Jump to content
Avant Labs
Sign in to follow this  
Dante

When debating philosophy/politics/economics.

Recommended Posts

Speaking of meaningless, why are Garbage Board posts meaningless in overall post count? I think I have some pretty good posts on the Garbage Board, with a lot of meaning, and many others do, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a comment on perception:Take Mike Mentzer for example.He constantly talked of the aforementioned absolutes.A couple of years before his death Mentzer said he had come to a conclusion on the 'one right' way to excercise and his work was done.Basically it was:One set to failure-Recovery-Growth.Simple as that.Same for everyone.As much set in stone as 1=1.

 

A sword is only as strong as the arm which wields. That said, Mentzer wasn't capable of establishing rational contexts. Yes, there is "one right way" to train, which is: never exceed your capacity to recuperate.

 

Why must anyone assume all Objectivists alike. I abhor most of them. True mastery of knowledge is known when you can fittingly apply the concepts you learned to concrete instances.

 

But this goes back to repetition. If you place your lips firmly to one's ass, the voice coming out won't be your own, and you'll be talking shit from someone else's mouth, as whatever by them said, right or wrong, you won't truly understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I'm going to ride Wittgensteins arse on this one (sorry Dante). He views language as a 'game' in that there is a nececcity for agreed rules if words are to hold meaning. Linguistic rules are created by us through interaction and are, intern, what create our identity (concept of self) and the identity of things we objectify (concepts of objects). To deny this would be to deny social hierarchy and human will, thus there would be a requirement for an external force to ensure that linguistic rules are perpetuated. 

 

Yes, but they're not meaningless, and are random insofar as we can call a man a woman and a woman a man, but we'd still be referring to the same object.

 

We're separating language from reality, as though the former is a power in itself.

 

 

Thats a bastardization of his philosophy, and I know you guys are thinking \"yeah, but what about the ACTUAL fucking bar!?\". Well, metaphysically the bar only exists as a concept... that concept has been necceceraly adjusted to communicable understanding and cannot be know \"initself\".

 

What is a "communicable understanding", which can't transmit what the bar is "in itself.". Do we just, at whim, say "Protein bar",or do we have to truly understand that to which we refer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Tkkarde

 

Lacan's thought is very important to me. The Phallus is certainly a thing-in-itself LOL.

 

@Omnibus

 

Not 'mystical' in the sense you are talking about...more intuitionist, at least within the mathematical sense of that term.

Sublation of the self is not some sort of experiential category...it's conceptual.

 

@Delphinus

 

1) This is late Wittgenstein, of Philosophical Investigations. If you tread this path, you and Dante will have nothing to discuss. Go back to the last line of the Tractatus..."Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen" (Of that which one cannot speak, one must pass over in silence).

 

2) I don't understand your criticism of Nietzsche, so I will have to ask you to clarify. Are you asserting that he is a nihilist? Or a relativist? He is neither.

 

3) You are defining mathematically by exclusion or relationality, which elides a more complex understanding of number theory. Infinity is neither meaningless nor afunctional in mathematics. Transfinite mathematics base their existence on the functionality of infinities (Cantor, Hilbert, etc.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But, it wasn't supposed to be like that smile.gif

 

Will look into making them count 1/2

Perhaps threads like this could move to the debate board, since there's not much activity there anyway. I don't think "my cat died" posts need to increase post count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What relationship to reality, in the sense of a "concrete", does the concept of infiniti have (even if it is just theoretical/would be related to some bit of science to come (from quantam physics, I would assume)?? Or if that is not applicable, could you just go into it more, in general, as something more than meaningless.

 

When I try to think of it, is seems much like nothingness/nonexistence, in that we cannot even TRULY fathom the concept (i.e. get a picture/idea in our head of "infiniti/nothingness is THAT.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But, it wasn't supposed to be like that smile.gif

 

Will look into making them count 1/2

Perhaps threads like this could move to the debate board, since there's not much activity there anyway. I don't think "my cat died" posts need to increase post count.

 

I think I will ease the rules on The Lycaeum and just start moving the garbage board threads that turn philosophic over there.

