View Full Version : Love of knowledge
"Philosophy," when translated means "love of knowledge" or "love of wisdom."
I wish this to be a thread where philosophical discussions can be had by those who enjoy philosophy.
I wish this to be a thread where philosophical debates can be had without bruised egos and tactical nukes.
I'll begin by asking for speculation as to why I, generally, greatly disagree with Locke, yet he is the philosopher I comprehend the most.
Feel free to ignore my query and make a statement of your own.
Liz my love, you definitely got the wrong thread; this one is meant for philosophy as specified in the starter post. You can start a thread on linguistics somewhere, right?
LadyHitchhiker
07-22-2008, 05:07 AM
Well I thought that Jon specifically wanted to speak of the love of knowledge and wisdom and..
*blushes*
well perhaps I took him too literally.
I've been wanting to share that list for a long while though....
:( Sorry...
theBeamisHome
07-22-2008, 05:20 AM
:blink:
Well I thought that Jon specifically wanted to speak of the love of knowledge and wisdom and..
*blushes*
well perhaps I took him too literally.
I've been wanting to share that list for a long while though....
:( Sorry...
don't be sorry my darling llamafox, it's only a small misunderstanding! that's what Jon specifically emphasized:
I wish this to be a thread where philosophical discussions can be had by those who enjoy philosophy.
the good news is that there already is a thread where your fabulous research can be housed (http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?t=2746)! I'll just move your posts there. http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear_sara01.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear_sara01.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/bear_sara01.gif
theBeamisHome
07-22-2008, 05:50 AM
i think me and Nigel started to have a conversation on existentialism... is that the speculation about what we really "know"?
i think me and Nigel started to have a conversation on existentialism... is that the speculation about what we really "know"?
I don't think there's any "really know" where philosophy is concerned. So, if you are interested in such discussion, I am sure many people will be, too, so please start it here! http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gif
theBeamisHome
07-22-2008, 05:56 AM
ok. well we were riding down the highway and picking on me he asked me what color the grass was. i said green of course even though i knew where he was going with it. (sometimes it's like dating my dad lol... the good side of my dad)... But of course he said how do you know that is green? And i'm in agreance with him (them) on the subject. we don't know what colors are besides what we've assigned them to be.
i would also like to start a discussion on cuss words since that is my favorite subject... pick which one you want :D
"what color is grass when nobody is looking" is a time-honored question, perfectly fit for a thread on philosophy
"cuss words" should, however, be discussed separately, in some other thread (I wouldn't mind if you started one in Dixie Pig - I've always been interested in the question of the inevitability and desirability/appropriateness of using them)
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gifhttp://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/0134-bear.gif
Odetta
07-22-2008, 06:13 AM
Wonderful thread! I am very excited!
I will be posting many questions when I have a little more time so expect to see a lot more from me in here!
William50
07-22-2008, 07:27 AM
Nice Thread! :thumbsup:
theBeamisHome
07-22-2008, 11:18 AM
there's no such thing as colors... they aren't really there so much as they're just reflections/absorptions...
sorry the server at my job was down.
gonna start the cussing thread too tho.
Darkthoughts
07-22-2008, 01:11 PM
there's no such thing as colors... they aren't really there so much as they're just reflections/absorptions...
I tend to take the view that as most things only "exist" through our perception of them (colour, sound, etc), reality is subjective to the individual.
There are certain elements of our realities that overlap and concur with other people's perceptions - such as colour - but I wouldn't say colour was an objective thing, because some people are colour blind, so the perception of colour is not consistent in every individual.
I'd apply that to many things, mental health/sanity for one.
I love reading Lisa's "darkthoughts" and I totally agree. All of reality is subject to our perception of it. That idea has been one of the lynchpins of my life.
Its also why its part of my sig permanently.
Darkthoughts
07-22-2008, 01:29 PM
:D
I'm glad that sig's a permenant fixture:thumbsup:
I love reading Lisa's "darkthoughts" and I totally agree. All of reality is subject to our perception of it. That idea has been one of the lynchpins of my life.
absolutization of this idea would make any communication impossible; it would also cast strong doubts upon the knowability of the world
there's no such thing as colors... they aren't really there so much as they're just reflections/absorptions...
