34 replies to this topic

[Lily from animove]

philosophy is, if it works when you believe it, its right, if it fails, it was just a stupid idea.

[990Dreams]

I believe in the Bible. I am very devoted to Christ. But I realize that this isn't the place to discuss this. I'm not gonna achieve anything on the forums. So, rather than theology, I made this thread about philosophy.

[Kalimaster]

Are we really reading this, or are we just a brain in a jar being tricked into reading it.

[990Dreams]

Kalimaster, on 02 September 2014 - 09:27 AM, said:

Are we really reading this, or are we just a brain in a jar being tricked into reading it.

We can never know.

[Pyrrho]

Some would call me a cynic, though I am of the opinion that pyrhhonism is more my style. Suspension of judgement; equipollence; uncertainty about that which is not evident (in both the "real" and "imagined" sense); tranquility.

[990Dreams]

Mine is what I prefer to call "complex."

[Pht]

DavidHurricane, on 02 September 2014 - 05:53 AM, said:

I believe in the Bible. I am very devoted to Christ. But I realize that this isn't the place to discuss this. I'm not gonna achieve anything on the forums. So, rather than theology, I made this thread about philosophy.

Yes, this is a VG forum - concepts should be discussed in popular terms and how they apply in common every-day real life (especially the VG format) ought to make it into the discussion. For instance, say, when the validity of science as a way of knowing truths pops up in, say, a physics thread? Or some horrible piece of news happens and gets posted. Way more common, when people start discussing balance and how the game rules should be set up or changed. Even VG forums touch on serious topics from time to time.

That said, at a certain level, really serious things can and even should be discussed when they come up. I'm just personally annoyed at the idea that believing in and speaking about truth - absolute, unchanging, real truth, that applies to everyone, even if they don't agree with it - should be supressed in some way or another. Basically, the only real wrong these days is thinking ... or worse, saying ... that something is ... really wrong. Self refuting, ironic, and just all around irrational and harmful to people.

Absolutely though, keep it civil and keep it honest. Discussing hard truths and disputing isn't a valid reason to be a jerk.

Kalimaster, on 02 September 2014 - 09:27 AM, said:

Are we really reading this, or are we just a brain in a jar being tricked into reading it.

How can it even be proven there is anything more than a dreamer, attaching the "I" and "me" to certain sections of his thoughts in his dream?

aka, "I think, therefore, I am" is a bad argument. For the logic wonks, a formal fallacy.

Humans can't even prove there's a "we" or an "I."

No revelation from a source with the proper means to actually know what they claim to know, no knowledge of truth for humans!

Ain't it fun being temporal, i.e. having a starting point in time? Silly old european theologians would have called this "being a creature."

So, in order for humans to think, we have to *ultimately* base our ideas on something we just ... assume is true. Which actually isn't irrational. What IS irrational is trying to use an assumed idea as the proof that said assumed idea is true - a vicious circle. Now that's just dumb.

Pyrrho, on 02 September 2014 - 04:33 PM, said:

Some would call me a cynic, though I am of the opinion that pyrhhonism is more my style. Suspension of judgement; equipollence; uncertainty about that which is not evident (in both the "real" and "imagined" sense); tranquility.

So, would you agree that you think nothing can be known?

Would you also agree that something can be identified as an "evident proposition?" If you do, what do you think makes any proposition "evident?"

Knowing how crummy wikpedia can be, would you say this is a pretty good statement about what you believe?

Quote

Whereas academic skepticism, with Carneades as its most famous adherent, claims that "Nothing can be known, not even this", Pyrrhonian skeptics withhold any assent with regard to non-evident propositions and remain in a state of perpetual inquiry. They disputed the possibility of attaining truth by sensory apprehension, reason, or the two combined, and thence inferred the need for total suspension of judgment (epoché) on things.^[3] A Pyrrhonist tries to make the arguments of both sides as strong as possible. Then he asks himself if there is any reason to prefer one side to the other. And if not, he suspends belief in either side. According to them, even the statement that nothing can be known is dogmatic. They thus attempted to make their skepticism universal, and to escape the reproach of basing it upon a fresh dogmatism.^[4]

https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Pyrrhonism

If I was to say to you, "FUN" is "BORING" would you say I was wrong to say this?

