean by intuition; it seems like you haven't given much consideration to what I'm saying intuition is, and what it's function is within the larger scheme of thinking. Or maybe I just haven't given a good enough picture of what I think about that. — Noble Dust

This is all fine and good, but how exactly is intuition not a conclusion?

Also, since it is intuition and not a process of critical reasoning, how is this not a conclusion founded upon a very small sample size of information; thus a hasty (aka forced) answer?

I'm more interested in Charles Ives than Carl Sagan, so maybe that's where we have an issue here? Indeed, music, especially the music of someone like Ives, is pretty much the supreme fusion of reason and intuition — Noble Dust

Honestly I'd say nearly all music is a fusion of intuition and reason, but no music is the result of intuition alone, but there is music that is the result of reason alone.

Meow!

G

Yes, well my only problem is that you seem to think that the fact there might be appropriate logics in love, the arts, ethics, philosophy and religion has any bearing on what I have been arguing. Perhaps you could choose some of my actual statements and show how it would be relevant. — Janus

To do so I'd need really specific statement and not generalized notions.

In addition, I'd need to know a large martix of factors ranging from past individual experiences, current individual knowledge, and factors of individual preference. The example needs to be specific, as the experiences, current knowledge and factors of preference will vary from individual to individual.

Once I have the information it is really not all that difficult to understand why someone has a preference to a certain type of art or falls in love with a specific individual; thus present a clear logic as to why such actiona and events play out as they have played out.

Indeed such a process of analysis is difficult, but it is indeed possible. The reason why such things are attributed to "magic" or "fate" or "chance/luck" has to do more with the complication involved in acquiring the information, access to the information, analysis of the information leading to an understanding... in short... it's simply easier to say "luck" than investigate into the various factors anvectors involved in an action or and event playing out as it has, but this "making it easier" does not take away the factors and vectors involved in the action and event playing out as it has played out nor does it grant credence to any "magic" or "fate" or "chance/luck". Perhaps the only thing proven by attributing actions and events to "magic" or "fate" or "chance/luck" is how little we care to actually understand what has occurred and simply wish to move forward; thus attributing actions and events "magic" or "fate" or "chance/luck" builds up institutions and a possible idolatry to willful ignorance, as these attribution do nothing whatsoever to explain an action or and event, but simply dodge the critical thought necessary to understand.

I've left quite a bit out here, as this could mull on and on and on. My reason is I'm not too sure just how far I should go with this one before I feel I'm beating a dead horse.

Prior to the advent of an explicitly understood scientific method, intuition indeed reigned (you only have to look at Aristotle's physics or Chinese medicine) — Janus

Well... at the risk of pissing off some folks (probably not you) various Chinese medicine (something very difficult to pin down) has been empirically tested. Much of it has been proven to be nothing more than "theatrical placebos", as in the case of acupuncture...

(take your pick: https://www.google.at/search?ei=mkf5WsS-G8OWkwWf3Ij4DA&q=acupuncture+theatrical+placebos&oq=acupuncture+theatrical+placebos&gs_l=psy-ab.12...19040.26310.0.28084.12.12.0.0.0.0.112.872.9j2.11.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..1.0.0....0.NmLtThIvtYo )

... and other aspect indeed do show therapeutic value.

The question remains was this something illustraing the triumph of intuitive processes or simply a bit of "accidental discovery via trial and error"? History is simply littered from mankind's intuition getting it dead wrong.

Of course there can be bad science that emerges from poor applications of empirical processes. Phrenology and Homeopathy immediately come into mind.

One of the differences between intuition and empirical sciences is that empirical sciences will debunk and refute claims whereas intuition only changes when the individual who's voiced and intuitive claim changes their mind. Intuitions are personal observations/conclusions in one breath. When challenged this is more than likely viewed as a personal challenge attacking the individual and not just the idea. Perhaps a very important aspect of science is that it really doesn't care what an individual thinks or desires or prefers. If the science does care about what an individual think or desires or prefers it really doesn take long before the corrective process debunks the claim and it lands on a pile of pseudosciences only to be applied by the stubborn.

In the domains of religion and the arts, intuition still reigns. People's understanding of poems, paintings, music, mystical writings and religious allegories is still mostly an intuitive process. — Janus

I now this is going to get me into trouble, but I can't help but believe this reign of intuition is simply a way of justification of claims one knows little about, but insists upon speaking of with absolute certainty. In religion it's basically evident in the claims of answering with certainty the currently unknown with the absolute unknowable, then having the feeling of accomplishing an answering the unknown, but actually all that happened was a calculated dodging the issue. Religion applies intuition in the same way a good magician use misdirection to make it seems that a rabbit popped out of a hat or a someone was sawed into two halves.

