First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply Failure of normative logic to address the progressive nature of existence
Posted 3/11/15
Gotcha.
16832 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / fairy tail
Offline
Posted 3/11/15

pandrasb wrote:



Oh no, philosophy. The thing I avoid like a plague.

I call it the mindf**k and anxiety attack inducer.


lmao this guy !
12472 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Utopia
Offline
Posted 3/11/15 , edited 3/11/15
and we wonder why philosophy has really advanced in the past decades or so, just like metaphysics and religion. too confusing and complicated

P.S - how many posts do you have to make to get 500 cr points. i want to make my own thread
81324 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M
Offline
Posted 3/11/15

saksiss wrote:

If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around, does it make a sound?


Yes, even if there are no animals or people around to hear it, there are still other trees to hear it, since it is a forest.


To the OP, what is the point you are trying to make? Yes, what we see is never fixed. Even a statue has atoms in constant motion and the statue itself is moving with the planet, which is moving with the galaxy. So, nothing is ever static. Are you saying that there is no such thing as logic, because whatever one's logic is based on is constantly changing?
20074 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/11/15

nanikore2 wrote:


KarenAraragi wrote:

OK I get it now. Would't also the environment where somebody grow up,also play a role on that too ?


It doesn't, because our minds are forced to work with impressions. It's all we have.


As an psychotherapy intern, I disagree completely. Across every culture, the environment one grows up in is pivotal in how we create "mental impressions" of things. See psychodynamic theory on object relations, particularly Winnicot.
11680 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 3/11/15
"An integral part of being is its own becoming. Paradoxes are the result of the separation of being from its becoming (its dynamic/evolutionary aspect). Existence can not remain static."

That's an interesting line. It reminds me of the paradox: can god create an object that he can't lift? Would a possible solution be that he temporarily throws away his omnipotence then, rather than assuming his prior omnipotence for when he can't lift it?
65319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Atlanta, GA
Offline
Posted 3/11/15 , edited 3/11/15
I have an undergrad degree in philosophy and this was too long and too detailed. I'm still not sure OP means by normative logic either, even though he defined it. Is it logic in the sense of the standard deductive logic I use to solve math proofs, or a placeholder for a more nebulous idea like Decartes' "perceiving".

I should also note that it's interesting that he mentions progressive objects, A can no longer equal A because reflexivity doesn't hold. That's all true. Because equality is necessarily reflexive, and symmetric, and transitive. Take a single one away and it's not equality anymore.

I take this example and most of the opening post as saying the tools we have to reason about the world like logic, math, and science don't work well in a world where things change. That's fine, but I'm not sure stuff like deductive logic is something we invented like a tool. I was always under the impression it was something we discovered about how we think, kind of like a science. So I'm not sure it's something we can just reshape at will.
42339 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / New Jersey, USA
Offline
Posted 3/11/15 , edited 3/14/15
I love philosophy as much as the next person but-WHAT THE FUCK?!


27257 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 3/12/15 , edited 3/12/15

Scooty-Bby wrote:

Crunchyroll forum isnt really the place for that mountain of words...


What is it really the place for?


RedExodus wrote:

"An integral part of being is its own becoming. Paradoxes are the result of the separation of being from its becoming (its dynamic/evolutionary aspect). Existence can not remain static."

That's an interesting line. It reminds me of the paradox: can god create an object that he can't lift? Would a possible solution be that he temporarily throws away his omnipotence then, rather than assuming his prior omnipotence for when he can't lift it?


If I could actually decipher the workings of a divine being, wouldn't that automatically make me a demigod? Hopefully I won't come into possession of such hubris.
27257 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 3/12/15 , edited 3/12/15

SilvaZoldyck wrote:



In most dialogue, you're allowed to leave some terms up to colloquial meaning, but if you're trying to talk about philosophy, it helps to make all of your definitions explicit upfront.

Philosophers spend extraordinary amounts of time establishing definitions, this on the other hand is a dense tome of jargon.