Edited by Pht, 03 September 2014 - 04:09 PM.

[Pyrrho]

Pht, on 03 September 2014 - 04:05 PM, said:

So, would you agree that you think nothing can be known?

If nothing can be known, wouldn't that itself be knowledge of something? I might say that it appears that nothing can be known for certain. Knowledge is unprovable, maybe?

Quote

Would you also agree that something can be identified as an "evident proposition?" If you do, what do you think makes any proposition "evident?"

That which appears to be can be considered evident -- but that does not make it certain. That which I see is evident, though my eyes my have malfunctioned in some way.

Quote

Knowing how crummy wikpedia can be, would you say this is a pretty good statement about what you believe?
https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Pyrrhonism

It's as clinical as it is going to get, though I have always found my beliefs to be driven by inquiry, so they are subject to modification.

Quote

If I was to say to you, "FUN" is "BORING" would you say I was wrong to say this?

There is nothing wrong with conjoining two opposing propositions in this way, grammatically. If you want to debate the finer points of the inherent semantic meanings of words, and whether or not true statements can be made of them, you may have to deal with a terribly long and drab response. So, the statement by itself is not wrong, though I assume there will be those who say it is impossible for fun to be boring given our current understanding of the words in context.

[Pht]

Pyrrho, on 03 September 2014 - 04:33 PM, said:

If nothing can be known, wouldn't that itself be knowledge of something? I might say that it appears that nothing can be known for certain. Knowledge is unprovable, maybe?

I'm curious. Are you attempting to be consistent with the idea that we can't know anything here? Or are you actually in some way saying that something MUST be known?

It can be very hard at times to understand the skeptical positions...

Quote

That which appears to be can be considered evident -- but that does not make it certain. That which I see is evident, though my eyes my have malfunctioned in some way.

"That which appears" - this seems to be shorthand for "that which you see/feel/smell/taste/hear" ... yes? I'll guess based on the tone of your post that you don't think that just because you think something is perceptually evident, that doesn't mean it's true.

Quote

It's as clinical as it is going to get, though I have always found my beliefs to be driven by inquiry, so they are subject to modification.

Some things just aren't easily or clearly discussed in non-abstract words and ways.

Quote

There is nothing wrong with conjoining two opposing propositions in this way, grammatically. If you want to debate the finer points of the inherent semantic meanings of words, and whether or not true statements can be made of them, you may have to deal with a terribly long and drab response. So, the statement by itself is not wrong, though I assume there will be those who say it is impossible for fun to be boring given our current understanding of the words in context.

Just to be clear, I wasn't posing it as a grammatical paradox, where something appears to be mutually contradictory but actually isn't - I was posing it as a genuine mutual exclusive. Something like, say, "square sphere," 1 = 0 ... etc.

By "mutual exclusive" I just mean:

"if (1) is true, than (2) can't be true;

If (2) is true, than (1) can't be true."

"1" and "2" just being standins for whatever.

If I were to say that you had actually said (in language and in actual meaning) "There is everything wrong with conjoining two opposing propositions in this way, grammatically," would I be wrong to say that? Not just wrong gramatically, but wrong in what I said you meant?

Edited by Pht, 03 September 2014 - 04:48 PM.

[Pyrrho]

Pht, on 03 September 2014 - 04:48 PM, said:

I'm curious. Are you attempting to be consistent with the idea that we can't know anything here? Or are you actually in some way saying that something MUST be known?

It can be very hard at times to understand the skeptical positions...

You asked if I thought nothing could be known; I attempted to explain that "Nothing can be known" is something which can be known, which would be inconsistent with the idea that nothing can be known. From my experience, this is the realm of the Academic skeptic. The pyrrhonian position is usually fairly simple; doubt is not a bad thing, nor is it a good thing; mostly, it is a tool that allows the skeptic to remain tranquil.

Quote

"That which appears" - this seems to be shorthand for "that which you see/feel/smell/taste/hear" ... yes? I'll guess based on the tone of your post that you don't think that just because you think something is perceptually evident, that doesn't mean it's true.

