RE: For your consideration

RE: For your consideration (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

popeye1250 -> RE: For your consideration (8/31/2007 7:02:14 AM)
Susan, yeah, that was like work reading that thread! Aren't you the little bull dog.

LadyEllen -> RE: For your consideration (8/31/2007 7:02:35 AM)
The first problem though eo1n, is that mucking about with words one can prove anything that is directly contrivertible by reference to what passes as reality. The second problem, is that using such a methodology one may start with a flawed premise and show subsequent and consequent premises to be true - but just because the sequiturs are true according to the first premise, the fact that the first premise is not true makes the whole process flawed and renders the sequiturs useless. This is how much religious thought works - we start with an unprovable premise taken on faith, and then from that we come to erect a series of arguments which rely not on actuality but on the supposed veracity of the first premise, yet given that the first premise is taken as true then yes, the rest follows and makes sense - despite that the first premise is flawed. As such, philosophical debates of this kind merely become mucking about with words, rarely if ever showing us anything more than how clever we think we must be. Now, we could start with a premise taken on faith alone as true, and then proceed through a series of arguments which eventually prove that the original premise is actually true - because, rather like a jigsaw puzzle, everything fits to make up a single picture which makes sense and relates to observable criteria. I would suggest however that this is a rare event when it occurs. E

Sinergy -> RE: For your consideration (8/31/2007 7:04:05 AM)
I blame the liberal media and Carter. Sinergy

SusanofO -> RE: For your consideration (8/31/2007 7:10:00 AM)
Well Sinergy - Good to know- at least with this information - it will be easier to put you in a box, and pre-determine where you're "coming from", and type-cast you, and (perhaps) just not listen to your "rants" anymore (and I hope you take that in the fun and non-threatening spirit, with which it was intended).[:)] - Susan

e01n -> RE: For your consideration (8/31/2007 7:13:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen The first problem though eo1n, is that mucking about with words one can prove anything that is directly contrivertible by reference to what passes as reality. The second problem, is that using such a methodology one may start with a flawed premise and show subsequent and consequent premises to be true - but just because the sequiturs are true according to the first premise, the fact that the first premise is not true makes the whole process flawed and renders the sequiturs useless. This is how much religious thought works - we start with an unprovable premise taken on faith, and then from that we come to erect a series of arguments which rely not on actuality but on the supposed veracity of the first premise, yet given that the first premise is taken as true then yes, the rest follows and makes sense - despite that the first premise is flawed. As such, philosophical debates of this kind merely become mucking about with words, rarely if ever showing us anything more than how clever we think we must be. Now, we could start with a premise taken on faith alone as true, and then proceed through a series of arguments which eventually prove that the original premise is actually true - because, rather like a jigsaw puzzle, everything fits to make up a single picture which makes sense and relates to observable criteria. I would suggest however that this is a rare event when it occurs. Again, a very Null-* argument... appropriate for General Semantics, Deconstructivism and Situationalism. And believe it or not, I agree with the final result. Just not the means I was hoping for. So I'm setting a very large number of CMers in front of the typewriter. Maybe I'll get some Shakespeare as well... That horse is dead, luv. If that's your kink, cool - but it's not mine... [;)] The original is Spinoza's. I went looking for link to throw onto another thread in reference to the fact that my cats have appropriate names for WIITWD: Sir Isaac Newton, Baruch Spinoza and Egg. I saw this proof and had the flash that SusanofO picked up on (way cool, that). And I saw it as a chance to raise the general level of discourse... but still remain light and fluffy. It is before noon here in NA, after all...

