RE: A bit on epistemology.

RE: A bit on epistemology. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity

Message

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A bit on epistemology. (10/1/2011 1:27:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic My comments in red a last time. You launched into a diatribe about Stranger Than, for no apparent reason. I do not understand this one. You go ahead and ignore all you desire. Of course, as anyone. you obviously arent into listening to other points of view If this is what you want to believe... if you are ignoring half the people who comment to you, I wish you luck finding the truly polite and intelligence you need. Ill keep my opinion, and my way of responding as I see fit. Of course. Your expectations are not mine This is just natural. quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras I think an axiom is seen as self-evidently true but that does not prevent it being proven independently I do not think that a discussion about the right definition of axiom is necessary. I used that word with a specific meaning. If you dislike it, then simply do not use my definition and use instead the meaning. You can call them, "blueghs", for all I care. Just tell me "I will call blueghs to what you call axioms", and I will from them on understand how you use that word. The important points is that we understand each other, not that we agree on each others' use of the words, don't you think? quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras ...which was contrasted in the approach with Point 30 about science and reason... No... it was not a contrast. Reason has its own axioms, and I said that. So, all science, religion, philosophy and reason have axioms (or "blueghs" if you prefer) I did not suggest nor did I say that philosophy does not use reason. I would say, however, that philosophy does not only use reason. And I may oppose it to science, which uses (ideally) only reason. But this does not exclude sciences being a part of philosophy, or philosophy using reason. Nor is it a valoration of science against philosophy or so... philosophy covers things science will never cover IMO, for example morality and metaphysics. Ok, now I cannot edit the first post, but next time I will try with a summary. quote: ORIGINAL: nancygirl34652 #1 through #45 ----- i don't care.......please hide me because i am hiding you No, I am sorry, I do not work that way.

SternSkipper -> RE: A bit on epistemology. (10/1/2011 1:34:53 PM)
Concentration Moon Over the camp in the valley Concentration Moon Wis I was back in the alley With all of my friends, Still running free: Hair growing out Every hole in me AMERICAN WAY How did it start? Thousands of creeps Killed in the park AMERICAN WAY Try and explain Scab of a nation Driven insane Don't cry Gotta go bye bye SUDDENLY: DIE DIE COP KILL A CREEP! pow pow pow Concentration Moon Over the camp in the valley Concentration Moon Wish I was back in the alley With all of my friends, Still running free: Hair growing out Every hole in me AMERICAN WAY Threatened by US Drag a few creeps Away in a bus AMERICAN WAY Prisoner: lock SMASH EVERY CREEP IN THE FACE WITH A ROCK Don't cry Gotta go bye bye SUDDENLY: DIE DIE COP KILL A CREEP! pow pow pow

tj444 -> RE: A bit on epistemology. (10/1/2011 1:36:21 PM)
hmmm,.. i only caught a glimpse of the subject as it was rolling along.. i thought it said "a bit on episiotomy". I wondered who could want to post about such a subject... after scaning the post and seeing its about epistemology,.. imo chatting about episiotomies would be much more interesting... [sm=rofl.gif]

SternSkipper -> RE: A bit on epistemology. (10/1/2011 1:40:01 PM)
quote: quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster 3. Let us call the assertions without a basis, axioms. Let us not, rather let us call them untutored flights of fancy, or ideologies, or dogma.... These 3s are rarely self-evident truths. Woah Ron ... Run for your life ... the hot air will burn the paint right off your car man..... !!!specious argument!!!

Lucylastic -> RE: A bit on epistemology. (10/1/2011 1:40:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 hmmm,.. i only caught a glimpse of the subject as it was rolling along.. i thought it said "a bit on episiotomy". I wondered who could want to post about such a subject... after scaning the post and seeing its about epistemology,.. imo chatting about episiotomies would be much more interesting... [sm=rofl.gif] LMAO TJ< I was getting crossed legs at the possible recollections Giving birth and the resulting tears, really dont interest most men tho , it makes them go "ICK" and disappear:)[:D][:D][:D][:D]

