Philosophy of Philosophers

[Agememnon]

Bullshit. Please separate the player and the ball. At least spell my name right.

 

No need for obscenities now, and I apologise for the misspelling.

 

Could I have made my argument of the personification of water any more clear? I stated that saying water "does not fight" is implying that water has the ability to fight.

 

That would mean that if an orange isn't a pig, it has the ability to.

 

Review the statement and tell me that it is fully understandable. You post on these forums alot and have probobly found that alot of conversations are hard to understand because there is no way to indicate emphasis on certeain words in order to clarify their meanings. For instance you use of pronouns made this sentence obscure to the reader.

 

Not only that but could you please clarify the meaning of imply in your "Non-A dose not imply A.

 

Because if it your "imply" means "=" then I agree but if you regard that statement literaly then you should agree that NON-A does imply A because otherwise where would you get the orignal idea for a NON-A? You would need to get it from A. That is not compleatly clear so here is an example:

 

If an object is not a clock then there has to be a clock somewhere. IMPLYING the exsistence of a clock.

 

Do you now see that NON-A can imply A?

 

 

 

To limit confusuion perhaps you should have said:

 

If an Object is not a Clock then it is not a clock.

 

Because that would hold the same meaning a Non-A is not A

 

Amd on reviewing your logic I saw a comparison you could have used to point out my Non-A implys A is wrong. In the days of the Spanish Iquasition they would find heritics by telling the acused to prove that they were not a heratic. And then finding them guilty because "The acused could NOT prove they were NOT a heritic. So that makes them a heritic." (NON-A implys A)

 

You could have agrued my original logic about water's "abilies" if I had said:

"Saying water CAN not fight is implying it has the ability to."

 

But, I did not say that I said:

Saying water dosen't fight implies it has the ability to.

 

 

By the way I apologise for interupting this thred with such a lengthy post but I like to be understood. And I realize also that samantics is philosophys death.

[IDMclean]

Seeing as I didn't want to make a new thread and didn't know where to put this I guess this is a good enough place.

 

I was wondering if any attempts at a Grand Unification of Science, Religion and Philosophy has ever been attempted? If so by whom? How far did it progress, if it progressed at all?

 

I personally am attempting to reconsile these three to each other every moment of the day. I've made some amazing leaps in my understanding of the universe, people, society, tools, past, present and future. Siddhartha I would think is one of the early Religious Scientific Philosophers.

[hallenrm]

Looking at the foregoing discussions I am led to the realisation of the limitations and potentialities of communication.

 

Communicatio can never be totally successful, because what the person who is telling is seldom able to put in words that are suitable for transmitting to the receiver. Mass communication more so! because each person who reads a message, interprets it in a way that reflects his/her thoughts at the moment.

 

The person who wants to talk about philosophy, must keep this thought in mind!

 

Often it does not matter, whether the reader has interpreted the thought in a manner the writer had intended. Each thought influences the mind of each individual in a unique manner, the sum total effect of a written/spoken message, materializes over a period of time, whose duration no one knows!;) :)

[coberst]

I have become disenchanted with philosophy and do not have a favorite philosopher but I do have Descartes as my favorite philosopher to kick.

 

I was educated in engineering but also had some interest in philosophy. My first philosophy course was Descartes' "Meditations on First Philosophy". I suspect this is an introductory course for most students studying philosophy. Descartes has left Western tradition with a gigantic legacy that only now is this legacy being undermined by cognitive science.

 

Descartes goes through a sequence of analysis in an effort to find an absolute truth upon which to build his philosophy. He settled on "Cogito, ergo sum". "I think therefore I am". The conclusions of this series of analysis by Descartes have set the course, more or less, of Western philosophy. What are the fateful conclusions derived from the work of Descartes?

 

"I am, I exist, that is certain. But how often? Just when I think; for it might possibly be the case if I ceased entirely to think, that I should likewise cease altogether to exist...But what then am I? A thing that thinks."

 

The Folk Theory of Essences

Every kind of thing has an essence that makes it the kind of thing it is.

The way each thing naturally behaves is a consequence of its essence.

 

Descartes knows he exists because he thinks. Because he exists he has an essence. He assumes nothing else causes his thinking but his essence. Conclusion: thinking must be at least a part of the human essence.