I tend to take the view that as most things only "exist" through our perception of them (colour, sound, etc), reality is subjective to the individual.
There are certain elements of our realities that overlap and concur with other people's perceptions - such as colour - but I wouldn't say colour was an objective thing, because some people are colour blind, so the perception of colour is not consistent in every individual.
I'd apply that to many things, mental health/sanity for one.
for example, sound is defined as sound waves vibrating in the human ear, and if this is true, if the tree falls and nobody hears it, it does NOT make a sound
but it still produces those waves
Darkthoughts
07-23-2008, 01:09 AM
True, but we only know the soundwaves are there in the first place because they have been observed, as we also know that colour is present in light, because we have observed it.
In that way, these concepts only exist at all because there was an initial observer.
i think me and Nigel started to have a conversation on existentialism... is that the speculation about what we really "know"?
I think the general term you are seeking is epistemology.
Existentialism is one school of thought within Philosophy like relativism, constructivism or pragmaticism.
Thank you all for responding. I had a lot of trouble with my connection on the board tonight but I will jump in soon. I have to sleep now.
LIZ!!! come back!!
True, but we only know the soundwaves are there in the first place because they have been observed, as we also know that colour is present in light, because we have observed it.
In that way, these concepts only exist at all because there was an initial observer.
the concepts, yes. The phenomena, no.
alinda
07-23-2008, 05:28 AM
In that way, these concepts only exist at all because there was an initial observer.
__________________
Exactly right, we are the canvas, as well as the painting on it.
ManOfWesternesse
07-23-2008, 05:36 AM
Surely soundwaves actually exist though. Nothing to do with whether or not there was ever a paltry human to bear witness to it.
When the tree falls in the forest there is an actual distortion of the air of 'x' decibels for 'y' distance - therefore the 'sound' exists, even were there no life on earth (human or other) to 'hear' it??
Brice
07-23-2008, 05:40 AM
Sound waves actually exist, of course, but sound does not until it is interpreted by an ear.
ManOfWesternesse
07-23-2008, 05:47 AM
Sound waves actually exist, of course, but sound does not until it is interpreted by an ear.
I dunno if I buy that one Brice.
The interpretation is just what our ear does with the sound which already exists. (ie. the wave just vibrates some tissue which the brain then interprets).
Brice
07-23-2008, 05:57 AM
Sound waves actually exist, of course, but sound does not until it is interpreted by an ear.
I dunno if I buy that one Brice.
The interpretation is just what our ear does with the sound which already exists. (ie. the wave just vibrates some tissue which the brain then interprets).
...as sound. The vibration or resonance isn't the sound, nor is the wave. Suppose you are deaf and the vibration is significant you will interpret the sensation with touch, not as sound because either the brain isn't interpreting the information the same or because of a deficiency somewhere in the ear itself. The ear is just a reciever Our brain iteself interprets the signal.
ManOfWesternesse
07-23-2008, 06:21 AM
Sound waves actually exist, of course, but sound does not until it is interpreted by an ear.
I dunno if I buy that one Brice.
The interpretation is just what our ear does with the sound which already exists. (ie. the wave just vibrates some tissue which the brain then interprets).
...as sound. The vibration or resonance isn't the sound, nor is the wave. Suppose you are deaf and the vibration is significant you will interpret the sensation with touch, not as sound because either the brain isn't interpreting the information the same or because of a deficiency somewhere in the ear itself. The ear is just a reciever Our brain iteself interprets the signal.
My brain interpreted that as a signal for a headache! :lol:
alinda
07-23-2008, 06:59 AM
:wtf: I love you guys!
obscurejude
07-23-2008, 08:28 AM
i think me and Nigel started to have a conversation on existentialism... is that the speculation about what we really "know"?
