|
I posted the essays I referred to and welcomed you all to read them. I got to that point because of Vedic's fanaticism. He's stuck in his own little box and refuses to entertain anything beyond it.
I think I've only referred to one essay directly that I didn't post. The points I want to make are written more clearly, intelligibly and eloquently in those papers than I could ever articulate myself, and trying to write them out on my own would result in a big gobbled mess.
I've tried approaching it from different angles, Vedic has been throwing the same thing at me over and over again. If I wasn't as clear as I could have been, that's my mistake. I'm fine with trying to explain things further or attempting to clarify something unclear, but not when I'm being challenged with the kind of attitude I'd normally expect from a street corner evangelist about the bible.
|
On July 06 2009 07:42 zulu_nation8 wrote:
I don't really understand your response Vedic can you perhaps phrase it in another way?
I think, therefore I am. Logic and science exist to be tested because they can be perceived. Anything outside the scope of possible physical human perception can not, and never will be. Philosophy is basically an ancient version of trolling.
|
On July 06 2009 07:56 Vedic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2009 07:42 zulu_nation8 wrote:
I don't really understand your response Vedic can you perhaps phrase it in another way? I think, therefore I am. Logic and science exist to be tested because they can be perceived. Anything outside the scope of possible physical human perception can not, and never will be. Philosophy is basically an ancient version of trolling.
Ok first of all, the phrase "I think, therefore I am." or cogito ergo sum was written by Rene Descarte who was one of the great rationalist philosophers. The physical sciences of today are founded upon the rationalist and empiricist philosophical schools of the 18th century of which Descarte was a large part of. Science is inseparable from philosophy in that it actually comes from philosophy all the way back to the Greeks. In fact what we are discussing right now is the philosophy of science which is a subject that has a rich tradition within continental philosophy.
Your point, as I can see, has no relation to what PH said. What Descarte meant was that only the existence of the subjective mind can be proven. From there on nothing outside of the mind can be proven to exist without doubt. Descarte never said to be perceived = to exist (someone else did though), you made your own leap of logic without explanation.
By your assumption, logic and science do not "exist" because they are not physical objects we can perceive. We can test physical science's validity only through a process of deductive empiricism which is different from induction, aka I think therefore I am. So if you say, what cant be perceived doesn't matter because it can't be proven by science. That would be stating nothing as the very basis of science relies on sensory phenomena, or shit that we can perceive.
|
On July 06 2009 07:52 PH wrote:
I posted the essays I referred to and welcomed you all to read them. I got to that point because of Vedic's fanaticism. He's stuck in his own little box and refuses to entertain anything beyond it.
I think I've only referred to one essay directly that I didn't post. The points I want to make are written more clearly, intelligibly and eloquently in those papers than I could ever articulate myself, and trying to write them out on my own would result in a big gobbled mess.
I've tried approaching it from different angles, Vedic has been throwing the same thing at me over and over again. If I wasn't as clear as I could have been, that's my mistake. I'm fine with trying to explain things further or attempting to clarify something unclear, but not when I'm being challenged with the kind of attitude I'd normally expect from a street corner evangelist about the bible.
You said it yourself these are very basic problems of philosophy which is argued in every phil 101 class which makes everything explainable in laymen terms without having people who don't read philosophy to look up stuff like phenomenalism. I think it's good etiquette to clarify your own arguments to the best of your abilities no matter how much you hate the other person or else this may as well be a flame war. Lots of people can explain this stuff better than us but for the sake of the clarity of this discussion let's just do it ourselves. I'm tired of every discussion on TL turning into giant turds over small matters.