Anaxagoras -> RE: A bit on epistemology. (10/1/2011 6:03:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras I think an axiom is seen as self-evidently true but that does not prevent it being proven independently I do not think that a discussion about the right definition of axiom is necessary. I used that word with a specific meaning. If you dislike it, then simply do not use my definition and use instead the meaning. You can call them, "blueghs", for all I care. Just tell me "I will call blueghs to what you call axioms", and I will from them on understand how you use that word. The important points is that we understand each other, not that we agree on each others' use of the words, don't you think? An axiom can be a number of definite thing according to normal usage. If you were going with your own definition then it would have been helpful to say that explicitely since you are communicating relatively complicated points to others, after all you did state "As axioms are, per definition, not derived - they are per definition, not demostrable" quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras ...which was contrasted in the approach with Point 30 about science and reason... No... it was not a contrast. Reason has its own axioms, and I said that. So, all science, religion, philosophy and reason have axioms (or "blueghs" if you prefer) I did not suggest nor did I say that philosophy does not use reason. You defined an axiom as a very definite thing in number three as an assertion without basis, and also said something similar in number 20, where they are not demonstrable according to your definition. You lumped religion and philosphy in at point number 8 as a system of these axioms based on certain rules. I see now after reading a few other points that reason appears to be one of these rules, if I understand you correctly. However you appear to contradict yourself such as by stating in point 12 "I call "demostration", to the act of using reason, to reach a new assert. It is a kind of derivation." and in 13 "A rational fact is a demostrated assert." Thus if reason is based on a system of unsupported axioms its proofs are worthless. Thats the sort of criticism people like Richard Rorty made of conventional philosophy which they described as foundationalist. quote: I would say, however, that philosophy does not only use reason. And I may oppose it to science, which uses (ideally) only reason. But this does not exclude sciences being a part of philosophy, or philosophy using reason. Nor is it a valoration of science against philosophy or so... philosophy covers things science will never cover IMO, for example morality and metaphysics. Yes I said in my previous answer that what some people call philosophy can be opinion-led or not fully rationalistic but at its heart philosophy is an endeavour using reason right from its origins in Ancient Greece.

Kirata -> RE: A bit on epistemology. (10/1/2011 6:10:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster 3. Let us call the assertions without a basis, axioms. Let us not, rather let us call them untutored flights of fancy, or ideologies, or dogma.... These 3s are rarely self-evident truths. That is axiomatic. [:D] K.

imperatrixx -> RE: A bit on epistemology. (10/1/2011 6:24:25 PM)
Hi Spanishmatmaster. Welcome to cm. You are probably thinking this forum is for discussing politics and religion. It's not. It's for bickering about politics and religion by reducing the concepts to inane cliches. Have you ever seen politicians on tv? Well these are the people who vote for them. Anything other than a hot trending issue that let's them talk shot about the other side in a circle jerk of "clever" rhetoric will be met with hostility. There are exceptions. Sometimes. I'm not one of them though. Enjoy your time here.

tweakabelle -> RE: A bit on epistemology. (10/1/2011 7:33:15 PM)
Interesting exercise. Though 40 & 41 are more than a bit contentious IMHO. Why not just assert all truth is subjective and leave it at that? That's prolly good enough for these boards. Most of the time, an appreciation of nuance and complexity is wasted here.