Beam, the branch of Philosophy that specifically deals with approaches to knowledge, i.e. how we know what we know, is called Epistemology. It comes from the Greek word pisteuo which means "believe." Plato set the stage for a rationalist epistemology and Aristotle took a more empirical (aesthetic approach). The rest of philosophy is basically footnotes to their original theories, and existentialism is included in this long argument. What I mean by Rational is the theory that only Ideas (which are non physical) can be a reliable source of knowledge because they are not perceived aesthetically (through the senses)- think of Descartes- "I think therefore I am." Aristotle worked from the position that sense perception is the way to go because we exist tangibly and knowledge comes from the observation of empirical facts. Existentialism is an extremely loaded term, coined in the late ninteenth century to categorize the writings of Soren Kierkegaard (Either/Or). The same precepts were later adopted in the twentieth century but with a much more pessimistic view of the human condition. If you have a specific question about existentialism, it would be easier to place it, but I think you and Nigel were essentially talking about Epistemology as I have mentioned. Hope this helps a little.
I love reading Lisa's "darkthoughts" and I totally agree. All of reality is subject to our perception of it. That idea has been one of the lynchpins of my life.
absolutization of this idea would make any communication impossible; it would also cast strong doubts upon the knowability of the world
That's why it just works for me Jean. :couple:
Hannah
07-23-2008, 09:05 AM
Not sure if it fits in with what Jon wants this thread to be about, but I've been thinking lately about how what we don't know is much, much more important than what we do know. We (humans in general) seem to focus so much on what we do know, that what we don't know gets ignored.
obscurejude
07-23-2008, 09:34 AM
Not sure if it fits in with what Jon wants this thread to be about, but I've been thinking lately about how what we don't know is much, much more important than what we do know. We (humans in general) seem to focus so much on what we do know, that what we don't know gets ignored.
I'm one of the miserable and cursed ones, who can only think about how much I don't know all the time. I've been thinking about the "bigger" questions far too often for far too many years. :(
theBeamisHome
07-23-2008, 10:02 AM
I knew it started with an "e". :blush:
epistemology. My roomie was taking it one semester and it totally blew her mind. She was have a crisis (OMG i don't know ANYTHING!!). it was great..
Darkthoughts
07-23-2008, 11:12 AM
Not sure if it fits in with what Jon wants this thread to be about, but I've been thinking lately about how what we don't know is much, much more important than what we do know. We (humans in general) seem to focus so much on what we do know, that what we don't know gets ignored.
I agree. I think we're all quite narcissitic at heart, which is why people love to talk about subjects they are already knowledgable on.
But, where this "staying on safe ground" principle becomes scary, is in research. I used to work for a government organization called the Research Councils. I was involved with NERC (Natural Environment Research Council) and Marine Biology in particular. We basically funded post grads, doctorates etc to do research in their given field. Applications were (still are) submitted tri-annually and then experts from around the world attending the funding meetings where it was decided who would get funding. Any research that was new and innovative rarely got given any, instead it went to projects that were a continuation of existing (and proven and therefore known value for money) research.
What kind of a way forward is that?!
jayson
07-23-2008, 11:41 AM
Any research that was new and innovative rarely got given any, instead it went to projects that were a continuation of existing (and proven and therefore known value for money) research.
What kind of a way forward is that?!
I'd have said "The American Way" but since you are in the UK... :evil:
Darkthoughts
07-23-2008, 11:51 AM
:lol:
I love reading Lisa's "darkthoughts" and I totally agree. All of reality is subject to our perception of it. That idea has been one of the lynchpins of my life.
absolutization of this idea would make any communication impossible; it would also cast strong doubts upon the knowability of the world
That's why it just works for me Jean. :couple:
I think that one must take pieces of the different schools of Philosophy and integrate for themselves. I believe in things being relative such as the color green to those color blind (do light waves of green stop bouncing off the blades of grass when a color blind person comes into the area?) but by the same token, the day we discovered the world was round (it was flat from our subjective, relative view) did the globe suddenly change shape? Our perspective did.
As far as "the tree falling in the forrest making a sound."
To me....that's like asking "If a man who cannot count finds a four leaf clover. Is he lucky?"
And yes, I believe the tree falling in the forrest DOES make a sound. It's just that no one can prove it.
Sound waves actually exist, of course, but sound does not until it is interpreted by an ear.
This is but ONE definition of sound.
An other is; "mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, (air, water etc...) "
Notice no mention of a receiver.
We need to understand the difference between relativity and subjectivity.
Relativity is a wider term, subjectivity is more on an individual basis.
Anyone with a more clear definition just speak up.
