|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Dec 30, 2007 17:37
(1) Non-contradictory identification; you cant
deny something exists without first accepting
that thing exists to deny, i.e.
without contradiction.
(2) We never can coherently go beyond
our experience
(3) We can't justify the Principle of Non-Contradiction
from outside our experience because we use it in all
our experience, in sorting out experience.
(4) We cannot provide, for any principle, a foundation
that stands altogether outside of our discourse
and our conceptual scheme.
(5) Principles are justified by their position in
experience, by the role they play inside experience,
not by anything completely external.
(6) What is completely external cannot enter into our
discourse and thought, and thus cannot
be anything to us at all.
|
| Show full article (10.93Kb) |
|
| | 25 Comments |
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Dec 30, 2007 17:38
(1) Non-contradictory identification; you cant
deny something exists without first accepting
that thing exists to deny, i.e.
without contradiction.
(2) We never can coherently go beyond
our experience
(3) We can't justify the Principle of Non-Contradiction
from outside our experience because we use it in all
our experience, in sorting out experience.
(4) We cannot provide, for any principle, a foundation
that stands altogether outside of our discourse
and our conceptual scheme.
(5) Principles are justified by their position in
experience, by the role they play inside experience,
not by anything completely external.
(6) What is completely external cannot enter into our
discourse and thought, and thus cannot
be anything to us at all.
|
| Show full article (10.93Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: EdEd Date: Dec 30, 2007 19:27
On Dec 30, 8:37 pm, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:
> There is a fundamental principle in Aristotle's thought which he calls
> the Principle of Non-Contradiction. This is the principle that
> contradictory properties cannot apply to the same subject at...
|
| Show full article (1.18Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Dec 30, 2007 22:00
"Ed" wrote:
> Does the story of Schrodinger's cat have relevance here?
> The cat is both dead and not dead until the experiment ends.
> Does this imply that the Principle of Non-Contradiction needs to
> be modified to accommodate the discoveries of particle physics?
> Is Logic fundamentally changed, and philosophy with it?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: TronTron Date: Dec 31, 2007 04:40
> (1) Non-contradictory identification; you cant
> deny something exists without first accepting
> that thing exists to deny, i.e.
> without contradiction.
That is not the same as Aristotle's principle of contradiction.
Of course one can specify a concept which is such that no object falls under
it,
amongst other things in order to do precisely that, without affirming it's
existence
by the act of specifying that concept.
I can very well deny the existence of any unicorn, for example, without much
of a contradiction.
T
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ZerkonXZerkonX Date: Dec 31, 2007 07:28
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 17:37:32 -0800, Immortalist wrote:
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 17:37:32 -0800, Immortalist wrote:
> you cant deny something exists without first accepting
> that thing exists to deny,
To deny something exists, you first must understand what you are denying.
Is this the same as accepting it's existence?
If someone says "the sky is green" do you first accept a green sky, or do
you accept "green" and also "sky" while rejecting "green sky".
If existence never moves beyond concept, I can see how this might be true
but it does, so it isn't.
> We never can coherently go beyond
> our experience...
.
. imagine a scientist who knows everything there is to know about the
science of color, but has never experienced color. Is she coherent when
she speaks of color? If so, what more can she say after she
experiences color, besides "wow".?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary%%27s_room
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Dec 31, 2007 18:04
On Dec 30, 10:00 pm, "andy-k" wrote:
> "Ed" wrote:
>> Does the story of Schrodinger's cat have relevance here?
>> The cat is both dead and not dead until the experiment ends.
>> Does this imply that the Principle of Non-Contradiction needs to
>> be modified to accommodate the discoveries of particle physics?
>> Is Logic fundamentally changed, and philosophy with it?
When we "assume" the cat is both alive and dead, how would that be
justified? Maybe it is undefined or not yet know which or which will
be determined, like the flip of a coin; it is both heads and tails
till it lands and is one or the other.
The thing about the "distribution law" at your link is worth looking
into, thanx.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Dec 31, 2007 18:05
On Dec 31, 4:40 am, "Tron" wrote:
>> (1) Non-contradictory identification; you cant
>> deny something exists without first accepting
>> that thing exists to deny, i.e.
>> without contradiction.
>
> That is not the same as Aristotle's principle of contradiction.
>
> Of course one can specify a concept which is such that no object falls under
> it,
> amongst other things in order to do precisely that, without affirming it's
> existence
> by the act of specifying that concept.
> I can very well deny the existence of any unicorn, for example, without much
> of a contradiction.
>
> T
|
| Show full article (0.76Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Dec 31, 2007 18:25
On Dec 31, 7:28 am, ZerkonX erconX.org> wrote:> On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 17:37:32 -0800, Immortalist wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 17:37:32 -0800, Immortalist wrote:
>> you cant deny something exists without first accepting
>> that thing exists to deny,
>
> To deny something exists, you first must understand what you are denying.
> Is this the same as accepting it's existence?
> If someone says "the sky is green" do you first accept a green sky, or do
> you accept "green" and also "sky" while rejecting "green sky".
>
I think I agree and this was the point of difference between Aristotle
and Ayn Rand, which ya'll have caught quickly.
|
| Show full article (7.79Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Michael GordgeMichael Gordge Date: Dec 31, 2007 20:20
On Dec 31 2007, 10:37 am, Immortalist yahoo.com>
wrote:> (1) Non-contradictory identification; you cant
> deny something exists without first accepting
> that thing exists to deny, i.e.
> without contradiction.
Thats right, so it leaves you no choice but to identify the thing, or
identify the thing that is claimed to exist.
Ideas exist Mortal, you dont deny the existence of your own ideas do
you?
And its possible to identify ideas, best place to start is with the
claimed origin of the idea.
You know you cant argue with matter, because matter just is, in
reality you can only argue with man.
If you cant poke and prod with a stick, the thing that is claimed to
exist, then its time to take a BIG step back, why? because most likely
it will be an idea and solely an idea.
|
| Show full article (1.23Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