 

It is, of course, a testament to what good posters you all have been -- I would have sooner expected PA and Bill L. to make out at the Arnold than for a bb board to be able to excel so quickly in regard to behavior and performance in political and philosophical threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading through this post, virtually everything I wanted to say, was already said. mad.gif I might still have some original comments however.

 

Dante

Can someone \"prove\" to me that they don't exist, or do this, we know as the truth. So then, isn't this an absolute, that you are indeed here (or there). And don't say \"well, what if I die tomorrow\", as that which isn't can kiss death.

 

Look up a word like "existence" in the dictionary. Then look up the definitions for every word in that definition. And so on. You will find that language is inherently self-referential, just an endless chain of signifiers. This renders all words meaningless. Circular reasoning is one of the most fundamental logical fallacies, and all definitions are circular. I can't prove I don't exist, just as you can't prove that I do.

 

Now before you start writing about how this is paradoxical, read the rest of my post.

 

Dante

You're setting up anything as an absolute, as though anything it can be, so that as soon as it is dicounted, you dimiss the very notion of absolutes.

 

I've noticed there are many people who are interesting in existentialism on these boards. So, I will state one of the fundamental premises that lead to existentialist thought: Reality is ultimately absurd and paradoxical from a rational perspective.

 

This does not say anything about reality, it just says something about rationality. When one begins thinking about things like this, it gives them a headache. It seems like nothing works out. I see a lot of thought going into these threads, but I see the same thing over and over: People assuming that there is an explanation, that we are going to be able to find some sort of "structure" for existence, some rules. After all, the reasoning goes, if nothing can be proven... what is there?

 

We have been trained to think this way. It is deeply embedded in our worldview. This idea that there are finite, separable "chunks" of reality. I cannot prove that what I am saying is true, just as you cannot prove it is false. This only proves what I am saying to be true, from your rational perspective. Paradox? Only if you assume that there is a such thing as paradoxes. What I would say is that we call "paradox" is something that is fundamental. No, that is not a truth: Paradoxes do not exist independent of human thought. The "fundamental nature of reality" is not something that can be grasped so easily as to be put in a word. If I were to represent it with a word, I would use the word "infinite." Meaning that any and all possible realities occur, from the way we see reality.

 

If you're going to understand what I'm saying, you must quit taking the defensive. You must put serious thought into this. All of this time, people are using logic, logic, logic. It is a belief. A convention, a model. Conventions can be very useful, but there are always limitations: Logic cannot explain everything. Logic is not the end-all be-all of existence.

 

Dante

David, I'm a mordant individual, but I couldn't imagine having any debates, as often I do, if I believed that nothing's true, and nothing can be proven. It would be pointless. I'd just give up before even I started.

 

Accepting what I am saying would not preclude rational debate. Rationality can be a very useful tool. What we are beginning to come to now has ceased to be a rational discussion or an argument: It has become a discussion of spirituality, or whatever you would like to call it. I am merely pointing out that rationality cannot stand up to it's own rules, and that that demonstrates that it is not an "objective existent." I don't even have to argue: I am demonstrating.

 

In a debate such as one with Chuck, or virtually any other discussion, there is an unspoken agreement. Words symbolize certain things, certain rules that are generally agreed upon apply. Somebody who says "but nothing's really objectively true!" is not taken seriously. It is not that what they are saying is "false;" it is simply not relevant to the discussion. They aren't following the rules of the game.

 

Gene

I always love to use the example of quantum mechanics. Inside atoms, the commonly perceived rules of reality to not apply; a single particle can paradoxically be in two places at the same time. The absolute truth couldn't be then that we live in a world of fixed and precise properties. Also, reality in this context couldn't be absolute, because the laws are conditional -- inside and outside atoms different natural laws apply. As such, natural laws are not absolute, but can provide the context for scientific relativities.

 

Gene, I am glad you bring up quantum mechanics as it is very relevant to the discussion at hand. You are correct that the commonly perceived rules of reality don't apply in the quantum realm, which makes us have to redefine the way we view reality yet again. The earth was found to be round, electricity was discovered, then came relativity, and then quantum mechanics... throughout history our view of the way things "are" has expanded more and more. Note that each of these developments expanded our views of reality, and expanded our views of what was possible. I do not believe this expansion will ever end - there will always be more to be found. Rules will be broken time and time again. Chaos theory, string theory - all new developments that make us notice things that have been there the entire time, but which we haven't seen due to our limited views.