Which reminds me :
You take a walk through the countryside on a hot day. You crest a hill and see an old man sitting on the ground. He is mumbling. He is obviously dehydrated, perhaps even emaciated. He is clearly mentally ill. You scoop his boney body up and take him to a mental ward with instructions to care for his physical needs as well.
Have you helped a demented old man...or have you abducted a Hindu monk?
Cultural relativity
You see a man on a hot summer day walking in ever tightning circles around his yard. He does this for an hour or so. Is this man insane, or is he just mowing his yard? What if you came from a land in a high altitude and had never seen a mower?
Cultural relativity
I think that one must take pieces of the different schools of Philosophy and integrate for themselves. I believe in things being relative such as the color green to those color blind (do light waves of green stop bouncing off the blades of grass when a color blind person comes into the area?) but by the same token, the day we discovered the world was round (it was flat from our subjective, relative view) did the globe suddenly change shape? Our perspective did.
As far as "the tree falling in the forrest making a sound."
To me....that's like asking "If a man who cannot count finds a four leaf clover. Is he lucky?"
And yes, I believe the tree falling in the forrest DOES make a sound. It's just that no one can prove it.
Obviously the idea can be taken too far. Your question at the end about the globe really speaks to the difference between what people would consider "overall reality" and ones "personal reality". The globe did not change shape of course, but the fact that no one knew it was round before that meant that nobody's personal reality included the idea of a round globe.
Its like if someone was talking outside of earshot about what a jerk another person is. They do not know the first person feels this way so its not a part of their reality. Sure, it may be real but that's not part of what person two knows so for them, it isn't real.
The tree falling in the forrest speaks to this imo. Its not about sound waves or if sound is "real". Its about the idea that if a tree falls in the forrest and nobody hears it, did it effect any personal reality. If no one knows it fell, it is not "real" to anyone.
Basically meaning that something that isn't perceived by anyone is not exactly "real".
I think the tree obviously makes a noise, its about perception.
I know its weird but I think this is an amazingly interesting topic.
Yes, I think I understand your point well. I am just, when it comes to things physical, I am a bit of a pragmatist/ constructavist (I know the tree made a sound because I know what sound is (Pragmatic) and I have seen and heard a tree fall before (constructivist) ) where as you are more relativistic perhaps even to the point of subjectivism based on your statement "did it effect any personal reality?"
And both are O.K. Just different lines of thought.
When it comes to Metaphysics, I am a clear subjectivist.
On ethicsI am, once again a constructivist. ( My father smoked pot and went to jail for it...this must be a bad thing)
The relativistic person would respond, "it was a bad thing to do in THAT country but may be perfectly acceptable in an other land."
To which I would respond that we have not establised the meaning of "bad." Then the debate really begins!
The subjectivist would say "Yeah I know smoking pot is against the law but I don't think it is a bad thing, so I do it no matter what land I am in. :cool:
(This would be a nice spot for a number of Camp Doc smilies!)
But at any rate, I was wanting to hear more points of view about Hannah's post.
What DO we know? What DON'T we know? How many things are there that we don't know because we don't know a connecting fact?
Some spend their lives dealing with things they know. (The potter knows how fast her wheel will spin and how the clay will react to her hands.) But there are those that deal with things they don't know, detectives, astronomers, Quantum physicists.
I am not implying one pursuit is more noble. I just think Hannah has a good idea in her post...and a great rack!!!!!:excited:
Brice
07-25-2008, 02:49 AM
But at any rate, I was wanting to hear more points of view about Hannah's post.
What DO we know? What DON'T we know? How many things are there that we don't know because we don't know a connecting fact?
IMO, we know nothing. Everything is perception... perspective... appearance... subjective...
Brice
07-25-2008, 03:11 AM
As far as "the tree falling in the forrest making a sound."
To me....that's like asking "If a man who cannot count finds a four leaf clover. Is he lucky?"
And yes, I believe the tree falling in the forrest DOES make a sound. It's just that no one can prove it.
If it can't be proven how can it possibly be relevant to anything, even if it does make a sound?
As for the man finding the four leaf clover...well, I would tell you there isn't such a thing as luck, so from my perspective no he isn't lucky.
Sound waves actually exist, of course, but sound does not until it is interpreted by an ear.
This is but ONE definition of sound.
An other is; "mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, (air, water etc...) "
Notice no mention of a receiver.
