Silverrida
Moon
Infinity - So far away yet around us at the same time
Posts: 112
|
Post by Silverrida on Apr 4, 2010 0:23:13 GMT -5
you can't trust your senses you can't trust your logic but you can trust that if you cannot trust these things that there must be something that exists to deceive you, so there is something in which you can hold trust in, therefore there is truth. whether or not we ever experience it is a totally different story. Very well put. Bravo!
|
|
|
Post by bunnyfulwanderer on Apr 4, 2010 0:26:55 GMT -5
we exist. that's it.
|
|
|
Post by Gafro on Apr 4, 2010 9:34:44 GMT -5
you can't trust your senses you can't trust your logic but you can trust that if you cannot trust these things that there must be something that exists to deceive you, so there is something in which you can hold trust in, therefore there is truth. whether or not we ever experience it is a totally different story. Kant actually came up with a good one for this problem: he divided reality into the noumenal realm and the phenomenal realm. The world, as we perceive it, is the phenomenal realm. In other words, the phenomenal realm exists inside our minds. It is the "matrix" world. The Noumenal realm is the realm of things which are in their "true-nature" state, and our mind interprets them to fall into our phenomenal realm. We impose our order and logic and causality on the noumenal realm. We don't know that everyone's phenomena are the same, but we know that they are dictated absolutely by the noumenal realm (God exists in the noumenal realm btw). This is in effect what Descartes and Berkeley were saying, except that they accepted the denial of the noumenal realm (they didn't deny it, but they said that denial was reasonable). Truth really operates within sets, sometimes known as fields. There is a set of everything, and within that set of everything lies the set of conceiveability, and within that set lies the set of reason, and within that set the set of logic, and so on. It is very hard to have a philosophical discussion anywhere but in the field of logic, but my study at the moment is experimenting with that. To be useful, any such concept must operate on some agreed common ground. In the case of truth, if we accept certain things, truth dictates that we must accept others. True other things. So things can be true, but only true relative to the set in which it operates. And in answer to the question title of this discussion, yes: this statement is true. [Within the set of logic]
|
|
|
Post by Johncoyne on Apr 4, 2010 11:33:17 GMT -5
Guys, I only meant for this to be a stupid little mind game... If you want to keep discussing, go ahead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2010 12:29:44 GMT -5
Guys, I only meant for this to be a stupid little mind game... If you want to keep discussing, go ahead. I'm kind of dissapointed about that.. You had a great subject, but to you it was nothing but a joke, seems kind of lame to me, as imo we should all be trying to expand our knowledge on everything
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2010 13:08:23 GMT -5
shouldn't that be in the paedophilia thread?
|
|
|
Post by Johncoyne on Apr 4, 2010 13:10:39 GMT -5
It's posts like these that make me want to stop discussing things.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Apr 4, 2010 13:58:37 GMT -5
shouldn't that be in the paedophilia thread? ...yes, yes it should have been. /headdesk //Baleeted
|
|
evets
Meteorite
Posts: 42
|
Post by evets on Apr 5, 2010 15:35:38 GMT -5
This one's easy. GO LOGIC POWERS! ^__^ Let's take your statement "Nothing is really True" and call this "A". Or, to rephrase it, "For any statement, that statement is not true." Now, assume that all philosophers have purple hair. Based on the original premise, this statement is false, despite the fact that we've claimed it is true. (The cool part is that this works for ANY statement at all, regardless of whether its true or false.) Therefore, it is both true AND not true at the same time. Therefore, reductio ad absurdum, the original premise is false since it logically leads a contradiction. In formal symbolic logic: 1. ( x) x ~x - premise2. y - premise3. ~y - MP, 1 & 24. y & ~y - Conj, 2 & 3 Therefore, reductio ad absurdum: 5. ~(( x) ~x) logicpwn'd.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Apr 5, 2010 17:28:14 GMT -5
I think the first response to this was exactly the same thing. But what if logic does not exist? (i.e. some greater power forces you to think that you come to a logical conclusion that really is illogical every time you use logic) your argument fails to hold then.
|
|
|
Post by Johncoyne on Apr 5, 2010 17:32:47 GMT -5
Guys, I only meant for this to be a stupid little mind game... If you want to keep discussing, go ahead. I'm 14 years old. I consider myself ahead intellectually for my age (while I'm lacking in other ares, which humbles me) but thinking that logic doesn't exist is something that's beyond my power of thinking. Maybe I'll be able to comprehend that when I'm older, though.
|
|
|
Post by swan on Apr 5, 2010 17:55:23 GMT -5
But what if logic does not exist? I've been thinking about this a lot recently, and it's certainly an interesting topic. Consider why one should be logical, the answer you will come up with is not a logical answer. People choose to be logical not because it is the logical thing to do, but because they want to be logical, in other words they desire it. Also I think there's the possibility that rationality in general is just a method of justifying one's belief. If you consider anything that you value, can you provide a logical answer as to why you value it, without simply saying "I value this because I desire this value" (or some form of that)? Is it certainly possible to act in a rational way relative to one's values but based on what I've said (assuming I'm right) it is not possible to act in a purely logical objective manner, which as a result leaves the validity of "logical behavior" questionable since objectivity and logic are so closely intertwined. I'm not trying to devalue logic or claim that all values are equal, I'm simply making an observation, and if anyone notices any errors be sure to point them out .
|
|
|
Post by stephen5000 on Apr 5, 2010 17:56:18 GMT -5
I think the first response to this was exactly the same thing. But what if logic does not exist? (i.e. some greater power forces you to think that you come to a logical conclusion that really is illogical every time you use logic) your argument fails to hold then. At that point I don't think we can even have an argument (at least one that makes any sense).
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Apr 5, 2010 20:54:08 GMT -5
my argument that is quoted at the top of this page holds regardless of logic
|
|
|
Post by Johncoyne on Apr 5, 2010 21:23:49 GMT -5
Ok, I'm walking out. My puny teen-age brain can't handle this.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Apr 5, 2010 21:29:12 GMT -5
WOOT! I succeeded! I exploded Conjoin's brain!
<Master
|
|
|
Post by Johncoyne on Apr 5, 2010 21:32:02 GMT -5
*brain splode* Oh, man! It's all over the carpet. Time to get the mop... Wait, how am I writing this?
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Apr 5, 2010 21:38:57 GMT -5
just because I 'sploded your brain doesn't mean you died or stop thinking, that's why i am the master.
|
|
|
Post by presentedin4d on Apr 6, 2010 14:21:33 GMT -5
I am a male. So I must not be. The earth is round. Must it be square? I am typing this on my iPod. Therefore I'm not. I was born. I'm dead.
Did I just poem'd?
|
|
evets
Meteorite
Posts: 42
|
Post by evets on Apr 7, 2010 10:43:06 GMT -5
The really fun part of arguing relativism with someone is that if they really do accept the contradictions, you can prove literally any statement through the magic of logic! Observe:
Person A: I don't believe anything is true! Person B: I don't believe that pink unicorns birthed the world! Person A: hmmm, but that statement must not be true because there is no truth... Person B: so wait, the world really WAS birthed by pink unicorns? Huhn, go figure. o.O Person A: ...
|
|