My experience of art might seems intuitive, but it is actually a complex matrix of factors and vectors that lead to me interpreting what I'm viewing. There is no experience of art that I can experience without taking the baggage of my past experiences and preferences.

What do you think theology consists in, for example? There is plenty of logic in that discipline. — Janus

I have the perfect video for this one. I find it more or less captures my thoughts well and is a bit funnier than I can ever be.

How would you know that one thing is entailed by another if not be intuition? — Janus

I believe this question is misleading.

Perhaps intuition is the beginning toward knowing, but in and of itself it's not knowing. Knowledge comes via critical thought and knowledge is continually refines as this process of critical thought continues. Hasty assumption is achieved via intuition alone. I try not to confuse the first couple steps of a marathon with the entire race. ;)

Meow!

G

I just want to point out that I have not claimed that intuition is necessarily a good guide when it comes to empirical, scientific or even everyday knowledge. I think your definition and understanding of intuition is too narrowly focussed. — Janus

I wasn't directing the post at you personally. I'm only concerned with the ideas being presented and what I read. If I understood what I read is another issue.

When it comes to matters that fall outside the everyday, empirical or scientific, apart from the fact that logical consistency and coherency are obviously also often important, personal feeling, intuition and experience become paramount. Think of love, the arts, ethics, philosophy and religion in this connection. — Janus

My only problem here is that everything you have mentioned (love, the arts, ethics, philosophy and religion) do indeed have a very logical consistancy and coherency if one chooses to look a bit closer. It's really not all that difficult to prove with clear logic and evidence that one person loves another person or why certain factors found in an aesthetic experience appeals to one person but not to another. Philosophy and religion are all notions that can indeed be reviewed and understood by logic and evidence. Ethics (the study of morals) like politics, aesthetics, social norms/mores are all subsets of value theory an are more than not justified by logical appeals and attempts at reasonable/rational arguments/debates. I see not exclusive domain or difference in intuition and reasoning other than intuition is basically a hasty reflex based upon what evidence happens to be on the surface and reasoning simply looks for more factors and evidence; thus can take up greater foundation in fielding a decision.

Indeed intuition and experience (as if experience is in the sole domain of intuitive thought and plays no role in empirical or scientific review?) become paramount, but as I said before they are a beginning of reasoning and if left alone with no further progression as both the beginning and end in and of itself... well, as I said before... there are just far too many "stones unturned"; thus the truth of the certainty is founded upon a reluctance to review.

Meow!

G

... intuition, on the other hand, has the benefit of knowing the conclusion without taking exhaustive steps that need to be perfect; Intuition has the potential to avoid the mistakes in reasoning which lead to badly reasoned conclusions. — Noble Dust

One note before I comment...

I'm happy this is not viewed as a competition. I've encountered far too many folks who think this is sport; thus the flaming an trolling one encounters that is supposed to be "harmless chat". I'm less concerned about connection between my personal identity and my notions I discuss. My perspective is that this forum is a sort of sounding board and a peer review. Thanks!

Anyway...

I don't believe that reasoning has to be "perfect", but it needs to be less self-assuming; thus open to critical review. Also, I'm not all to sure what "exhaustive steps" intail, as one's exhaustion is perhaps another persons warm-up.

In any event, I still cannot help but believe that intuition alone is hasty.

Bad reasoning is still a form of "exhaustive steps" in reasoning; thus the errors can be exposed and the reasoning refined. Without the "work" of these steps how is a lack of steps really better other than it having the ability to speed up a process, by skipping steps?

You misunderstand intuition if you think it means forcing an answer. That's a pretty uncharitable interpretation of what I've been trying to express. — Noble Dust

I'm not too sure if I'm really being all that uncharitable. Isn't the notion of intuition not the fielding of a decision? It seems to always go "my intuition tells me thus and such". That is a statement of something being evident and not an offering of evidence. One draws a conclusion... and without the aforementioned "exhaustive steps" prudent for the sake of clarity or accuracy and possible critical review of the steps, as the steps (investigations) are there... how exactly is intuition not a decision an one basically blurted out as a reflex; thus a decision fielded in the face of a question without much investigation?

I feel no need to be charitable here. I feel more a need to be accurate as to the nature of intuition no matter how brutal it might appear.

Is there (in your notion) some sort of (metaphysical) the truth that is intrinsic to the universe or our experience of the universe?
— Mayor of Simpleton

My intuition says "yes"; my reason says "???" — Noble Dust

I suppose it's fair if I answer this one too.

My intuition from much earlier said "yes", but my reason found a multitude of flaws and biases in my intuition and now concludes a nearly 100% certain "no".