We need to understand the difference between relativity and subjectivity.
Relativity is a wider term, subjectivity is more on an individual basis.
Anyone with a more clear definition just speak up.
Which reminds me :
You take a walk through the countryside on a hot day. You crest a hill and see an old man sitting on the ground. He is mumbling. He is obviously dehydrated, perhaps even emaciated. He is clearly mentally ill. You scoop his boney body up and take him to a mental ward with instructions to care for his physical needs as well.
Have you helped a demented old man...or have you abducted a Hindu monk?
Cultural relativity
You see a man on a hot summer day walking in ever tightning circles around his yard. He does this for an hour or so. Is this man insane, or is he just mowing his yard? What if you came from a land in a high altitude and had never seen a mower?
Cultural relativity
Nearly everything is relative to our personal perceptions...possibly everything.
While you may be right about there being "sound" without a receiver (although I disagree), what relevance would the "sound" have to anything with out a receiver?
Brice
07-25-2008, 03:12 AM
As far as "the tree falling in the forrest making a sound."
To me....that's like asking "If a man who cannot count finds a four leaf clover. Is he lucky?"
And yes, I believe the tree falling in the forrest DOES make a sound. It's just that no one can prove it.
If it can't be proven how can it possibly be relevant to anything, even if it does make a "sound"?
As for the man finding the four leaf clover...well, I would tell you there isn't such a thing as luck, so from my perspective no he isn't lucky.
Sound waves actually exist, of course, but sound does not until it is interpreted by an ear.
This is but ONE definition of sound.
An other is; "mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, (air, water etc...) "
Notice no mention of a receiver.
We need to understand the difference between relativity and subjectivity.
Relativity is a wider term, subjectivity is more on an individual basis.
Anyone with a more clear definition just speak up.
Which reminds me :
You take a walk through the countryside on a hot day. You crest a hill and see an old man sitting on the ground. He is mumbling. He is obviously dehydrated, perhaps even emaciated. He is clearly mentally ill. You scoop his boney body up and take him to a mental ward with instructions to care for his physical needs as well.
Have you helped a demented old man...or have you abducted a Hindu monk?
Cultural relativity
You see a man on a hot summer day walking in ever tightning circles around his yard. He does this for an hour or so. Is this man insane, or is he just mowing his yard? What if you came from a land in a high altitude and had never seen a mower?
Cultural relativity
Nearly everything is relative to our personal perceptions...possibly everything.
While you may be right about there being "sound" without a receiver (although I disagree), what relevance would the "sound" have to anything with out a receiver?
While you may be right about there being "sound" without a receiver (although I disagree), what relevance would the "sound" have to anything with out a receiver?
Exactly! That is the answer to the question imo. Sure it makes a sound, the sound has no receiver so it technically does not exist.
Odetta
07-25-2008, 04:25 PM
While you may be right about there being "sound" without a receiver (although I disagree), what relevance would the "sound" have to anything with out a receiver?
Exactly! That is the answer to the question imo. Sure it makes a sound, the sound has no receiver so it technically does not exist.
... based on a definition created by man. My point being is that human beings always relate everything to themsleves as a basis for any definition... is this an accurate way to do it?
discuss
obscurejude
07-25-2008, 05:40 PM
While you may be right about there being "sound" without a receiver (although I disagree), what relevance would the "sound" have to anything with out a receiver?
Exactly! That is the answer to the question imo. Sure it makes a sound, the sound has no receiver so it technically does not exist.
... based on a definition created by man. My point being is that human beings always relate everything to themsleves as a basis for any definition... is this an accurate way to do it?
discuss
In a sense, yes (pun intended). Humans exist temporally, and epistemologically speaking, perceive the world aesthetically through the senses. Objectivity is an illusion in my opinion, at least in a completed sense.
Brice
07-26-2008, 09:34 AM
What else could we possibly relate anything to, but our our own selves...our definitions, experiences, imaginations, and perceptions? Aren't all of our concepts necessarily extensions of this? Can we even possibly conceive of a concept that isn't an extension of our perceptions of ourselves? I mean isn't this what all of our "knowledge" is based upon?
obscurejude
07-26-2008, 02:31 PM
What else could we possibly relate anything to, but our our own selves...our definitions, experiences, imaginations, and perceptions? Aren't all of our concepts necessarily extensions of this? Can we even possibly conceive of a concept that isn't an extension of our perceptions of ourselves? I mean isn't this what all of our "knowledge" is based upon?