I have used reidentification the same way it has always been used in metaphysics and philosphy of consciousness:

http://www.oxfordreference.com/search?siteToSearch=aup&q=reidentification&searchBtn=Search&isQuickSearch=true

The purpose of talking about reidentification here is to demonstrate the non-trivial nature of a statement such as A=A, and of such activities as "being logical" (What is being logical, you ask?... I would say ask all the people who routinely throw around such phrases as "people aren't being logical" and "What they think defies logic" since they should have an excellent grasp of it). It's really not geared towards anyone who is already aware of the non-triviality.


evolution1988 wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:


KarenAraragi wrote:

OK I get it now. Would't also the environment where somebody grow up,also play a role on that too ?


It doesn't, because our minds are forced to work with impressions. It's all we have.


As an psychotherapy intern, I disagree completely. Across every culture, the environment one grows up in is pivotal in how we create "mental impressions" of things. See psychodynamic theory on object relations, particularly Winnicot.


I'm speaking of something very base such as seeing something as itself.


qualeshia3 wrote:

I love philosophy as much as the next person but-WHAT THE FUCK?!




In most simple terms, I am showing that there is more than the simple "A = A". In order to think, you first take for granted that what you see is what you see.
27257 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 3/12/15 , edited 3/12/15

harutoharuta wrote:

So...are you saying that we only see and use objects for what they're made for? Like, most people see a baseball as the ball used for the sport, but one could see it as a back massager to put in between your back and a chair, or a weapon for house intruders? Are you saying that we don't see the full potential of objects and subjects? If not, I'm embarrassed. I'm not exactly a simple thinker, but I'm definitely no philosopher.


We see and use objects as how we see and use them. "Things" can only retain a general identity, otherwise paradoxes could be created where the color of apples somehow applies to the question of if all ravens are black or not (Raven paradox)


crazykl45 wrote:

I have an undergrad degree in philosophy and this was too long and too detailed. I'm still not sure OP means by normative logic either, even though he defined it. Is it logic in the sense of the standard deductive logic I use to solve math proofs, or a placeholder for a more nebulous idea like Decartes' "perceiving".

I should also note that it's interesting that he mentions progressive objects, A can no longer equal A because reflexivity doesn't hold. That's all true. Because equality is necessarily reflexive, and symmetric, and transitive. Take a single one away and it's not equality anymore.

I take this example and most of the opening post as saying the tools we have to reason about the world like logic, math, and science don't work well in a world where things change. That's fine, but I'm not sure stuff like deductive logic is something we invented like a tool. I was always under the impression it was something we discovered about how we think, kind of like a science. So I'm not sure it's something we can just reshape at will.


Thanks for the summary. Logic is a discovery that, as with everything else, could be made into a tool and be abused as a tool. When solving math proofs, it's being shaped and used as a tool. As with any tool, it can be intentionally / unintentionally abused, bent, and broken (with various paradoxes. As far metaphysics, I think of anything that's being understood as more than a "working model" to be abusive. Just my opinion).
49109 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/12/15 , edited 3/12/15
Did you want to discuss this or publish it?If this already has been published, it's fairly informal, may we be allowed to review the entire text, or be directed to a source?This begs the question as to why you chose this venue to post this?It's somewhat difficult to generate a point by point discussion given the length of your post, and the real time limitations of this format.
8073 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Busan, ROK
Offline
Posted 3/12/15 , edited 3/12/15

Perhaps separation of being and becoming and the persistence of memory are the only reasons that re-identity exist. It seems to me that identification and re-identification are not really logical but intuitive processes. It is for the convenience and necessity of thought that normative logic even exists.


Sounds like it came out of the Postmodernism Generator. It's laced in so much jargon it's unreadable to anyone who isn't cued in, and perhaps even then.

A quick skim though seems to say that what something is is contentious because it can be different things to differing amounts to different people. I'm not sure that needs a metaphysical explanation. There are plenty enough objective characteristics to measure without going down the fruitless rabbit-hole of solipsism.
3095 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M
Offline
Posted 3/12/15
Condensed version: Everything is subjective.

Speaking of philosophical modalities, is the following why you want to "narimasu" a "twintail"?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.