Why "No"?

I've spent quite a deal of time and effort (perhaps exhaustive steps?) picking it apart and reviewing it in detail. Metaphysics has become a house of cards that looked to be a fortress, but I found a puff of wind or even a simply finger flick of reason/logic cused it to collapse and if left alone it would collapse upon it's own weight.

Here's a strange thing...

My review of metaphysics and the notion of intrinsic truths began with a notion of intuition that something about all this was wrong. I didn't stop at the intuition, but decided to look into it beyond what my first intuition indicated to me.

Anyway...

I still view intuition as being a potential starting point for reasoning, but in and of itself is very hasty short sighted probably extremely biases reasoning. Reasoning beyond intuition places itself under review. This is a luxury of intuition as it needs no review... it just claims to know... basta.

This is not an appeal to an authority, but rather a very good example of how I tick regarding intuition and such...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“I'm frequently asked, "Do you believe there's extraterrestrial intelligence?"

I give the standard arguments- there are a lot of places out there, the molecules of life are everywhere, I use the word billions, and so on. Then I say it would be astonishing to me if there weren't extraterrestrial intelligence, but of course there is as yet no compelling evidence for it.

Often, I'm asked next, "What do you really think?"

I say, "I just told you what I really think."

"Yes, but what's your gut feeling?"

But I try not to think with my gut. If I'm serious about understanding the world, thinking with anything besides my brain, as tempting as that might be, is likely to get me into trouble. Really, it's okay to reserve judgment until the evidence is in.”

- Carl Sagan

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Basically that's where I landed in my investigation and I'm still curious I what direction and where the next bits of info will lead me.

Meow!

G

I'm not too sure if my comments are of any use, but as I view the issue the term in atheist simply means the belief that no god exists.

This might seem odd, but I view the term theist to simply mean a belief that a god (possibly gods) exists.

In spite of popular notions and assumed causal connections neither imply that there must be a system of belief (aka religion) connected to this answer to a single question does a god or do gods exist?.

Indeed there is a religious system of belief termed theism, but I'd say all believers in the religious system of belief of theism are indeed theists, but not all theists need to have a religious system of belief of any kind connected to this single statement of belief of god existing. It is a very popular notion that one thing lead to another, but belief in a god(s) does not directly imply much less guarantee a sort of religious system of belief resulting from this single answer to a single question.

Regarding the answer of the atheist not believing in the existence of gods, it could well be possible that this popular notion of if one's answer to the question must lead to having a system of belief; thus this false notion of causality bleeds over to the not believing in the existence of god. Maybe the assumption that a system of belief must follow from this single answer to a single question is the problem?

Here's a bit of an odd thing to say, but I'll say it.

If one is a monotheist and believes in say... god X as the only god existing, then this monotheist must be said to be an atheist in respect to all other incarnations of gods who are not god X. So, in respect to say... god Y this particular monotheist who believe only in god X as the only existing god must be an atheist in respect to god Y.

There isn't really a need for a complete system of belief for the rejection of god Y, but simply the belief that god X is the one and only real existing god is enough to seal the deal for them.

For an atheist who reject the notion of any and all gods existing there really doesn't need to be a system of belief necessary for this rejection of all other gods, as the rejection itself is enough to seal the deal.

I will grant you this...

In my experience in dealing with atheists quite often they tend to from a sort of group mentality. I used to joke with them explaining that they are really theists who have rejected classical gods and have replace thiem with an anti-god god that they worship through the grand prophet... the newly deified Darwin, try to draw inspiration from the periodic table of elements and usually attend craft beer tastings as a sort of replacement to going to a formalized church service. It is there that they discuss the writings, teachings and podcasts of Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and Hitchens and enjoy speaking out loudly to one another the grand observations they've made and have misinterpreted from watching various science documentaries they've viewed on the Discovery Channel... usually narrated by Morgan Freeman... while wearing a t-shirt with a Jesus fish with feet. (anyone else met these guy?)

Sorry I'm off the track a bit...

I have no idea if any of that makes much sense or helps. If you are still interested in bits of it I can always add more words in the hope to enhance my clarity.

Meow!

G

Intuition yields a different kind of knowledge (knowledge by feeling, by familiarity) than rational, empirical knowledge. — Janus

OK...

I can agree, well... sort of agree.

My take on intuition is that it is a slang term for a quick reflex observation/analysis/conclusion that indeed is founded in some sort of reasoning and based upon some sort of small set of available information. This notion of intuition is indeed a sort of knowledge by feeling or by familiarity, but it is a very short sighted knowledge. Indeed it can prove to be correct, but quite often it proves to be misguided in that the conclusion is founded upon a very short list and selected set of evidence. Intuition is a potential starting point or catalyst for a much larger and detailed investigation, but if it is unfortunately confused with being an end in itself; thus thought of as being a sort of guiding force or and actual metaphysical reality.