 

Gene

My main premise: Opposites cannot coexist at the same time and in the same context (non-contradiction). This fits with light being particle/light in different contexts (I think), and quantum particles occupying more than one distinct cartesian coordinate location at any one time (superposition).

 

Actually, wave/particle duality would imply the opposite. Physicists rarely look at this from a philosophical perspective (although there is a quickly growing movement of "mystical physicists.") Technically, something cannot be a wave and a particle at the same time. A particle is a point in space and a wave is not. Experimental observation has shown that photons can behave as either a particle or a wave, but not both at the same time. So basically this is one of many "exceptions" to reality. Demonstrating that it would be wise to abandon the idea of "paradox" altogether.

 

Gene

\"There are no absolutes\" is an absolute statement, therefore absolutes exist (ie, \"there are not absolutes; here's one\"). Otherwise, it would be possible for absolutes to exist and not exist. This would only be possible is existence was not absolute. But, that would be a contradiction, and we can't perceive reality if there are contradictions in it. Space-time reality must be absolute for us to be able to perceive it, otherwise one could alter their reality and subject it to it's own laws. I'm further presuming that by altering one's reality, one could alter other realities by disturbing the time-space continuum (movie \"The One,\" or something of the kind). Therefore, absolutes exist. Moreover, existence and reality are absolute. However, this implies that our perception of an absolute (reality) is relative, further implying that it is possible to perceive an absolute (ie, my arguments on science stand, for now at least).

 

You're getting close but missing the key here, the final part. I'll take your idea one step further.

 

The statement "There are no absolutes" must be false, since it could not be true if there were no absolutes. Furthermore, it is impossible for any part of exist to not be absolute, because the statement "this is not absolute" would imply that it had an absolute property (it's non-absoluteness). Since nothing is not absolute, everything is thus absolute. However, the term "absolute" only has meaning in relation to the term "not absolute." Hence, nothing is absolute. Have we been here before? As you see, trying to use rational principles with issues like this is futile. So either reality is flawed, or rationality is.

 

Par Deus

When I try to think of it, is seems much like nothingness/nonexistence, in that we cannot even TRULY fathom the concept (i.e. get a picture/idea in our head of \"infiniti/nothingness is THAT.).

 

Infinity is something to be seen - not to be known.

 

I reiterate, sorry if I've restated too many points. There are many issues to deal with here.

 

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the obstacles lies in the misconception of infinity as something smaller or larger than all other numbers; an undefined limit-point. Quantum physics may be particularly culpable of this misprision. We can think of this in terms of one-to-one correspondence in set theory. Cantor states: "a collection is infinite if some of its parts are as big as the whole." Moving from this, he ultimately concluded that not only the existence of infinity, but of infinite infinities, is a mathematical necessity (I'm skipping steps to save time). This most importantly, or famously, led to infinite symmetry in topology, and the 'discovery' of fractals (via Mandelbrot). Fractal geometries have been incredibly useful in analysing complex natural patterns, and far-from-equilbrium systems (e.g. weather, traffic, etc.). If you think of this in terms of self-symmetry and the concept of infinite difference, you may apprehend the point to which I'm clumsily alluding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One of the obstacles lies in the misconception of infinity as something smaller or larger than all other numbers; an undefined limit-point. Quantum physics may be particularly culpable of this misprision. We can think of this in terms of one-to-one correspondence in set theory. Cantor states: "a collection is infinite if some of its parts are as big as the whole." Moving from this, he ultimately concluded that not only the existence of infinity, but of infinite infinities, is a mathematical necessity (I'm skipping steps to save time). This most importantly, or famously, led to infinite symmetry in topology, and the 'discovery' of fractals (via Mandelbrot). Fractal geometries have been incredible useful in analysing complex natural patterns, and far-from-equilbrium systems (e.g. weather, traffic, etc.). If you think of this in terms of self-symmetry and the concept of infinite difference, you may apprehend the point to which I'm clumsily alluding.