|
On July 06 2009 08:41 zulu_nation8 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2009 07:56 Vedic wrote:On July 06 2009 07:42 zulu_nation8 wrote:
I don't really understand your response Vedic can you perhaps phrase it in another way? I think, therefore I am. Logic and science exist to be tested because they can be perceived. Anything outside the scope of possible physical human perception can not, and never will be. Philosophy is basically an ancient version of trolling. Ok first of all, the phrase "I think, therefore I am." or cogito ergo sum was written by Rene Descarte who was one of the great rationalist philosophers. The physical sciences of today are founded upon the rationalist and empiricist philosophical schools of the 18th century of which Descarte was a large part of. Science is inseparable from philosophy in that it actually comes from philosophy all the way back to the Greeks. In fact what we are discussing right now is the philosophy of science which is a subject that has a rich tradition within continental philosophy. Your point, as I can see, has no relation to what PH said. What Descarte meant was that only the existence of the subjective mind can be proven. From there on nothing outside of the mind can be proven to exist without doubt. Descarte never said to be perceived = to exist (someone else did though), you made your own leap of logic without explanation. By your assumption, logic and science do not "exist" because they are not physical objects we can perceive. We can test physical science's validity only through a process of deductive empiricism which is different from induction, aka I think therefore I am. So if you say, what cant be perceived doesn't matter because it can't be proven by science. That would be stating nothing as the very basis of science relies on sensory phenomena, or shit that we can perceive.
Descartes specifically made that quote in relation to logical perception, and it's the basis of existentialism. Either you haven't been reading his work, or you've misunderstood the reasoning behind it. Science has become standardized to stop the very problems that philosophy creates. Without acceptable standards with which to judge and be judged, there can be no obejctive discussion. Again, this lack of objectivity allows for any argument to be made at any time, without need for verification or reason.
Logic and science DO exist because we CAN perceive them. A concept is merely the result of the existence of your brain, and the operation of your brain by electricity, organs, cells, atoms, subatomic particles, etc... At each point, we can prove that you are operating within all physical bounds, and the actions/responses that you come up with are a result of the sum of your experiences in the physical world.
|
On July 06 2009 09:05 Vedic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2009 08:41 zulu_nation8 wrote:On July 06 2009 07:56 Vedic wrote:On July 06 2009 07:42 zulu_nation8 wrote:
I don't really understand your response Vedic can you perhaps phrase it in another way? I think, therefore I am. Logic and science exist to be tested because they can be perceived. Anything outside the scope of possible physical human perception can not, and never will be. Philosophy is basically an ancient version of trolling. Ok first of all, the phrase "I think, therefore I am." or cogito ergo sum was written by Rene Descarte who was one of the great rationalist philosophers. The physical sciences of today are founded upon the rationalist and empiricist philosophical schools of the 18th century of which Descarte was a large part of. Science is inseparable from philosophy in that it actually comes from philosophy all the way back to the Greeks. In fact what we are discussing right now is the philosophy of science which is a subject that has a rich tradition within continental philosophy. Your point, as I can see, has no relation to what PH said. What Descarte meant was that only the existence of the subjective mind can be proven. From there on nothing outside of the mind can be proven to exist without doubt. Descarte never said to be perceived = to exist (someone else did though), you made your own leap of logic without explanation. By your assumption, logic and science do not "exist" because they are not physical objects we can perceive. We can test physical science's validity only through a process of deductive empiricism which is different from induction, aka I think therefore I am. So if you say, what cant be perceived doesn't matter because it can't be proven by science. That would be stating nothing as the very basis of science relies on sensory phenomena, or shit that we can perceive. Descartes specifically made that quote in relation to logical perception, and it's the basis of existentialism. Either you haven't been reading his work, or you've misunderstood the reasoning behind it. Science has become standardized to stop the very problems that philosophy creates. Without acceptable standards with which to judge and be judged, there can be no obejctive discussion. Again, this lack of objectivity allows for any argument to be made at any time, without need for verification or reason. Logic and science DO exist because we CAN perceive them. A concept is merely the result of the existence of your brain, and the operation of your brain by electricity, organs, cells, atoms, subatomic particles, etc... At each point, we can prove that you are operating within all physical bounds, and the actions/responses that you come up with are a result of the sum of your experiences in the physical world.
Cogito ergo sum is NOT the basis nor has anything to do with existentialism. What makes you think that? Just because my interpretation of him, which is very standard, differs from yours does not make my scholarship inferior to yours.