Of course there are situations that do not require detailed analysis, as they might well be considered trivial aspects of everyday life, but even then some sort of reasonable, rational analysis is in play. Just because the analysis is very fast does not mean it wasn't in play. Also, just because it was quick and easy analysis doesn't mean it is different than slower and more difficult analysis.

I suppose what I'm saying is that intuition is simply a potential starting point of rational, empirical investigation and not something all together different. The problem is when one begins to believe that intuition is and end in itself and enough or somehow equal to a much more detailed analysis. Sure the first notion of intuition can be correct, but the list is really long of moments where intuition is dead wrong, but the initial intuition is held onto due to familiarity, feeling, preference or just pure stubbornness.

A former PF member once wrote this reply (somewhat less vitriolic than most of his posts):

"You are taking your sense of wonder, combining it with your inability to conceive of certain things, and demanding from everyone else that they remain as ignorant. That's not good."
― Kwalish Kid

I allow that to echo in my mind with nearly everything of which I begin to feel quite certain; thus I place my intuitions, as well as any detailed investigations into perspective.

I suppose I could say that intuition is a necessary thing as a starting point in the process of rational empirical investigation, but it is not prudent to allow it to be an end in itself considered to be a guiding force or a metaphysical reality. I wish not to confuse my thinking my evidence for something is that it is evident to me (my support for the conclusion is simply what I concluded).

Meow!

G

Why is this good or wise? Because reason doesn't know what intuition means. But intuition means what reason doesn't know. And neither is "better" than the other. — Noble Dust

Thanks for the clarification.

I can't really agree with the conclusion, as with intuition that there is a potential (and probable) set of mistakes and false assumptions waiting to happen that lead to a further continuation of mistakes and false assumptions that intuition can subsequently deny that the mistakes and false assumptions are to it's credit by lack of reasoning as there no point in reasoning why intuition might have flaws.

Indeed intuition can mean what one cannot know by reasoning, but how is that any differenct than forcing an answer to a question prematurely (a hasty generalization) for the sake of having an answer?

OK... perhaps intution means this well with it's intentions, but is it really prudent to force an answer for the sake of having an answer?

Here's maybe a good question for further clarity?

Is there (in your notion) some sort of (metaphysical) the truth that is intrinsic to the universe or our experience of the universe?

Meow!

G

btw... I do need to make clear that this is not a game or a competition. I view this as an exchange of ideas. There are no trophies or medals to win in such a dialog. If you do view this as a game or competition then let me know and I'll end this now.

Sort of reminds me of Peter Gabriel, David Bowie, Gang of Four, Talking Heads, General Public, Jane's Addiction and a few others from the 80's without tripping into pastiche mode.

Cool...



Meow!

G

I like that definition, although I can tell it’s slanted towards your feelings about intuition. — Noble Dust

If it helps I didn't write the definition, but rather took it from 3 different sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/intuition https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intuition Truth is I took the first 3 definitions that came up on the search modus that were in English, so probably one could do better than my effort.

Anyway... if you care to make a point here I'd simply ask you to define intuition and the questions still stand as what's your intution (or definition) about what intuition is and how exactly is it such a good thing or a wise thing?

Afterall I believe you introduced intuition to the mix due to cognitive bias being a "killjoy" to intuition, so I'll allow you the floor.

I'm just bored by the concept of cognitive bias because everyone has it. So it's important to get to the point where we recognize that we have it, but from there, there's no reason to put it on a pedestal or use it as an intellectual weapon. When we do that, we undermine intuition; you have an intuition about wisdom; so do I. It's a fantasy to imagine that you or I or anyone is abstractly analyzing human thought from a neutral vantage point at which cognitive bias doesn't exist. — Noble Dust

Meow!

G

What is intuition, then? — Noble Dust

OK...

Intutions is the ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning... the ability to acquire knowledge without proof, evidence, or conscious reasoning, or without understanding how the knowledge was acquired... the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference?

Sure that's a muddle of definitions tossed together, but hey... what's your intution about what intuition is and how exactly is it such a good thing or a wise thing?

Meow!

G

..., fun ... — Posty McPostface

That's cool with me and makes me happy. :grin:

Meow!