 

"Just because I know certainly that I exist, and that meanwhile I do not remark that any other thing necessarily pertains to my nature or essence, excepting that I am a thinking thing, I rightly conclude that my essence consists solely in the fact that I am a thinking thing."

 

"It is certain that this I [that is to say, my soul by which I am what I am], is entirely, and absolutely distinct from my body and can exist without it."

 

To have reached that last conclusion Descartes must assume an additional:

 

The Folk Theory of Substance and Attributes

A substance is that which exists in itself and does not depend for its existence on any other thing.

Each substance has one and only one primary attribute that defines what its essence is.

 

The following is what his introspection has made him “see”:

 

There are two kinds of substance, one bodily and the other mental.

The attribute of bodily substance is extension in space.

The attribute of mental substance is thought.

 

This legacy of the dichotomy of mind/body has, I think, caused us much difficulty and I am pleased to see some efforts to remove these ideas from our (USA) culture.

[Agememnon]

Not one person has added to this thread since I left it about 9 months ago! I am still right in my reasoning. Tormod has not made a rebuttal. I need to talk to someone?

[InfiniteNow]

Not one person has added to this thread since I left it about 9 months ago! I am still right in my reasoning. Tormod has not made a rebuttal. I need to talk to someone?

 

Lack of response is more likely to indicate lack of interest. It does not necessitate point validity.

[Agememnon]

Wow! Hostile!

 

The comment was only meant to spark a flame in the mind of the ol' Tormod! I want him to come back and face me like a man.

[infamous]

Wow! Hostile!

 

The comment was only meant to spark a flame in the mind of the ol' Tormod! I want him to come back and face me like a man.

Be careful what you ask for Age............, you just might get it. BYW my money's on Tormod.

 

..................................Infy

[Agememnon]

Thanks, buddy.

[pgrmdave]

Agememnon - does your argument mean that anything that I can imagine must exist? My computer is not an elf, so elves must exist. My computer is not a fire-breathing dragon, so fire-breathing dragons must exist. My computer is not an anti-gravity machine, so such machines must exist...

 

The only thing that non-A can imply is that we have the ability to imagine A.

[Agememnon]

Don't limit your self to your mind.

[InfiniteNow]

Don't limit your self to your mind.

 

Sounds super. How do you propose one do this?

[Lancaster]

Sounds super. How do you propose one do this?

 

Yeah, I'm a little confused. Can you explain your idea in a more in-depth way?

[Sacri Sankt]

to me, the only worthwhile philosophy is the one you live by. its pointless to sit in your fine home pondering marxist economics, or on the factory floor reading 'leviathan', thats just an intellectual game. to discover which philosophers _have_ influenced you the most, you have to examine your life carefully.

 

for my part, it seems to be the philosophies of hedonism and nihilism :singer:

[Lancaster]

to me, the only worthwhile philosophy is the one you live by. its pointless to sit in your fine home pondering marxist economics, or on the factory floor reading 'leviathan', thats just an intellectual game. to discover which philosophers _have_ influenced you the most, you have to examine your life carefully.

 

for my part, it seems to be the philosophies of hedonism and nihilism :singer:

 

Pointless? That's like saying "the only good way of living is the way I live, so I should not consider other ways of life." What you are saying is completely contradictory to the entire scientific process. To make something better you have to consider alternatives.

 

As Morpheus said:

"Free your mind."

[Sacri Sankt]

im not saying your personal philosophy is _admirable_, i wish i was a better human being, but on close inspection ive concluded im not. now that i know this about myself, i can approach philosophy with the necesary psychological insight to understand why certain ideals are so compelling, so beautiful. i can read nietzsche, and identify with his desire to be unbound by conventions, to sacrifice my personal life, my happiness, to push beyond the limits for the greater good, but i understand this is just an ego fantasy, im not about to become an ubermensch.

 

the problem to my mind comes when someone without a clear understanding of themselves studies such a thing, is drawn into the ideas completely, and then tries to espouse or live up to that ideal. its not going to work, unless they by some fluke happen to actually be that kind of person, in which case theyd not have to read up about it!

[Agememnon]

Ok, my "don't limit yourself to your mind" stuff back there, was utter mental poop. It isn't possible. Also, my argument against Non-A doesn't imply a, was before I learned about logical proffs; however, I still think that I had a point and that Tormod got a little silly.