Science has not solved the problems philosophy creates. Being able to hold an objective discussion or having a unified theory is not the goal of philosophy. Good philosophical arguments are and have always been logically sound. Reason and logic are also topics within philosophy.
Logic and Science are mental concepts which have no direct correspondence in the physical world. We do not perceive them with our senses. Are you saying everything we can think of in our minds exist outside as well.
|
8748 Posts
On July 06 2009 09:05 Vedic wrote:
Descartes specifically made that quote in relation to logical perception, and it's the basis of existentialism.
Noooo way. If a basis has an opposite, then that's what Descartes's statement is to existentialism. I think most existentialists would say that Descartes never even began to describe what it means to be a human.
|
On July 06 2009 09:26 zulu_nation8 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2009 09:05 Vedic wrote:On July 06 2009 08:41 zulu_nation8 wrote:On July 06 2009 07:56 Vedic wrote:On July 06 2009 07:42 zulu_nation8 wrote:
I don't really understand your response Vedic can you perhaps phrase it in another way? I think, therefore I am. Logic and science exist to be tested because they can be perceived. Anything outside the scope of possible physical human perception can not, and never will be. Philosophy is basically an ancient version of trolling. Ok first of all, the phrase "I think, therefore I am." or cogito ergo sum was written by Rene Descarte who was one of the great rationalist philosophers. The physical sciences of today are founded upon the rationalist and empiricist philosophical schools of the 18th century of which Descarte was a large part of. Science is inseparable from philosophy in that it actually comes from philosophy all the way back to the Greeks. In fact what we are discussing right now is the philosophy of science which is a subject that has a rich tradition within continental philosophy. Your point, as I can see, has no relation to what PH said. What Descarte meant was that only the existence of the subjective mind can be proven. From there on nothing outside of the mind can be proven to exist without doubt. Descarte never said to be perceived = to exist (someone else did though), you made your own leap of logic without explanation. By your assumption, logic and science do not "exist" because they are not physical objects we can perceive. We can test physical science's validity only through a process of deductive empiricism which is different from induction, aka I think therefore I am. So if you say, what cant be perceived doesn't matter because it can't be proven by science. That would be stating nothing as the very basis of science relies on sensory phenomena, or shit that we can perceive. Descartes specifically made that quote in relation to logical perception, and it's the basis of existentialism. Either you haven't been reading his work, or you've misunderstood the reasoning behind it. Science has become standardized to stop the very problems that philosophy creates. Without acceptable standards with which to judge and be judged, there can be no obejctive discussion. Again, this lack of objectivity allows for any argument to be made at any time, without need for verification or reason. Logic and science DO exist because we CAN perceive them. A concept is merely the result of the existence of your brain, and the operation of your brain by electricity, organs, cells, atoms, subatomic particles, etc... At each point, we can prove that you are operating within all physical bounds, and the actions/responses that you come up with are a result of the sum of your experiences in the physical world. Cogito ergo sum is NOT the basis nor has anything to do with existentialism. What makes you think that? Just because my interpretation of him, which is very standard, differs from yours does not make my scholarship inferior to yours. Science has not solved the problems philosophy creates. Being able to hold an objective discussion or having a unified theory is not the goal of philosophy. Good philosophical arguments are and have always been logically sound. Reason and logic are also topics within philosophy. Logic and Science are mental concepts which have no direct correspondence in the physical world. We do not perceive them with our senses. Are you saying everything we can think of in our minds exist outside as well.
It has everything to do with it in principle, not relating to philosophical or historical events. Understanding it is more important than reading it.
You're describing philosophy being used with scientific properties. Philosophy needs varying use of science to work, but science has no need for philosophy.
Logic and science are both concepts with physical properties, as they are merely physical activity interacting in your brain. The ability for them to be concepts is perception through physical interaction.
Do you believe that flying, pink, invisible, intangible, unicorns exist? Serious question.
|
Can you explain perhaps how Descarte created the basis for existentialism instead of just refuting what I said? Are you questioning my understanding of the topic at hand because I disagree with you?
I don't understand
Logic is not a physical property. It is a relationship between objects. If we can't agree on that then there's nothing more to discuss. A property is something which belongs to the essence of something else, the physical world does not have to exist for the concept of logic to exist.