G

I'm just bored by the concept of cognitive bias because everyone has it. — Noble Dust

Bias blind spot: a coginitive bias of one having the tendency to see oneself as less biased than other people, or to be able to identify more cognitive biases in others than in oneself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGg_HTls8ME

So it's important to get to the point where we recognize that we have it, but from there, there's no reason to put it on a pedestal or use it as an intellectual weapon. — Noble Dust

Odd choice of words... "on a pedestal or use it as an intellectual weapon".

Anyway...

I view the awareness of coginitve biases as a useful tool that can be applied to check things and one's self... the same as logic is a tool.

When we do that, we undermine intuition; you have an intuition about wisdom; so do I. — Noble Dust

Intuition is always or even often a good thing?

Perhaps I should keep my tools of coginitive bias in pandora's box? Heaven forbid that intuition might be exposed for what it really is and making one's wisdom seem a bit short sighted?

It's a fantasy to imagine that you or I or anyone is abstractly analyzing human thought from a neutral vantage point at which cognitive bias doesn't exist. — Noble Dust

It's also a fantasy to imagine that any of our efforts matter in grand scheme of things, other than each individual's ability to bring their own special brand of mediocrity to a tiny aspect of reality, but hey... I personally imagine Sisyphus to be happy if Sisyphus is under the illusion that Sisyphus can choose his own rocks. Try again fail again try to fail better? It's a hobby. :wink:

Meow!

G

May I ask about your take on the Humean saying that reason is (instrumental) or a "slave" to the passions/emotions/desire?

On the other end I have the thought about Buddhist realizing ''nirvana'' as a state of mind similar to which the mind is no longer constrained by desire/emotions/the passions.

Does that sound correct to you? — Posty McPostface

I've always thought that the Humean saying has been overly generalized. I also have the notion that passions/emotions/desires can indeed be both rational and irrational, as well as both reasonable and unreasonable. I simply cannot remove them from the context they are in and treat them all as if they are simply the same thing. Indeed a point can be made as stated by this saying in some particular context, but I believe it would not be all that difficult to present a contridiction to the saying; thus allowing it to collapse like the idealist house of card it indeed happens to be.

I tend to avoid Buddhist things, as well as all religious or spiritual notions these days. I've never quite figured out these cryptic metaphors and why anyone would take them literally much less so seriously. I suppose my take on "nirvana" is that is just another cage of constraint known as nirvana that one needs to rid one's self of just as much as to achieve "enlightenment" one must let go of enlightenment. Beautiful placebos or simply the ability to blow smoke up one's own ass? I palindrom I? :wink:

Meow!

G

In another thread, you talked about cognitive dissonance. If we were really or 'truly' reasonable, then cognitive dissonances would never arise. Just using that as an example to make the point clear.

Also, I would suggest that emotions have not cornered the market on irrational behaviour in the same manner that applications of pure logical can be irrational in terms of tendency toward a cognitive bias.
— Mayor of Simpleton

Again, if we were 'truly rational' being then cognitive bias or dissonance would never occur.

We basically react on the basis of either logic or emotion or a combination of both to any given state of affairs coupled with predicating factors leading the way... whether we are aware of these predicating factors or not, but nonetheless we simply react.
— Mayor of Simpleton

So, you're going one step further or (backwards, if you prefer) and talking about needs, wants, and instinctual desires, is that correct? Perhaps, the unconscious is at play here, in some unknown manner to us all to psychologize the issue. — Posty McPostface

I don't believe I'd ever care to use the term "truly reasonable". I find both reason and truth to be relative state of status. In short, both are subject to accumulation of information/experience leading to a subsequent refinement/adaptation of notions of truth and reason.

I find that it might well be next to impossible to be void of coginitive bias, but one can make an effort to be aware of the pitfalls of coginitive biases... in one's self and others.

Get this:

Bias blind spot: a coginitive bias where one has the tendency to see oneself as less biased than other people, or to be able to identify more cognitive biases in others than in oneself.

I feel like I just wrote a punchline to an inside joke about myself.

Anyway...

I've noticed that the vast majority of hardline ideologies (political, social, religious, aesthetic) that might sound very irrational have a greater tendency to be "over-rationalized" via various forms and manifestations of confirmation bias (The tendency to search for, interpret, focus on and remember information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions.)

Such lines of (often) obvious irrationality have been thought out and reasoned meticulously, but only within the realm of a hermetically sealed worldview that allows only evidence that supports a preference.

Using only reason... using logics alone is not enough.

Reason and logic tell us nothing. They are simply tools used in investigation and arguments, but themselves are not the materials of the investigation or those used in constructing the argument and they are not the action of the tools being used. A hammer does not swing itself, nor does that hammer recognize the nail being driven or even it it is driving a nail or even if it is a nail wher the nail is being driven... and so on.

