Does anything exist?

[Thermal]

OK, so we are back to "all constructive thought is philosophy" ... brilliant, so my cat does philosophy all day long ... so do all the birds in my garden. Dinosaurs used to do the same before they eventually (slowly!) died out 66 million years ago.

No, we are not "back to" anything. I addressed your points directly, and pointed out the several flaws. You're handwaving and moving the goalposts.

Oh, and a PhD is a doctorate in/of “philosophy too” (only an ancient antiquated naming tradition though, afaik).

Again, not what we were talking about. Even tangentially. I'm not discussing having degrees in anything, or their linguistic origins, because it is utterly irrelevant.

 

[Marras]

That's a lot of words for "Whenever I'm wrong, I'm really just a new, alternative form of right."

So you not only don't know anything about logic, you also actively refuse to learn anything about it.

If you had bothered to click any of the links I posted, you might have noticed that the were to mathematics and computer science. Not philosophy, unless you think that mathematics and computer science are philosophy.

They were to logics that real life logicians (who are mathematicians or computer scientists) use to solve real life problems.

But no, that's all rubbish and your gut feeling tells you what is right

 

[Thermal]

Amazing. You read it twice, highlighted it, and still managed to not understand it. Seven words and you managed to miss at least one.

Because you keep conflating a larger "all philosophy is useless" with a smaller "some philosophy is useless". Having no patience with navel gazing and beard stroking is fine, but you keep putting all of philosophy in the same shade. My entire argument is *against* the conflating of the two.

How about you tell me what you mean by "philosophy". If you're ignoring the actual definition, at least tell me the one you're using.

I have told you, directly. More than once, in fact. Meanwhile, you keep alluding to some definition that you provided somewhere upthread that you will not identify. I've asked you about it, and you just say it's upthread.

I'm on a cel, man. Searching through a couple hundred Belz... posts scattered across a couple dozen pages on a tiny screen is a bit of a chore. Can you help a brother out here?

My evidence is that your own quote calls it philosopic. Can't be anti-philosophy when you're doing philosophy. Also, it would be entirely risible to call me, of all people, anti-intellectual, and you know it. You just don't like the criticism.

Jesus, of course anti intellectualism is irrational and illogical! By ******* definition, yes! That's hardly any evidence that it is limited to a rejection of science. I continue to await evidence of same.

 

[The Man]

Fair enough.

Sorry, just haven't had the time to stay up to date, but have caught up now.

Exactly my point.

Right, so not holding it as true means you are not bound by it's restriction. Questioning it would necessarily mean considering it may not need to be held true.

What are you talking about? This is the exact question that I've been asking since the beginning. My larger point is that there's no way to conclude, in any way, shape or form, that X and ~X can both be true at once. It's impossible. Philosophy has nothing to do with this.

You weren't asking for a demonstration before. Again it is an actual philosophical position that a contradiction can be true.

If you knew me, you'd know that such an accusation is risible. But you don't.

You say it directly above that it was your larger point, that it was impossible and had nothing to do with philosophy. Yet you specifically asked about a philosophical question and were given the philosophical approach that asks that question.

I have no idea what that means. The whole deal started when someone made the claim that "logic" is part of philosophy; that it's a branch of it. I responded that while you can study logic philosophically (you can pretty much study anything you like philosophically), the rules of logic have not been established by philosophers; they are just innate to existence. And my way of demonstrating this is trying to show people that there's no way to argue that X and ~X can possibly be both true at once. So far no one's tried because it's patently obvious.

And yet that is exactly the position dialetheism takes. Your denial of it, opinion of its validity or assertions of what is patently obvious in no way negates the simple existence of the very philosophical question you asked about.

 

[AlexPontik]

I am not sure what it is that you don't understand in the below, wake up guys...

· Something else than what humans can imagine has been happening around humans up to now since the beginning of humans, regardless the fact that most humans don’t get that…
· or else before humans, what does it seem to you was happening in reality?..
Something that happened before humans, but that Humans imaginEd afteR they startEd GETting REAL?!.

 

[abaddon]

I am not sure what it is that you don't understand in the below, wake up guys...

· Something else than what humans can imagine has been happening around humans up to now since the beginning of humans, regardless the fact that most humans don’t get that…
· or else before humans, what does it seem to you was happening in reality?..
Something that happened before humans, but that Humans imaginEd afteR they startEd GETting REAL?!.

What is hard to understand. Made up nonsense is made up nonsense. Why do you struggle with that?

 

[Belz...]

It's really difficult to see what you mean with "rules of logic" here. There are hundreds of different logics with rules that are incompatible with each other.

Actually there's only one.

The reason why there are hundreds of different logics is that classical logic is about as useful describing how humans actually reason as Aristotelean physics are for computing ballistic trajectories. No one uses pure classical logic to reason about anything outside of creating mathematical proofs. The main problem is that it simply isn't possible to express most everyday concepts with classical logic in a usable way. For example, you can't define the concept 'usually' with classical logic nor can you define 'yellow'.