There is a double negative in here causing a bit of confusion for me (emphasized) however, I think you are right in this assessment. There is more here than just normal sense perception, though. Our memories are evident, though they are completely subjective to the one remembering.

Quote

Some things just aren't easily or clearly discussed in non-abstract words and ways.

But at least, via dialogue, we can make the attempt.

Quote

Just to be clear, I wasn't posing it as a grammatical paradox, where something appears to be mutually contradictory but actually isn't - I was posing it as a genuine mutual exclusive. Something like, say, "square sphere," 1 = 0 ... etc.

By "mutual exclusive" I just mean:

"if (1) is true, than (2) can't be true;

If (2) is true, than (1) can't be true."

"1" and "2" just being standins for whatever.

If I were to say that you had actually said (in language and in actual meaning) "There is everything wrong with conjoining two opposing propositions in this way, grammatically," would I be wrong to say that? Not just wrong gramatically, but wrong in what I said you meant?

I could consider the original sentence (FUN is BORING) as a work of art, perhaps akin to the often tantalizing "This statement is false." paradox. Now that I bring that up, is that statement "wrong"? What could make it "right"? What are your criteria for the wrongness of a statement? Are they the same as mine? These questions, mostly dealing with subjective perceptions and expectations, are enough for me to suspend judgement about whether it is right OR wrong. It appears to be a statement about two mutually exclusive things.

[990Dreams]

Pht, on 03 September 2014 - 04:05 PM, said:

Yes, this is a VG forum - concepts should be discussed in popular terms and how they apply in common every-day real life (especially the VG format) ought to make it into the discussion. For instance, say, when the validity of science as a way of knowing truths pops up in, say, a physics thread? Or some horrible piece of news happens and gets posted. Way more common, when people start discussing balance and how the game rules should be set up or changed. Even VG forums touch on serious topics from time to time.

That said, at a certain level, really serious things can and even should be discussed when they come up. I'm just personally annoyed at the idea that believing in and speaking about truth - absolute, unchanging, real truth, that applies to everyone, even if they don't agree with it - should be supressed in some way or another. Basically, the only real wrong these days is thinking ... or worse, saying ... that something is ... really wrong. Self refuting, ironic, and just all around irrational and harmful to people.

Absolutely though, keep it civil and keep it honest. Discussing hard truths and disputing isn't a valid reason to be a jerk.

Solid points. But I have to rely on people being jerks. I can't assume everyone will be kind. That's why I have to monitor things to keep them from going out of hand.

I can rely on you, and Marack, and Pyrroh, and most of the others being civil. But I can't rely on it that a troll won't come in and ruin everything.

[Mister Blastman]

BLOOD WOLF, on 01 September 2014 - 08:46 AM, said:

Philosophy deals in many things. I am fond of reasoning, logic, validity and reality. Its the combination and use of the mind to answer problems that one can face. What I love most is the Rational argument, which is not as easy for some to do, Vice versa.

I read, Aristotle, Plato, Chinese philosophers such as Lao-tzu, European, all sorts.

However this thread wont go anywhere if it doesn't have a basis besides just discussing philosophy. I like what you did but those people are not going to jump over here and start arguing their post away, i dont think.

I think you can simplify things further. I dunno what this thread is or why it is here but...

Philosophy seeks to answer the question: "What?" It never completely answers it. But it certainly provides possibilities.

Science answers the question: "Why?"

Engineering answers the question: "How?"

They are all compatible and interchangeable with each other--and should be used in conjunction with one another when exploring anything pertaining to our own Universe or other ones.

[Mister Blastman]

Kalimaster, on 02 September 2014 - 09:27 AM, said:

Are we really reading this, or are we just a brain in a jar being tricked into reading it.

This seeks to give us insight... the results might be scary while simultaneously being profound.

http://www.extremete...s-a-2d-hologram

Brane theory is neat stuff.