Not on the Platonic side of the coin. He had a sign above his academy that said, "let no one enter here if he is ignorant of mathematics." Plato was very influenced by Pythagoras and this very much influenced his concepts of a rational epistemology. What I mean, is 2+2 always equals 4. Mathematics isn't reliant upon perception. The problem comes to morality. Remember the abstract realm of the divine? Justice is a perfected Ideal, but in this sphere, it's intrinsically flawed. Justice can be imagined (rationalized) perfectly, but once the Ideal becomes a Form, it ceases to be the perfected Good. For Plato, Ideas are the goal because they are non physical, the same as mathematics.
Brice
07-26-2008, 02:50 PM
Even theoretical mathematics and ideas are based on physical observation...they are just extensions of what is known through observation. They are just extrapolations instead of interpolations. No matter how far our minds wander any idea we have must be a move away from something we already know. We cannot come up with a wholly new concept which isn't based on the physical/material world.
And as for 2+2=4...this is not always true. We say it is for convenience.
I guess I disagree with Plato and Aristotle, both.
Damn, they're dumb. :rofl:
obscurejude
07-26-2008, 06:21 PM
Brice, theoretical mathematics and observational are mutually exclusive. That seems to me, to be a contradictory statement. Its like saying organic chemistry and theoretical physics are the same because they're both science.
When doesn't 2+2 not equal 4? Honestly, I don't understand much of your post. For the record, you don't disagree with Plato and Aristotle, you disagree with the human condition. :lol:
Odetta
07-26-2008, 06:23 PM
for example...
if the "+" was considered an "and"...
2 and 2 could be 22
obscurejude
07-26-2008, 06:24 PM
for example...
if the "+" was considered an "and"...
2 and 2 could be 22
That's not mathematics, its semantics.
Odetta
07-26-2008, 06:27 PM
yes, but you said... when is 2+2 not 4... I am just giving an example.
Clearly Brice and Matt use different schools of thought than I, and that is O.K. I suspect if the truth were ever found it would fall somewhere in between. I respect their views, and I see their points clearly.
Ok...as far as perception, is there more to a human than water carbon etc...
I cannot observe your thoughts directly...are your thoughts just chemical reactions in your brain?
Did man make God with his own hands? (brain)
Is there an area of the brain to facilitate "self-awareness? The "soul?" (Science has yet to find one, but we know so little about the brain.)
Are you "self aware?" What does it mean to be "self aware? Are non-human animals "self-aware?" Can you prove your answer? Do you really need to prove it?
(And the "27 grams" is just an error due to inaccurate measuring devices IMHO. )
obscurejude
07-27-2008, 07:52 PM
yes, but you said... when is 2+2 not 4... I am just giving an example.
If you have 2 apples and then you add 2 more, you will always have 4.
If you change the equation by just changing words, its wordplay and not mathematics.
Here is a link that explains my questions of self-awareness in a better way... The Mind-Body Problem
http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Mind-Body_Problem
Odetta
07-28-2008, 06:47 AM
yes, but you said... when is 2+2 not 4... I am just giving an example.
If you have 2 apples and then you add 2 more, you will always have 4.
If you change the equation by just changing words, its wordplay and not mathematics.
yes, I understand that... but to reiterate again, that is not how you worded your statement.
As a music teacher, I use a "+" sign to mean the word "and" in counting rhythm. So when I see that symbol, I don't automatically think of addition. Also, if you were to ask, say... a 4 year old what 2 and 2 (or even if you said "plus" instead of "and" for that matter) they might very likely say 22.
Mathematics is fairly straightforward, yes... but to simply say 2+2 is always equal to 4 just isn't accurate. Sometimes, it depends on the person who is answering the question.
obscurejude
07-28-2008, 09:45 AM
yes, but you said... when is 2+2 not 4... I am just giving an example.
If you have 2 apples and then you add 2 more, you will always have 4.
If you change the equation by just changing words, its wordplay and not mathematics.
yes, I understand that... but to reiterate again, that is not how you worded your statement.