I simply cannot comprehend the difference between infinity, aleph etc. or even the idea of "different" infinities. Very interesing, perhaps I will do more reading on it sometime. I have a pretty good grasp of fractals though - beyond layman understanding anyway - but more function than design. I wasn't even aware that transfinite mathematics was involved.

 

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look up a word like \"existence\" in the dictionary. Then look up the definitions for every word in that definition. And so on. You will find that language is inherently self-referential, just an endless chain of signifiers. This renders all words meaningless. Circular reasoning is one of the most fundamental logical fallacies, and all definitions are circular. I can't prove I don't exist, just as you can't prove that I do.

 

In order to prove that you didn't exist, you'd first have to exist. And who am I talking to.

 

This is ridiculous.

 

There isn't and "endless chain", at first it starts somewhere (like "motion is an illusion", since if I throw a ball, we can trace it back in halves, so that at some point we can say "the ball never left").

 

As for "rules" which are broken, again, all this explained. "I can't prove it, you can't disprove it", then there's no reason to anything state. Again, then everything is equally valid.

 

 

If you're going to understand what I'm saying, you must quit taking the defensive. You must put serious thought into this. All of this time, people are using logic, logic, logic. It is a belief. A convention, a model. Conventions can be very useful, but there are always limitations: Logic cannot explain everything. Logic is not the end-all be-all of existence.

 

Put serious thought without using logic (which is interesting, since if I can't use logic, then what do you wish for me to think with. I gather I'll "pray"). You're mistaking conventions with logic, as though the latter can be whatever someone wants, so that anything that passes off as "logic", is logic.

 

And if any of this seems nonsensical, it's because it is. But what to expect, when a person who may or may not exist is using meaningless words in a paradoxical reality to debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dante - All you are using is a series of appeals and attacks.

 

I don't know if you've read by posts about resolutions in the debate structure on the debate board, but this is a good example why.

 

Look at it this way. You, in this case, are the affirmative. The resolution you are supporting is something along the lines of, "Rationality does not have flaws."

 

Assuming that, I have given effective ways that you can use rationality to undermine it's own premises. The following are not valid arguments:

 

"Your advocacy isn't consistent"

"If that were true, things wouldn't make sense"

 

The first is an ad hom, the second is an appeal to emotion. See what I'm getting at here? Logic is a useful tool in a debate such as this but does not describe objective reality.

 

There isn't and \"endless chain\", at first it starts somewhere (like \"motion is an illusion\", since if I throw a ball, we can trace it back in halves, so that at some point we can say \"the ball never left\").

 

Ok. So can you explain to me how all the words in the dictionary don't refer to each other?

 

As for \"rules\" which are broken, again, all this explained. \"I can't prove it, you can't disprove it\", then there's no reason to anything state. Again, then everything is equally valid.

 

How can you show me that the concept "validity" is even an existent independent of human thought. Everything is only equally valid from an objective standpoint, within the framework of rationality you can still make decisions as to the validity of a certain argument. You're not addressing this.

 

And if any of this seems nonsensical, it's because it is. But what to expect, when a person who may or may not exist is using meaningless words in a paradoxical reality to debate.

 

I am dismantling the system using it's own tools. Your reasoning goes like this: Rationality is true, rationality states that paradoxes don't exist, hence paradoxes don't exist. I'm attacking the premise by showing that paradoxes do exist, and all you're doing is restating the premise.

 

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One of the obstacles lies in the misconception of infinity as something smaller or larger than all other numbers; an undefined limit-point. Quantum physics may be particularly culpable of this misprision. We can think of this in terms of one-to-one correspondence in set theory. Cantor states: "a collection is infinite if some of its parts are as big as the whole." Moving from this, he ultimately concluded that not only the existence of infinity, but of infinite infinities, is a mathematical necessity (I'm skipping steps to save time). This most importantly, or famously, led to infinite symmetry in topology, and the 'discovery' of fractals (via Mandelbrot). Fractal geometries have been incredibly useful in analysing complex natural patterns, and far-from-equilbrium systems (e.g. weather, traffic, etc.). If you think of this in terms of self-symmetry and the concept of infinite difference, you may apprehend the point to which I'm clumsily alluding.