What in the blue (or yellow) hell are you talking about?

All two-valued logics are particularly bad at handling concepts that are inherently fuzzy, like the color 'yellow'.

This has nothing to do with the discussion, or logic. You are completely confused.

 

[AlexPontik]

better this way or still nonsense to you?

· Something else than what humans can imagine has been happening around humans up to now since the beginning of humans…
· or else before humans, what does it seem to you was happening in reality?..
· Something that happened before humans, but that Humans imaginEd after their histoRy startEd GETting REAL?!.

 

[Belz...]

Of course it can be discussed philosophically and I gave you the name of the philosophical position that does not hold that axiom as true.

Dude, if it holds it as an axiom THEN IT'S NOT DISCUSSING IT. What part of that causes you problems?

 

[Belz...]

I am not sure what it is that you don't understand in the below, wake up guys...

· Something else than what humans can imagine has been happening around humans up to now since the beginning of humans, regardless the fact that most humans don’t get that…
· or else before humans, what does it seem to you was happening in reality?..
Something that happened before humans, but that Humans imaginEd afteR they startEd GETting REAL?!.

We've already addressed that point before. You're not making any sense.

Maybe if you got a bit more specific there'd be something to discuss.

 

[Belz...]

Glad I could help you. Here are two examples of different logics that people actually use in practice:

* If you want to verify that your new communication protocol works correctly, you should use either LTL or CTL*, depending on what exactly you want to validate.

Those are not forms of logic. You simply have no idea what we're discussing. It's odd because we've explained and detailed what we're discussing. I can only surmise that you didn't read anything in this thread.

 

[Belz...]

Because you keep conflating a larger "all philosophy is useless" with a smaller "some philosophy is useless". Having no patience with navel gazing and beard stroking is fine, but you keep putting all of philosophy in the same shade. My entire argument is *against* the conflating of the two.

I'll assume you saw the "if", now, and realised your mistake and rather than either apologising or retracting your question you're blaming it on me.

Only, I'm not conflating the two at all. We've asked many times for an example of a useful philosophy but so far we've not exactly been wowed.

I have told you, directly.

Would you mind doing so again? A LOT of people in this thread have posted contradictory personal views about it.

Jesus, of course anti intellectualism is irrational and illogical! By ******* definition, yes!

No it's not. That's ridiculous. It's wrong, for sure, from my perspective. But it's neither necessarily irrational nor illogical. And certainly not by definition. You seem confused by a lot of definitions, here.

That's hardly any evidence that it is limited to a rejection of science.

Thermal. Arguments from definition are not evidence. They are logical implications. You know, the logic you guys keep telling me is part of philosophy?

 

[Belz...]

Sorry, just haven't had the time to stay up to date, but have caught up now.

There's no need to apologise.

Again it is an actual philosophical position that a contradiction can be true.

Well I'm asking for a demonstration now. Show me an example of working philosophy that takes it as axiomatic that proposition A can be true AND false at the same time.

And yet that is exactly the position dialetheism takes.

I don't care that it takes the position or not. You can take the position that drinking bleach is part of a complete breakfast but that doesn't mean anything unless it leads to actual results. And no one drinks bleach for breakfast.

 

[LarryS]

You realize that the way this conversation has been framed by others, you and Thermal are fighting over table scraps.

 

[Belz...]

You realize that the way this conversation has been framed by others, you and Thermal are fighting over table scraps.

We've been fighting over table scraps since post #1. Something evidently exists, so the thread soon became about something else. Something far more important, of course.

 

[IanS]

No, we are not "back to" anything. I addressed your points directly, and pointed out the several flaws. You're handwaving and moving the goalposts.



Again, not what we were talking about. Even tangentially. I'm not discussing having degrees in anything, or their linguistic origins, because it is utterly irrelevant.

No. You are indeed back to claiming it's all philosophy. And you cannot tell the truth about it either.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Apparently "I'm not saying X. Now watch as I literally say X in my next breath" is yet another valid philosophy.

 

[The Man]

"Axioms" sound a lot like "definitions with pretensions" from where I'm sitting.

A=A and "A thing can't be true and false at the same time" aren't some grand "philosophical" thoughts that some "Ultimate form of thinking that's better than all other forms of thinking" gets to take create for.

Essentially they are just definitions. The axiom(s) of a system are held as true by that system simply by definition. What you perceive as an "Ultimate form of thinking" or think is taking credit for what is up to you.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Essentially they are just definitions.

Then... just... call... them... definitions.

I'm so sick of the dishonest doublespeak.

 

[The Man]

When someone asks you a yes or no question and your answer is "Well under blank theory the answer is this..." you aren't answering the question, you're just describing the question again.

The answer given was yes. Even if explaining why the answer was yes is "just describing the question again" that doesn't change the answer given.