Kirata -> RE: A bit on epistemology. (10/1/2011 8:10:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Most of the time, an appreciation of nuance and complexity is wasted here. There's no lack of modesty, though. [:D] K.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A bit on epistemology. (10/1/2011 10:18:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras An axiom can be a number of definite thing according to normal usage. If you were going with your own definition then it would have been helpful to say that explicitely And, although IMO the usage I use is pretty common, I actually did say it explicitly. quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras You defined an axiom as a very definite thing in number three as an assertion without basis, and also said something similar in number 20, where they are not demonstrable according to your definition As the are not derived, they are not demostrated, as demostration is a form of derivation. quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras You lumped religion and philosphy in at point number 8 as a system of these axioms based on certain rules. I do not understand "lumped". quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras I see now after reading a few other points that reason appears to be one of these rules, if I understand you correctly. No! Reason is a system of rules, not one single rule. quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras However you appear to contradict yourself such as by stating in point 12 "I call "demostration", to the act of using reason, to reach a new assert. It is a kind of derivation." and in 13 "A rational fact is a demostrated assert." Thus if reason is based on a system of unsupported axioms its proofs are worthless. No, this is your conclusion, not mine. Your are saying "thus ... ". I see there no "thus", I do not see why "thus", rational proof should be worthless, only because it is based on unsupported axioms. As I said, all axioms (or "bluegh", you still can reject my definition and propose another word) are unsupported by definition. This does not imply a "lack of value", this is your evaluation, not mine. Best regards. quote: ORIGINAL: imperatrixx Hi Spanishmatmaster. Welcome to cm. You are probably thinking this forum is for discussing politics and religion. It's not. It's for bickering about politics and religion by reducing the concepts to inane cliches. Have you ever seen politicians on tv? Well these are the people who vote for them. Anything other than a hot trending issue that let's them talk shot about the other side in a circle jerk of "clever" rhetoric will be met with hostility. There are exceptions. Sometimes. I'm not one of them though. Enjoy your time here. Thank you for the welcome. ]I rarely see politicians giving speeches on TV. Or anything, on TV, to say the truth. I guess I understand what you mean, though, but I will se what I can find. BTW I really did not open this posting to discuss. I was just explaining what I consider pretty simple and common facts, and the idea was to be able to relate to the OP when in some other discussion, these matters arise (as they did already once, with somebody telling me the at 2+2=4 was "not an opinion but a fact"). quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Why not just assert all truth is subjective and leave it at that? That's prolly good enough for these boards. Most of the time, an appreciation of nuance and complexity is wasted here. Because it would have been incorrect, IMO. Only subjective truth is subjective. And for me it is important to state that things ARE actually in SOME way. There is an absolute universe around us, with things which truly exist or not exist. It was important for me to make clear that, using reason, I arrive to that conclusion. It is not an axiom, though. Best regards and thank you for the welcome.

tazzygirl -> RE: A bit on epistemology. (10/1/2011 10:27:47 PM)
Aspergers?

Real0ne -> RE: A bit on epistemology. (10/1/2011 11:22:22 PM)
Well in the english language lets call it jizz. [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/spray.gif[/image][image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/spray.gif[/image][image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/spray.gif[/image][image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/spray.gif[/image][image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/spray.gif[/image][image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/spray.gif[/image] quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster Only subjective truth is subjective. lets call that an exercise in masterbation. on second thought now that Anaxagoras joined this could be a nice comedy about to unfold! [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/1947_eating_popcorn_and_drinking_be.gif[/image]

susie -> RE: A bit on epistemology. (10/1/2011 11:41:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 hmmm,.. i only caught a glimpse of the subject as it was rolling along.. i thought it said "a bit on episiotomy". I wondered who could want to post about such a subject... after scaning the post and seeing its about epistemology,.. imo chatting about episiotomies would be much more interesting... [sm=rofl.gif] I saw the title while having breakfast and thought it said "a bit on episiotomy" as well. Considering the current thread that would have been a far more interesting topic.

Kirata -> RE: A bit on epistemology. (10/1/2011 11:52:51 PM)
Uh oh... What's gonna happen if tossing it out of P&R is experienced as disrespectful? K.

Lucylastic -> RE: A bit on epistemology. (10/2/2011 12:26:13 AM)
I thought it was a good move Kirata[:D]

VideoAdminAlpha -> RE: A bit on epistemology. (10/2/2011 12:26:21 AM)
I can't be put on hide.....

Lucylastic -> RE: A bit on epistemology. (10/2/2011 12:36:44 AM)
Oh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! you made me jump:)

GreedyTop -> RE: A bit on epistemology. (10/2/2011 12:37:41 AM)
smoooches VAA

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A bit on epistemology. (10/2/2011 12:52:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Uh oh... What's gonna happen if tossing it out of P&R is experienced as disrespectful? K. I would have said goodbye and abandoned the forum, as in any forum where administrators do not respect their participants. But it was not. My posting was actually off-topic, being it philosophy in a subforum is politics and religion. And actually I am even a bit grateful, the whole conversations are now off-topic related to the OP, with the exception of Anaxagoras. So, everything is ok (althoug I was tempted to push the "hide" button on VA just to make the test :D ).

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875