SusanofO -> RE: For your consideration (8/31/2007 7:28:28 AM)
e01n: Well, since you're a fellow Switch, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt (runs and hides now...just kidding)[;)][:D] Seriously, I see your good intent. Don'tcha just love it when humans like to say how un-biased they are? (IMO some seem to try harder than others to be that way, I admit). But I mean Geez - I can't name one person who isn't biased - about something. Whether it's liking Kraft Macaroni-N-Cheese over Velveeta, or whether they believe Bush walks on water (or doesn't) or whether they think Allah is or is not (fundamentally) a God in the same sense as Bhudda, etc. But - who's complaining? Life is really pretty good (for me). That is.....compared to a Haitian refugee. Or so I've read (I've never met one in person) But if I think that, that's because I think I am a superior American of course, not because I can see into his soul and know for sure, or because I am just human, like anyone, in a fundamental sense (depending on your definition of human). That, plus, I tend to value things like being able to know I live in the (supposed) "Land of the free" (and that I am not getting shot at or macheted at night, or in the daytime, by warring factions of tribes)...but I am relatively content (or at least I like to think so, and ignorance really is bliss, in some cases, probably, as far as that goes). hehe. Then again, I am on a BDSM website, with others who are supposedly looking for someone who can scare them (but only in a good way). Or relate to them somehow. But, I've been told there are people in the world who think it's just a sick idea to even want that...it can be a little mind blowing, thinking about it all, sometimes. I could go on (but I have to go take my meds NOWNOwNownow)...discussions can give me head-aches, and-or be fun. Sometimes (depending on how I am perceiving what's written, and what it is) it can really be thought-provoking, and interesting. Other times, a general pain. As it is in "real" life, too, I guess (like I am not having a "real" convo, just because it's the Internet? Well, maybe I can't see anyone, but I think they're really there. Wow, this topic is making me feel like I've just watched that film "The Matrix" for the first time (but chill, Susan, chill. I can always just see it as,or go watch, "The Wizard of Oz" too. (a film a little more user-friendly, in my particular case) To answer the question: IT JUST ALL DEPENDS - 'ya know?...hehe.) P.S. I am not in any way trying to put damper on the discussion. I think it's a good idea, and I agree w/ what I perceive as the intent (in case anyone wonders). [:)] -Susan

womanworshipper -> RE: For your consideration (8/31/2007 8:06:22 AM)
Clearly some sort of bastardised Spinozism that doesn’t do justice to the complexity of Spinoza’s argument. None of the terms are defined and although this has the appearance of a single argument, in fact it is little more than a set of premises. The first “proof” only relates to premises (2) and works by actually introducing an additional premise, i.e. that substances can only be differentiated by some difference in their natures or their alterable states of being, which in itself presupposes that the nature of substances must be unalterable. 4 seems to follow from 3 and 2, but it could be just as easily derived from 1 (on the grounds that to be caused by something is to be dependent on it) and the statement in the proof of 5 that “to be limited by something is to be dependent on it” is another additional unjustified premise. The conclusion, I would suggest, follows from 5 but the reasoning is poorly expressed, as Lady Ellen observed. Rather than saying “If there were two infinite substances, they would limit each other”, we should say that the existence of more than one substance presupposes that all substance is finite as each substance would limit the other; but substance is infinite (5), so it must be unique. In fact, you could probably derive 4, 5 and the “conclusion” just from premise (1).

SusanofO -> RE: For your consideration (8/31/2007 8:10:01 AM)
womanworshipper: That was impressive (truly) to me. Bravo! Re-arranging the parts made it makes lots more sense. Clarity in the morning is something I can appreciate.[:)] - Susan

Sinergy -> RE: For your consideration (8/31/2007 8:19:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO Well Sinergy - Good to know- at least with this information - it will be easier to put you in a box, and pre-determine where you're "coming from", and type-cast you, and (perhaps) just not listen to your "rants" anymore (and I hope you take that in the fun and non-threatening spirit, with which it was intended).[:)] - Susan [rant] I was initially going to blame the Illuminati, Mother Theresa, and Pol Pot, but then I realized that life is too short to either hold grudges or eat bad sushi. [/rant] Just me, could be wrong, etc. Sinergy