I don't know what you mean by exist.
|
On July 06 2009 10:06 zulu_nation8 wrote:
I don't know what you mean by exist.
So is this like "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is"?
This is why we have science to create standards, and why philosophy is just trolling.
|
its a simple, question, do they exist where? in our minds, in the physical world? in your head? do you understand what i'm asking?
|
On July 06 2009 10:14 zulu_nation8 wrote:
its a simple, question, do they exist where? in our minds, in the physical world? in your head? do you understand what i'm asking?
It's all the same thing.
|
can you answer where you got descarte formed the basis of existentialism from? cuz i have this strong feeling you don't know shit about philosophy.
|
On July 06 2009 10:19 zulu_nation8 wrote:
can you answer where you got descarte formed the basis of existentialism from? cuz i have this strong feeling you don't know shit about philosophy.
Existentialism is about putting yourself at the center of the universe - a move directly influenced by thinking such as "I think, therefore I am."
Have you decided if the unicorn exists yet?
|
On July 06 2009 07:56 Vedic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2009 07:42 zulu_nation8 wrote:
I don't really understand your response Vedic can you perhaps phrase it in another way? I think, therefore I am. Logic and science exist to be tested because they can be perceived. Anything outside the scope of possible physical human perception can not, and never will be. Philosophy is basically an ancient version of trolling.
Hahaha, what.
|
On July 06 2009 10:27 Vedic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2009 10:19 zulu_nation8 wrote:
can you answer where you got descarte formed the basis of existentialism from? cuz i have this strong feeling you don't know shit about philosophy. Existentialism is about putting yourself at the center of the universe - a move directly influenced by thinking such as "I think, therefore I am." Have you decided if the unicorn exists yet?
You still failed to answer his question.
|
On July 06 2009 10:32 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2009 10:27 Vedic wrote:On July 06 2009 10:19 zulu_nation8 wrote:
can you answer where you got descarte formed the basis of existentialism from? cuz i have this strong feeling you don't know shit about philosophy. Existentialism is about putting yourself at the center of the universe - a move directly influenced by thinking such as "I think, therefore I am." Have you decided if the unicorn exists yet? You still failed to answer his question.
It is up to him to accept exist as the standard by which it is defined, or to skirt around it with philosophy. Either way, the question can be answered.
|
hmm Vedic I guess I see your point. Sorry if I questioned your philosophical background. I guess I've never thought of Existentialism from that particular perspective. Who did you read mostly?
I think Unicorns don't exist because there hasn't been scientific proof.
Invisible also doesn't exist because it can never be seen.
Flying does exist because I was on an airplane once.
Pink does exist because it's something I once saw.
Intangible does exist because I can think of that concept in my brain.
|
On July 06 2009 10:35 zulu_nation8 wrote:
hmm Vedic I guess I see your point. Sorry if I questioned your philosophical background. I guess I've never thought of Existentialism from that particular perspective. Who did you read mostly?
I think Unicorns don't exist because there hasn't been scientific proof.
Invisible also doesn't exist because it can never be seen.
Flying does exist because I was on an airplane once.
Pink does exist because it's something I once saw.
Intangible does exist because I can think of that concept in my brain.
I'm not a fan of any philosophy, as you may have already noticed.
Have you ever seen a unicorn not exist?
Have you ever seen invisibility not exist?
Why do you believe in intangibility if you don't believe in invisibility?
See, these are the issues you hit when not adhering specifically to objective scientific standards. If we are able to selectively scale our use of logic and reasoning, any and every possibility would need to be considered, regardless of it's ability to be solved. I don't see how this can be viewed as anything but counter-productive.
|
Yea but you must've gotten that definition from somewhere and I'm interested in where because it's quite a good one and pretty sums up the later philosophies of Nietzsche.
No I have not seen a unicorn not exist.
Yes
Because I can think of something intangible but not something invisible.
Yes but even with rigorous scientific standards I still have trouble understanding the concept of invisibility and how it can exist in the physical world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