As a music teacher, I use a "+" sign to mean the word "and" in counting rhythm. So when I see that symbol, I don't automatically think of addition. Also, if you were to ask, say... a 4 year old what 2 and 2 (or even if you said "plus" instead of "and" for that matter) they might very likely say 22.
Mathematics is fairly straightforward, yes... but to simply say 2+2 is always equal to 4 just isn't accurate. Sometimes, it depends on the person who is answering the question.
I qualified it fine when I used "plato" and "rationalist." It is mathematical in that context. Rational epistemology is knowledge that isn't perception based. It was the point of several of my posts and I thought you were tracking along.
obscurejude
07-28-2008, 09:48 AM
For Odetta. This is a philosophy thread, and these philosophic concepts have very specific meanings.
Not on the Platonic side of the coin. He had a sign above his academy that said, "let no one enter here if he is ignorant of mathematics." Plato was very influenced by Pythagoras and this very much influenced his concepts of a rational epistemology. What I mean, is 2+2 always equals 4. Mathematics isn't reliant upon perception. The problem comes to morality. Remember the abstract realm of the divine? Justice is a perfected Ideal, but in this sphere, it's intrinsically flawed. Justice can be imagined (rationalized) perfectly, but once the Ideal becomes a Form, it ceases to be the perfected Good. For Plato, Ideas are the goal because they are non physical, the same as mathematics.
Odetta
07-28-2008, 01:17 PM
:rolleyes:
fine... end of discussion, I guess.
Aesculapius
07-28-2008, 05:15 PM
Geometric tolerance.
I'm sure Pythagoras was aware of the curve.
2 is implied 2.00000000000000~...because nothing can be made perfect (here, anyway).
2 is really 2.(something).
The more decimals to the right of the point, the more $, and that's what it's really all about. :lol:
Aesculapius
07-28-2008, 05:23 PM
If you have 2 apples and then you add 2 more, you will always have 4.
String theory.
How many apples make up "one" apple?
obscurejude
07-28-2008, 06:18 PM
If you have 2 apples and then you add 2 more, you will always have 4.
String theory.
How many apples make up "one" apple?
Again, it was an epistemological example and not really about apples. Has nobody ever read Plato?
Interesting point though Aesculapius.
Odetta
07-28-2008, 06:55 PM
If you have 2 apples and then you add 2 more, you will always have 4.
String theory.
How many apples make up "one" apple?
:wub:
yikes!
Easy folks. It's OK to have a dissenting opinion.
Brice
07-29-2008, 03:09 AM
Geometric tolerance.
I'm sure Pythagoras was aware of the curve.
2 is implied 2.00000000000000~...because nothing can be made perfect (here, anyway).
2 is really 2.(something).
The more decimals to the right of the point, the more $, and that's what it's really all about. :lol:
If you have 2 apples and then you add 2 more, you will always have 4.
String theory.
How many apples make up "one" apple?
You saw a great deal of my intended point and said it more artfully than I likely would (could?) have. Thank you Will!
Odetta
07-29-2008, 12:34 PM
agreed... thanks, Will!
Aesculapius
07-29-2008, 08:29 PM
YouTube - Robert Anton Wilson: Real Reality
EDIT:
tolerance.
geometric.
Damn!
I have no soundcard at work!
Aesculapius
08-04-2008, 06:34 PM
Mind Over Matter
stone, rose, unfound door
08-04-2008, 09:30 PM
there's no such thing as colors... they aren't really there so much as they're just reflections/absorptions...
I tend to take the view that as most things only "exist" through our perception of them (colour, sound, etc), reality is subjective to the individual.
There are certain elements of our realities that overlap and concur with other people's perceptions - such as colour - but I wouldn't say colour was an objective thing, because some people are colour blind, so the perception of colour is not consistent in every individual.
I'd apply that to many things, mental health/sanity for one.
I agree with you on what you said, but I'd like to add that I think the best proof that colour is totally subjective, although it often is close to what others see, is that no one sees exactly the same things. We tried this experience with I can't remember whom: ask the person who you're talking with what precise colour they see the grass, for example, and you'll get so many different answers for the same patch it's amazing to think that we all agree it's green nonetheless!
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.8 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.