My take is that emotions and reasoning are not mutually exclusive or rivals or opposites.

I don't know if that helps clear or futher muddle up my position, but I simply don't see differences or dichotomies or domains so clear cut as seems to be presented in the ad populum of the world of everyday life.

Meow!

G

Comfort seems to be the key word here. Comfort is a attitude or emotion elicited from some state of affairs. That state of affairs seems driven by urges, needs, want's, which all are emotionally driven, in my mind. — Posty McPostface

I cannot ever remember making an emotional driven decision about my shoes.
— Mayor of Simpleton

Well, when you pick a pair of shoes at the store, then your decision to pick some pair of shoes is highly emotionally driven. Don't you think so? — Posty McPostface

I believe we shop rather differently.

I tend toward things I know I want or things I know I'm looking for. This makes me into a rather dreadful consumer in our current day and age. I don't really react much to commercials other than use them as information about what is avaliable. Even Facebook's bots gave up trying to toss commercials and recommendations my way.

Rather than make a long story of the boring shoping habits of the Mayor of Simpleton, I'll address the shoes issue.

The issue of comfort my indeed have a sight emotional basis I tend to look at how a shoe is made and buy according to how well it fits my foot. As I only wear sand shoe, casual sneaker type shoes, my purchases are according to comfort of fit and color. Color might seem emotional, but as I own many t-shirts and hoodies I tend to have my footwear match up with the tendency of color of these other items of clothing; thus I have mostly red, blue and green.

I'm aware of fashion, but really pay it little attention. I know what I like and when I shop I look for that specifically; thus I never browse.

The other shoes I own are for the various sports I am involved in playing. My cycling shoes are a specific brand as they fit and function for my feet the best. The same goes for my baseball cleats. As for the color choices, my current cycling team uses red/black/white and the baseball team I am now changing to will be red/navy/grey/white, so the color choices reflect those preset constraints. Perhaps the only emotion I'm dealing with at the moment is finding buyers for my old baseball stuff in dark green/white/grey.

A funny thing about fashion... I don't follow it, but rather find what I can coexist with. Once I find a company that makes clothing that fits I stick with that company until they change the fit. If something does not fit, no matter how it looks I won't buy it. It seems just as logical to do this as it might seem to be emotional in the presentation of my outward image.

Urges, needs, want's, which all are emotionally driven, in your mind are; in my mind quite is a logically calculated processes with a slight tinge of emotion. Perhaps we simply "tick" differetly? :razz:

Meow!

G

Philosophy seems obsessed with reason. — Posty McPostface

hmm...

Seems obsessed?

Why not say seems concerned or seems to focus mostly upon?

I'm just curious about the potential emotional impact of the use of the term obsessed.

One can run around in circles talking about it, much like the person without emotion cannot decide which pair of shoes to pick, for hours, until someone intervenes or commands a choice. — Posty McPostface

I wasn't aware that I made use of emotions to pick a pair of shoes. For the most part the reasons for the choices of my shoes are a combination of comfort and color/texture in relation to the rest of my outfit. Usually this results in some sort of relaxed sand shoes... unless I play a sport then the sport will dictate the shoe choice. Anyway... I cannot ever remember making an emotional driven decision about my shoes.

Emotions seem to make decisions possible, as to what is preferable or desireable. — Posty McPostface

Really?

I find this quite odd as the people I know who are basically running their lives upon emotional basis find it extremely difficult to make and decisions out of fear of making some sort of potential emotional conflicts. Often I am consulted by them to aid them in their decision making processes as I can basically ignore the emotional baggage and make a logical choice.

People aren't either fully rational or completely irrational. — Posty McPostface

Agreed!

Which is why we need to find a balance relative to the context to field a decent decision and after the decision is made live and adapt to the pending consequences.

Not that this helps, but two things come into mind...

1) Argumentum ad Passiones: a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence.

2) Empathy gap: a cognitive bias where there is a tendency to underestimate the influence or strength of feelings, in either oneself or others.

I believe that in philosophy and well... every other aspect of life... these are two things to be aware of in others and one's self.

Also, I would suggest that emotions have not cornered the market on irrational behaviour in the same manner that applications of pure logical can be irrational in terms of tendency toward a cognitive bias. Emotions can be very reasonable and logic can be very irrational in spite of the popular notion*** that this is a rare occurance.

*** Bandwagon effect: a cognitive bias where one has the tendency to do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe) the same. Related to groupthink and herd behavior.

... we seem to all be animals in some sense just reacting to situations or states of affairs. — Posty McPostface

Well... why is that incorrect?

We basically react on the basis of either logic or emotion or a combination of both to any given state of affairs coupled with predicating factors leading the way... whether we are aware of these predicating factors or not, but nonetheless we simply react.