Haven't studied these types of math, but I would think even they must have a "cap" put on them, otherwise you would literally study them forever and never come to the end.

 

There are many types of infinites, but unless a "cap" is put on them, they really have no practical purpose.

 

Studying infinites is certainly important, but once you get to a certain point where you've proven what you set out to, I would think you would have to stop, for two reasons: 1) you've pretty much proven your point beyond a reasonable doubt and 2) going further would be a waste of time as you would go on forever.

 

So when I say "silly" or "meaningless", I mean in terms of practicality, without a "cap".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An understanding of linguistic structure which relies on the dictionary probably isn't the best place from which to mount this sort of offensive. This is one view of language that you are presenting; one that happens to be synchronic and structuralist. I know what you are driving it, but it's not as obvious as your post makes it out to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SSX: I don't think I understand what you're driving at. Can you gloss what you mean by a 'cap', perhaps by way of example?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there are many types of infinites (positive, negative, between given real numbers, etc.), but none would seemingly have a practical application without a stopping point somewhere along the way. Otherwise, it keeps going, and serves you no purpose, other than showing it keeps going.

 

So after you prove what you set out to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, there's no point in going any further (infinite).

 

So, even though studying them is necessary, attempting to approach them without a stopping point seems silly.

 

Because approaching them without a stopping point means you keep going forever, what practical purpose can that possibly serve? Even studying complex patterns, you stop at a certain point, because you've proven your point, and to keep going would be a waste of time. In other words, you have to have a stopping point, to give it practicality, to give it true meaning.

 

I would give you a calculus example, but without a graph, explaining it would probably confuse even more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that this is the best example, but here goes:

 

Let's say we're all engineers trying to figure out how much force we need from our rockets to make our shuttle reach the moon. We figure this out through complex calculations, but in the process, we realize that without a cap, a limit, a stopping point, the shuttle, once it breaks through earth's gravitational pull with that amount of force, would keep going on forever. However, we don't give a shit about that, we just want to get it to the moon, safely. So our cap, our limit, is the moon. We don't care about infinite, because it serves us no purpose, and in fact, would lead to disaster in this instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dante is just pointing out the absurdities that logically flow from your premises.

 

Most people reevaluate their premises when they conflict with reality.

 

Others choose to deny reality or logic's existence/validity.

 

Though, of course, they only do this in arguments -- they never live their life by the logical conclusions, because, again, they are absurd, because they rest on absurd premises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course.

 

David, you're twisting words. "Reality" does not have flaws (contradictions), "rationality" is only as good as the person reasoning.

 

And "emotion", if there's no objective truth, then nothing can make sense. If I hit an egg with a tennis racket, one day it could act like an egg, and splatter, the next, act as though it were a ball itself.

 

And of course, each time I end with a statement ('you're not consistent'), it's after I've showed why.

 

What do words in the dictionary first come from. Are they, again, random, insofar as the meaning of each word (the concept) is at whim.

 

A word doesn't just refer to another word, it refers to a concept, that concept identified by a chosen tag, a word.

 

Unless, words come first, from nowhere, without concepts, and we just argue with words which never first related to anything, except each other.

 

How can you show me that the concept \"validity\" is even an existent independent of human thought. Everything is only equally valid from an objective standpoint, within the framework of rationality you can still make decisions as to the validity of a certain argument. You're not addressing this.

 

It's not, it's our means of identification. If a tree fell and no one was there to hear it, would there be a sound. No, there wouldn't. Sound is our means of grasping the event--a tree falling, a tree crashing against the ground, a sound emitted.

 

Would the tree have still hit the ground, yes.

 

Validity is not independent of human thought, being able to grasp non-contradiction (again, this explained, how if a contradiction exists, it's because either we're wrong in our grasp, or failing to amend our viewpoints).

 

Do you or don't you believe every entity (sentient or otherwise) to have an identity (a defining property). If yes, then via science, that we explore, and of course, if an apple could be an ape, science, there would be no point.