SusanofO -> RE: For your consideration (8/31/2007 8:27:33 AM)
Sinergy: HA! [:D] I believe that's true ( I really actually do). Actually, I hope you know I appreciated your comedic, incisive "in a nutshell approach" to the topic.[:)] I did. I just could not tackle any kind of math or logic philiosophy stuff this early (at least that's my excuse, and I'm sticking to it). But I do appreciate people who understand and can. I am not a "morning person" (not yet. Working on it). Plus, I sometimes see stuff that may or may not be there, due to personality. But people know that anyway (at least I hope they do), and so made my own long-winded relative response. I think it's a great topic, and the OP had an interesting approch to broaching it. I hope other people contribute to the thread, too. It would be too bad, IMO, if it died an early death...I am "Pro-life" re: Some threads (at least today I am). Actually, I must confess that I am not even really sure what the topic is. But that's just me (Sometimes, I'll talk about almost anything. But I can be concise, too. IT DEPENDS.... Is "It Depends", the topic, or what? Group vote? Help - helpHelp. This thread needs a Leader. I don't deal well with ambiguity (actually I can). Gosh, I am in a nutty mood today.[:D] Or, maybe not-maybe it can meander (that's nice, too, IMO). As long as it stays alive. Maybe it will hibernate, and come back later?. But IMO it's a good topic. But I can't think of a way (just now) to Move it forward. Plus I got housework and stuff. But it is a good topic, IMO. Hey, it's Friday - wait until later and lotsa people will be on it. I think threads create their own lives, and replicate, and mutate into other threads, and the Mods prevent disease from spreading- but that their intervention is temporary and only in severe cases. Kinda like a blast of RAID Bugkill. It's one theory, anyway (among the many out there). Hey - I know the topic is science (maybe?) It is just not my forte' (or philosophy, particularly). I confess to being a dilettante (sp?) in that regard.- BUT - there are folks out there who are great at it, and know way more than me, about it (and I hope more of them write in too and-or keep writing). Because, IMO, it could be a wonderful, long thread. Right? No need to be scared. Hey: It's just a Thread, not a gun. And a good point as far as topic - one way to try to bridge the "communication gap" we all face, so to speak. I guess the good part is, whether it dies or not, the OP will have made his point (and it's a decent point, IMO). - Susan

SusanofO -> RE: For your consideration (8/31/2007 9:34:05 AM)
I am not sure about the topic. And not sure I know what to say next. Plus, I am not the leader, particularly that I was referring to in my last post- I am actually hoping someone else dives in, 'cuz I like the topic, but don't know what to say, really (hard as that may be for maybe some to believe)...hehe[:)] Maybe if we get back to science, we will be on safer ground? - Susan

philosophy -> RE: For your consideration (8/31/2007 9:44:23 AM)
"Substance exists..." ...prove that and we might have something.......[:D]

SusanofO -> RE: For your consideration (8/31/2007 9:51:58 AM)
philosophy: Yes! Well, I am conscious of substance - but you know I've heard we "all create our own reality" - and I read a scary sorta mind-blowing article in "Science" last year, that said that might actually be true. That each person has created their own reality - in the most literal sense of the word - like what they literally see, hear, feel, etc. - I am talking about solid objects, not just supposed differences between the way they perceive things that everyione sees and hears. The article also went into physics and other stuff I don't understand that well. But reading that did make me wonder how, IF everyone's "reality" truly is fundamentally different on that level, how is it that it still does have some common things, that many people at once seem to perceive (like people perceiving STOP signs in the same places, so they don't crash at intersections, or people all being quasi-regulated via their perceptions of time, within the same time zone (CST or EST, etc). Or - how words appear on a screen in a particular span of time, so as to be seen be the same people, as in the case right here, right now? - Susan

sophia37 -> RE: For your consideration (8/31/2007 9:56:19 AM)
Substance exists. Therefore, shit happens

SusanofO -> RE: For your consideration (8/31/2007 9:58:08 AM)
He,he.[:D] The answer is: 42 - Susan

e01n -> RE: For your consideration (8/31/2007 10:17:43 AM)
BTW - for the record, we've had the magister dixit answer, the situationist answer, the deconstructivist answer and the General Semantics answer. Still looking for classical and linear refutation within Aristotlean logic without recourse to the previously mentioned strategies... ;) And the application is to be found in SusanofO's first post in the thread... Examine your answer in that light and see what that says about you. Have a great weekend!

Emperor1956 -> RE: For your consideration (9/1/2007 1:47:02 PM)
quote: [rant] I was initially going to blame the Illuminati, Mother Theresa, and Pol Pot, but then I realized that life is too short to either hold grudges or eat bad sushi. [/rant] Just me, could be wrong, etc. Sinergy You forgot the Dutch, the Trilateral Commission, and Walt Disney. ...and the Jews. They're always forgettin' the Jews. E.

mnottertail -> RE: For your consideration (9/1/2007 1:49:41 PM)
Alumbrado will take offense on behalf of all dejados and the vegetarians will slaughter you like dogs. Cardinal Ximenz

FullCircle -> RE: For your consideration (9/1/2007 1:55:37 PM)
The problem with modern day society is that people talk such nonsense. A problem is so much easier to understand if plain English is used. Substance abuse exists we’ve all seen them brain-dead hippies therefore ipso facto QED substance must exist too. Any ideas about the meaning of ipso and facto?

mnottertail -> RE: For your consideration (9/1/2007 1:57:24 PM)
QED. I am outta here, clown. Ron

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125