I'm not sure I follow what you are driving toward here.

Anyway... I'd be a bit careful in the wording as at some points as there seems to be an implication of reason and emotions being non overlapping magisteria; thus creating a very difficult dichotomy to support.

Meow!

G

I wanted to end my post with a rimshot, but wasn't too sure if this was being too overboard.

I really don't take philosophy that seriously... it's far too important a thing to trivialize it with the injustice of seriousness. :razz: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGg_HTls8ME

Meow!

G

It reads better as the original, but is less a question and more an implied statement wearing a questions clothing.

One of the purposes (not just a purpose or the purpose) of philosophy (for me) is not only to ask questions, but to analyse questions in the attempt to ask better questions that avoid implied statements that appear to be questions. :wink:

Meow!

G

"What's the purpose of philosophy?"

Is it just me or does this limit the scope of potential purposes/applications of philosophy to a single aspect?

Perhaps asking what's a purpose of philosophy would be a better question as it rids the question of the bias of central purpose?

Meow!

G

So cognitive bias must ultimately lead to something true, right? — Noble Dust

Well... not quite.

Cognitive bias leads to something (leads to a comclusion) that one prefers to be true (correct). Whether the conclusion is indeed true or false plays no role in what is being highlighted in my post. What's clear is that the preference for a conclusion taints the process of investigation/argument of support.

The only thing I can see that is ultimatey clear by the application of a cognitive bias is that poor arguments have been put forth, also the likelihood of begging questions or circular reasoning is present.

What a cognitive bias leads to is completely a different issue. The conclusion can be true or false, but not as the result of the application of a cognitive bias in an argument... in short the argument does not support the conclusion no matter if it is a true or a false conclusion.

If it's such an intense issue, then it surely avails itself of something which is real, as opposed to the unreality of the cognitive bias that lead to the thing that was untrue. — Noble Dust

I feel the problem here is that somehow there is the assumption that a cognitive bias leads one to something that is false. The conclusion is not really the problem here, but rather the process applied to reach a conclusion. It is very possible to utilize a cognitive bias (perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, illogical interpretation) and still reach a conclusion that is true.

A cognitive bias is a systematic pattern of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment. These systematic patterns use premises (both true and false) and reach conclusions (both correct and incorrect), but are themselves forms of argumentation (neither true or false).

It seems the use of the terms true or false are not really the issue, but rather the terms valid or invalid would be better choices.

Another point to make here is just because something is real does not make it true. Truth is a matter of context in respect to a specific question.

I seriously basic example:

Both a bridge and a tomato are real.

If the question is what do you use to cross a river while driving a car and you answer a bridge... that's true, but if one answers a tomato... that's false.

Meow!

G

btw... Here's a few examples of cognitive bias for the road:

Cheerleader effect: The tendency for people to appear more attractive in a group than in isolation.

Dunning-Kruger effect: The tendency for unskilled individuals to overestimate their own ability and the tendency for experts to underestimate their own ability.

IKEA effect: The tendency for people to place a disproportionately high value on objects that they partially assembled themselves, such as furniture from IKEA, regardless of the quality of the end result.

Semmelweis reflex: The tendency to reject new evidence that contradicts a paradigm.

"Women are wonderful" effect: A tendency to associate more positive attributes with women than with men.

The list is very very long.

How does this relate to the ordinary understanding of what free will is? — tinman917

I'm not sure the debate of determinism vs. free will has very much to do with the ordinary understanding of free will.

Determinism basically concludes that no actions or events occur without some sort of predicating factors leading to the actions or events playing out as they do. The notion of such occurances (such a luck or chance) are basically the result of our inability have knowledge of and be able to take into consideration all the predicating factors leading up to the actions and events playing out as they do; thus the only reason why there is a notion of luck or chance or free will is due to our personal inability and not the nature of the universe or any metaphysical principles.

The example illustrated seems to be more the ordinary usage of free will... that being a decision made out of one's choice (on one's own accord) in spite of or in defiance of agents of constraint. This usage does not address any predicating factors leading up to the action or event beyond the immediate or obvious.

I might also mention that the counterpart to this ordinary usage of free will is not determinism but rather fate or destiny.

In my case I can say that I know that actions and events all have some sort of predication and that no actions and events can be void of predicating factors; thus all actions and events are indeed determined. Unless one can disrupt the arrow of time and change the past the predicating factors will lead to the results to play out as they do 100% of all cases. The problem is this is far too complicated and has far too many factors to take into considerating; thus I live under the notion that I make choices without any clear cut certainty. I know one thing, yet experience life as another.