 

If a "paradox" exists, again, it's because of a present shortcoming of our understanding, in the context of that which we are referring to. To expand on what Par said, here a question posed for anyone:

 

David, or anyone hitching a ride aboard his same train of though, please give me example of how you live your life by these standards (in science, in anything). When you enter a debate about science, do you just pretend your words to have meaning, every object to be indetifiable, an objective truth to exist.

 

BTW: If I repeat my same premise, it's because I haven't abandoned it, and you fail to hold it.

 

This is also why people learn to loathe academics, as the acadamians present a vantage point which is impossible to uphold in reality, as even they can't do so themselves.

 

Reminds me of an economics article recently I read: the academic philsophers who state "we can't know anything", but are often political liberals. Where are they, now, proclaiming "how can we know there's a recession". They're too busy supporting economic stimulus packages).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does one make sense of dividing infinite squared by infinite, in a real sense???

 

Did this in business calculus I -- for a bit on my background, I was quite good at math (made a 36 on ACT and 790 on SAT) but this was the most advanced mathematics course I took, and I certainly have not studied it on my own, like I have with philosophy and science.

 

Thus, that may be keeping me from being able to conceptualize these properly -- I have no reference from which to visualize it is my mind's eye -- just seems an absurd/meaningless concept.

 

Had the same problem when reading A Brief History of Time. When he starts talking about the universe being saddle shaped, "Fruity Pebbles are good." is what my brain says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no 'real' cognates of pure mathematical concepts, but applicability emerges in places we could never anticipate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) This is late Wittgenstein, of Philosophical Investigations. If you tread this path, you and Dante will have nothing to discuss. Go back to the last line of the Tractatus...\"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen\" (Of that which one cannot speak, one must pass over in silence).

 

My aim in presenting Wittgensteins philosophy, was to find common ground by which to communicate the seperation of concept and object. My comment on "riding his arse on this one" was because of Dante's previous post about mentioning philosophers... I did not mean to ride it to the bitter end. Perhaps this isn't the best way to debate as one may argue it requires my rebutting of Wittgensteins conclusion. This tangential veering from the original discussion is tedious... so perhaps Dante has a point about citing theories, no matter the case. ph34r.gif

 

Anyway, this thread is about "debating philosophy, politics, economics", it would appear we are reffering to metaphysical concepts (right/wrong/good/bad etc.) which I do believe have their place in real world contexts... If someone tells me Count Chocula rules hands down, I am not going to debate the existance of that cereal. The question at stake is whether one can argue about values without belief in absolutes (though if Count Chocula rules your universe, so be it). I am saying that even if absolutes exist, our incapacity in comprehending singularity renders them (directly speaking) irrelevant to the discussion, and that reason is fallible.

 

    2) I don't understand your criticism of Nietzsche, so I will have to ask you to clarify. Are you asserting that he is a nihilist?  Or a relativist? He is neither.

 

I do not wanto fall into a debate on Nitzsche. In the sense of morality, he welcomes nihilsm but only because he values the human... "spirit" (a more appropriate term alludes me), and views nihilism of this sense, as neccecary for the will to power/life to blossom. I have seen Nietzsche labelled "existientalist"... though this seems rediculous in that Nitzsche's will is of "becoming" as opposed to "being". Perhaps his amor fati puts him somewhere between determinsm and materialism? I haven't really thought about it.

 

My disagreement with Nietsche is that I niether think the will to power as the primary action, or that its suppression need be a negation of the will to live.

 

3) You are defining mathematically by exclusion or relationality, which elides a more complex understanding of number theory. Infinity is neither meaningless nor afunctional in mathematics. Transfinite mathematics base their existence on the functionality of infinities (Cantor, Hilbert, etc.).

 

Well, I'll certainly look into transfinite mathematics, though I cannot comprehend how it will make my example superfluos (in what I wished it to denote).

 

I have more to add, but I too am busy. Oh, and Dante... I almost forgot, I'll outline my economic "ideals" to you soon and would be greatful for you to take me through your view of them. smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This discussion lost me a few steps ago, for the main reason that there is no reference of argumentation here. One side dismounts logic by dwelling in paradox, and so I don't understand how the other side one can make a logical counter-argument if logic itself is in error.

