More Flim Flam......
But even "crudely put" neither of the things that you classified as the "Scoratic Dialectic" actually are. It is a much more complex and subtle process than the classification of statements into "things that I know are true", "things that I know are false" and "things whose truth value I don't know" nor is it the simple statement "I know that I do not know".
flim, be honest. What do you really understand about socratic dialectic? I understand it so well I can out argue the most brutal attorney one could encounter, and have, succesfully, on a number of occasions. I understand Socratic at a very deep level.
I dont think you have very much idea about it whatsoever, other than some intellectual conceptualziation you just formed from reading a few wiki entries in the past 72 hours.
Why does it not surprise you that he left it incomplete?
Because most philosophers have not considered the third value.
Are you implying that he had some ulterior motive for doing so?
no
The "Socratic irony" may well be a marker for one's lack of knowledge.
It's not just the lack of knowledge, that's just makes it a nice fortune cookie hueristic. It's a marker for CERTAINTY.
It can serve as a reminder that most do not know as much as they think they do, and that an awareness of our lack of knowledge is knowledge in itself (note it is knowledge in itself, not "truth" in itself):
you just turned the socratic irony into something like a Boy Scout Pledge
"'I know nothing (he says in the Apology), and if I really am the wisest person in the world, as the Delphic oracle suggests, then it is just because of the difference between me and others - they all think they know things, whereas I am aware that I know nothing'."
what is the importance of this quote? This doesnt to me seem to back your assertion, so I am perplexed as to how you are posting it.
This doesn't imply that "not knowing" is in any way a truth value nor a resolution in the way that you're implying.
You have absolutly no idea what you are talking about here. 'knowing not' and 'knowing' are both certainties about reality. The coupling of 'kn' and 'k' are essential to learning. We essentially learn from each other via some form of communication with each other.
To say 'I know not' is equal to saying ' i do not know if this is true, or if this is false'. It is a complete acceptance of something that is 'unknown'. It is the third value incarnate.
If you cant see this, then you still do not understand what the third value is. If you dont understand what the third value is, then you cannot hope to fully appreciate the socratic dialectic.
People already deal with uncertainty Bubb, as has been pointed out to you before.
I dont think that is true, I dont think people deal with it, I think people avoid uncertainty.
How does your system add anything?
In which sense, philosophically?
ideas are our 'meaning'. Our meaning can only be percieved or understood in three possible values which limit it's perception. We dont agree on our meaning, and we dont agree on our meaning because we dont agree on what is t, f, or m.
Finally, what makes you think that you can be certain of mutually viewable things to the same degree as your certainty of your own lack of knowledge?
THE MOST BRILLIANT QUESTION YOU HAVE ASKED. EVER. Perhaps one of the most astute questions I have ever been requested to respond to.
First off, the sense of 'self certainty' of existence is a pretty powerful sense of certainty. It's an experience, an ontology, that one has to obtain to develop true certainty to begin with. And once that is developed or experienced, that simply becomes a standard for ALL certainty. So, in dialectic, when presented with ideas and questions about truth, we can simply honestly self reflect, how close to certain can i be about this truth?
For example, on this thread, the argument about Steorn and the second law. Can I be as absolutly certain about the universal quality of the second law as I can be about my own existence?
Me, I'm not a scientist, so I couldnt hope to be. Yet, I can certainly question a scientist who claims he can have that same level of certainty. For being is not a statistical truth, it's a ontological one.
Consider. If we cant be clear about what we dont know, how can we be clear about what we do? How can we KNOW we are clear about what we dont know? How can we be certain we are clear?
Not knowing is neccesary for CLARITY.
Beyond "I exist" there is very little that we can know, and even mutually viewable things provide little certainty.
This is true at a higher level, yet we all navigate reality with our shared knowledge that we refine and which comes to function for us as 'certain'. Yet sometimes in all of our natural confusion, we confuse the certainty of being with the certainty of philosophical or scientific truths, and begin to alter reality to fit our 'needed' certainties with our 'natural' certainty.
No Bubb, this is not a "complete definition" it is simply you mangling the definition to try to support your argument. Firstly if all you and your opponent can be certain of is what is mutually observable then there is nothing that is "unknown privatly" [sic], a thing is either known to both, or unknown to both.
Bullpoop. What my opponent and I in the conflict of idea become certain about is our ideas about objective reality. Our subjective reality to each other is still going to be unknown.
Objective reality is part of the mystery, part of the unknown. We emerged not knowing about objective reality, and I assume that it has taken us more than 40,000 years to become 'certain' about what it is we are all mutually experiencing to the level that we are.
Objective reality is just the reality we all can agree on. We can agree on it because it is mutually observable, thus, objective reality is the ONE source of all agreement. Thus, ideas that function for us as 'true' are ideas about this objective reality.
Secondly, the Socratic Dialectic aims to reveal truth from things that are implicitly known i.e., things that the person knows but may not be aware that they know, or may not have applied to this problem. Your addition of the word "openly" is either entirely tautological or completely contradictory to that.
Objective reality is 'out in the open'. Subjective reality is 'private'. What can be 'known' out in the open is ONLY objective reality, or what you are saying is 'implicite'. But there is that which is privatly UNKNOWN to the individual about objective reality, and that is the source for the dialectic, to exchange from the UNKNOWN to the KNOWN.
The Socratic Method is a series of questions, the five questions most considered. In OS 012, these five questions are who, what, where, when, and 'how'. In the Socratic, it's who, what, when, where, and 'why'.
Finally, you cannot draw truth out of what is unknown (whether "privatly" [sic] or not).The fact that it is unkown does not in itself constitute a meaningful objective truth value.
That's a claim, not an argument. Please try to substantiate these claims you make. If you can't draw truth out of that which is unknown, how did we ever learn anything? That fact that we all share 'unknown' in common is enough to declare that it is an objective truth value. To claim it is NOT an objective truth value means your going back to saying there is NO THIRD VALUE and thus negate logical structures which use three operations, such as ternary logic.
Are you delusional enough to try to use this comment to build an entire philosophy and a dialectic?
OS 012 was not built on the Socratic Irony, I merely reflected on the Socratic Irony after I got OS 012.
A quick thought: since it was Socrates that said this, and since he had his own dialectic, and since he was considered to be reasonably clever; don't you think he would have included a third value in his own dialectic if he though it actually existed or was of any value?
what makes you think he didnt? The socratic irony is proof he did consider the third value, whether he formalized that or not.
And yet Bubb (who has admitted that he knows very little about philosophy outside of the one that he has made up for himself) has come up with a better one.
You keep on thinking that I created OS 012, and I didnt, I'm not that smart. OS 012 was created via co-intelligence with many hundreds of people during a very unique moment in history, the three months before the invasion of iraq.
I'm just OS 012's biggest fan and contributor
Yup, unknown as a third value in ternary logic system. Fine, how does your system actually make this useful again Bubb?
I'm not refusing to tell you, I'm just refusing to reveal a application of it that is currently in development with commercial interests. OS 012 makes it useful becuase it creates a master meme from the conflict of idea that distinguishes all three values available in the discussion.
Nope, I'm only reasonably certain that you don't have anyone else of any value working on your little vanity project, and that it is all bollocks.
Who cares what you believe? I dont care. I'm not here because I need certainty about this, and I dont need the vouchers of academics to have certainty about this.
At least you finally asked one good question.Too bad though you already thought you knew the answer! That's the elmer dialectic.
BF