This is really a short version of a much longer and detailed explanation, so I'll leave it at that. If you want I can add more words if needed.

Meow!

G

I'm young and hairless, so let me try. — Noble Dust

I like the image somehow.

Cancer destroying what? — Noble Dust

Critical thought outside of the cancer's own worldview of worldview preference (cognitive biases) and domination?

Idealism opposing what? — Noble Dust

The possibility of adapation and refinement of position; thus having the bias to exclude any accumulation of information/experience?

To what end? — Noble Dust

For the cancer?

To dictate what is "the truth", "the answer", "the only possible question" by suspending the arrow of time and experiences accumulated leading to refinement/adaption of understanding by negating critical thought as idealisms will tend to field final, ultimate and absolute answers without having all the possible variables, but only tak into consideration prefered truths and prefered answers to maintain an idealistic faith. (idealistic faith and stubbornness are much the same thing and the opposite of critical thought/review)?

Meow!

G

You must be a fan of Hegel then. Because that dialects in a nutshell. Heh. — Posty McPostface

I have to confess, I've read very little in spite of having a degree in philosophy. (dyslexia)

I've only read a few quips and quote from Hegel, but somehow I figured he'd be much more "clearerer" in expressing these notions.

Meow!

G

You're true colors come out! You're no-one, and yet, you're oh so crucial to the existence of this forum.

Per the debate at hand about wisdom, fuck off.

Per the existence of this forum itself, thank you.

Now, what do you think about wisdom? Give me something new. — Noble Dust

The forum would have made it without me. I just happened to be at the right time in the context of my existence to thrust forward the cause a bit quicker... leading to my logical and justifiable banning from the old PF.

Irony is that soon after I took an extended break from it all.

... but this has really nothing to do with anything here, which is why my alternative name to Mayor of Simpleton would be Major Non Sequitur.

Anyway...

What do I think about wisdom?

Well... I don't really think it's a status. It kind of brings up the irrational image of finding the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

I think of it in general more as a work process... with no real particular goal in mind.

Then again... that's me.

Now if we wish to discuss very specific issues then one can have or hold much wisdom in such given fields, but this is only in respect to a very narrow scope.

I'd have to think about this more and continue the "work in progress".

Meow!

G

Agreed!

Economics, as well as many other domanins of human thought, are argued mostly via cognitive biases.

Philosophy can take up the charge to point out these problems, but in the end can do little to prevent the cancer causing them (the cancer as I view it would be the formation of an idealism), as the philosophy illustrating the problems (the counter-ideals) can indeed become the foundation (new ideals) for the next cancer of the mind (of idealism).

If that made no sense, don't worry. I get that a lot.

Meow!

G

But, but... Plato and them religious types that all copied his argument! How does one address the authoritarians? — Posty McPostface

Exit the cave and get killed for your efforts?

As for addressing authoritarians, well...

Eine neue wissenschaftliche Wahrheit pflegt sich nicht in der Weise durchzusetzen, daß ihre Gegner überzeugt werden und sich als belehrt erklären, sondern vielmehr dadurch, daß ihre Gegner allmählich aussterben und daß die heranwachsende Generation von vornherein mit der Wahrheit vertraut gemacht ist.

(A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.) - Max P

Meow!

G

I get it, I get it, it's impossible to offend you. You're an incredible castle all your own. You're clearly a relic from "the old PF days". I lay my dues before you and bow.

But you don't want that, do you? The minute I offer that to you, you'll "meow", and come up with a clever response. I respect that. I don't understand it's use, but I respect it...I guess.

But, the minute I offer that bow, you'll laugh it off.

Wait, do we have any philosophical disagreement? I can't tell; I got so rapped up in this whole wonderful game. — Noble Dust

This sounds like a good description I could use on a Curriculum Vitae... that's is if I ever really applied for a job.

Opps! Like Brittany I did it again.

Another joke... or not? (difficult to say at times)

I can be offended, but it's really rare. I try to save it for when it really counts for something.

Indeed I'm a relic. One of the people of the "old days of PF"... who also was banned for getting folks to come to this refuge when the PF ship sailed adrift to crash on the rocks, but hey... it was something to do.

All we have here is an exchange of ideas in the hope to expand some awareness of knowledge that perhaps can lead to some minor aspects that could be attributed as wisdom, but always in a flux of accumulation leading to adaptation. (let me know if that made any sense and if so please try to explain it to me, as I think I got a bit lost in that comment) Why should anyone really be offended by an exchange of ideas, especially different ideas?

Oh... and please don't stop and bow for me. Since I'm blindly following your lead this would only cause me to trip and fall over you. :wink:

Meow!

G