[Pht]

Pyrrho, on 03 September 2014 - 06:11 PM, said:

You asked if I thought nothing could be known; I attempted to explain that "Nothing can be known" is something which can be known, which would be inconsistent with the idea that nothing can be known. From my experience, this is the realm of the Academic skeptic. The pyrrhonian position is usually fairly simple; doubt is not a bad thing, nor is it a good thing; mostly, it is a tool that allows the skeptic to remain tranquil.

I was simply trying to figure out where you stood. You seemed to be placing yourself somwhere in the skeptical end of things. I have actually interacted with people who aren't in the academic world who WOULD attempt to say that, yes, it's impossible to know anything.

Those kinds of people are virtually impossible to have meaningful conversation with - when they don't want to converse, they can pull the most ludicrous tricks and feel themselves perfectly justified in doing so.

Quote

There is a double negative in here causing a bit of confusion for me (emphasized) however, I think you are right in this assessment. There is more here than just normal sense perception, though. Our memories are evident, though they are completely subjective to the one remembering.

... it's not a double negative... it's just one of my bad habits that I need to stop. So, you do allow for memories - cool. Some of the more consistent Logical positivists can be maddening at times when they don't allow for memory.

Quote

But at least, via dialogue, we can make the attempt.

I'm happy to define what I mean if you are.

Quote

I could consider the original sentence (FUN is BORING) as a work of art, perhaps akin to the often tantalizing "This statement is false." paradox. Now that I bring that up, is that statement "wrong"? What could make it "right"? What are your criteria for the wrongness of a statement? Are they the same as mine? These questions, mostly dealing with subjective perceptions and expectations, are enough for me to suspend judgement about whether it is right OR wrong. It appears to be a statement about two mutually exclusive things.

I don't really see it as a work of art. It's just a verbal tool towards an end to me.

No, it's not possible to make that statement right. It's an example of a mutual contradictory - if one assumes it's true, it has to be false - if one assumes it's false, than it's got to be making a true statement.

It's a fancy way of saying nothing at all. The sort of thing politicians are really good at.

What are the criteria for the rightness or wrongness of a statement...

Start with identity (a=a), add noncontradiction (a can't = non-a), add the excluded middle (there is nothing between a and non-a) ... and everything else that these three necessarily require. These have to be presumed to even think or communicate. This is utterly non-subjective. These have to be presumed. They can't even be called false without having to presume they are true.

The use of this doesn't mean the conclusion MUST be true - this process just preserves the truth of whatever you start with.

In order to have truth to start with, you need to get it from a source that has the proper attributes to know truth AND communicate that truth to humans - and no human has those attributes... which is one of the reasons I stated the positive half earlier in this thread in the 1 timothy reference.

The other ways that have been put forth for humans to know truth all contain fatal irrationality. For example, classic rationalism presumes that truth to start with can be gotten from the human mind, ignoring the fact that the human mind doesn't posess the means to get truth by itself. Just because we think something, doesn't mean it's true. Trying to get truth from the senses is just as bad of a flop.

Mister Blastman, on 04 September 2014 - 09:04 AM, said:

I think you can simplify things further. I dunno what this thread is or why it is here but...

Philosophy seeks to answer the question: "What?" It never completely answers it. But it certainly provides possibilities.

Science answers the question: "Why?"

Engineering answers the question: "How?"

They are all compatible and interchangeable with each other--and should be used in conjunction with one another when exploring anything pertaining to our own Universe or other ones.

This thread is here because the topic of evolution came up and the thread starter didn't want that thread locked up. Society at large goes childishly bonkers when evolution is questioned and they think it's proper to be rude to anyone who doesn't think like they do on that topic. "Diversity! Diversity! ... until you disagree on our taboos!"

----

Actually, philosophy isn't the theory of "what" ... If I'm reading you right, this would be metaphysics, the study of "what is."

Philosophy is really just the collective thoughts that undergird any given topic. There's a philosophy that undergirds science (currently, the idea that you can know either truth ... or some other class of knowledge, by the physical senses), there's even philosophy undergirding engineering.

Commonly discussed around here is the topic of the philosophy of balance. Even the most hardcore pragmatist has to assume the otherwise utterly unpragmatic philosophy that underlies pragmatism.

No topic and no person can escape philosophy.

Edited by Pht, 05 September 2014 - 12:20 PM.