 

This is troubling, because if logic is a fallacy, I can't assert anything without it being reduced to an absurd, abstract concept that holds no meaning. The law of non-contradiction would self-destruct. My assertions would both exist and not exist, and be both true and false.

 

1a) What is an acceptable system of thought and reasoning?

1b) Is it logic? If not, why not, what is an alternative. If yes, are there any exceptions and what are they?

 

2a) What is an acceptable lexicon for verbal and written discourse within the English language?

2b) Are there any exceptions, and if so what are they?

2c) If nothing is acceptable, how are we communicating?

 

3a) What is a paradox?

3b) How does a paradox affect the contextualization of the terms listed below?

 

So far, in this thread, the following concepts have been reduced to a meaningless, paradoxical, and absurd states:

 

1. Logic

2. Language

3. Reality

4. Points of reference

5. Limits

6. Proof

7. Assertions

8. Truth

 

So, I ask -- what are we discussing, and what is an acceptable way of discussing it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point concerning late Wittgenstein is that the 'language games' discussion will have you arguing on incommensurable playing fields.

 

Whether or not you wish to fall into a debate on Nietzsche, you have sparked one. :-) He did not 'welcome nihilism' in any sense. He saw nihilism and the Last Man as a degeneration of Will, the antinomy of what you are asserting. The Will is not a subjective thing either, or something that can be suppressed. That's an unfortunate Freudian spin that has been put on Nietzsche. It is not inaccurate to suggest that he falls into a materialist/determinist tradition, and while he shares a great deal with Kierkegaard, I would agree that labelling him an existentialist is a bit of a stretch.

 

My last point is that numbers are neither purely combinatorial nor relational.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, I ask -- what are we discussing, and what is an acceptable way of discussing it?

LOL I am asking that, too.

 

I don't check in for something like 14 hours and all of a sudden there are about 6 posts I missed. They just keep growing and I cannot catch up!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He did not 'welcome nihilism' in any sense. He saw nihilism and the Last Man as a degeneration of Will, the antinomy of what you are asserting.

 

What are you suggesting then? He could see the "selbstaufhebung" of justice as sowing the seed for modern ressentiment; the anarchists* and anti-Semites who would see “not only revenge but all reactive affects in general” rehabilitated. While not opposing this attitude entirely, he views it as only valid if in reaction to the original active affects “such as lust for power, avarice and the like.” But if he did not welcome MORAL nihilism as a condition for these to rise from, why does he desconstruct God?? “We deny God, we deny the responsibility of God, it is only thus that we will deliver the world.” The attitude of "be your own man" appears, to me, to denounce metaphysical value systems.

 

Please, feel free to offer your view on Nietzsche and the topic in general. What would you classify him as?

 

*perhaps later to become objectivists wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus, Gene, how so you disappoint:

 

The précis of this all:

 

We're debating the practical application of that which is inherently absurd, like contemplating how to masturbate with crazy glue, and then when, our hands glued to our cocks, the words "hand", "glue", and "cock" are said inherently meaningless, as they only refer to other words, and we can't prove that indeed our hands stuck, so we'll just pretend it never happened.

 

After this, we'll go to the doctor, but only for practical reasons, although a mite hard it may be to explain to the doctor how our hands, not really to the shaft glued, as we're not sure if the good doc is really even there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My last point is that numbers are neither purely combinatorial nor relational.

 

Then by what are they defined? Both? Like I said, I claim no authority in mathematics and if you have time I would be interested in your explenation. smile.gif

 

We're debating the practical application of that which is inherently absurd, like contemplating how to masturbate with crazy glue, and then when, our hands glued to our cocks, the words \"hand\", \"glue\", and \"cock\" are said inherently meaningless, as they only refer to other words, and we can't prove that indeed our hands stuck, so we'll just pretend it never happened.

 

After this, we'll go to the doctor, but only for practical reasons, although a mite hard it may be to explain to the doctor how our hands, not really to the shaft glued, as we're not sure if the good doc is really even there.

 

laugh.gif x 900. You missed the point though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×