GENIUS FORUMS

DO YOU REFUTE THAT KNOWLEDGE OF REALITY IS NEEDED TO EXAMINE IF LOGICAL TRUTHS CAN BE APPLIED TO REALITY? It doesn't take much thought to see how you cannot examine anything without applying basic logical truths. They are axioms for that matter. Knowledge or reality cannot be constructed without lo...

Just look around you. Did you notice the world? Well that's the world I mean. So you are waving your hand around vaguely and say: "this is what I mean". No, do you? The problem with that Your problem in that case. ...is that it requires barely consciousness to arrive at. First define cons...

A=A as the basis of the path to enlightenment and non attachment: Since any given thing's existence is necessitated by its relation to that which it is not, no thing can be said to possess inherent existence (existence independent of other things/causes). This applies to us as well and particularly...

Don't you see you are just restating my point? No, I've been refuting each and every point but you seem to glance over it again and again. Lets try again. We'll see just how much you are refuting. In itself 1 + 1 = 2 is a mathematical/logical statement, not a statement of the real world. "The ...

So by using 1+1=2 in the realm of reality you are making assumptions and violating logic in the sense of the problem of induction. Nothing is violated. It's a matter of defining in every situation what one means with '1'. The more precise that is defined, the more precise a '2' can be described and...

[ Even 1+1=2 not always holds. For mixing one litre of water with one litre of alcohol does not exactly add up to 2 litre of fluid due to the effect both fluids have on the spatial arrangement of the involved molecules. Is it true you don't even realize that 1 + 1 stands for 1 A + 1 A? You are maki...

One ends up claiming certainty and uncertainty simultaneously, just like Fujaro has done. It is irrational, unreasonable, and entirely illogical, i.e. insane . Before using ad hominems please clarify for me where I claim certainty and uncertainty simultaneously. I do nothing of the kind, rather I w...

I'm not sure I get the point about "context", but here's a fairly concise statement of what I perceive as the overall philosophical importance of the law of identity - as expressed by "A=A": A=A - the law of identity - as the basis of existence where "to exist" is defi...

BTW, your trinity was invented by men of power with an urge to wield religion and wordly powers in one structure centuries after the supposed death of christ. With all your awareness, you must be aware of that?

I have recently been asked about ways in HOW to perceive, keys if you like and have begun to talk about this in a few of my posts. Yes I have written an apriori method of Christian doctrine. Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. Could you please elaborate on that? How do you perceive yourself slaying tha...

By knowing I mean that Understanding IS gained that allows one to comprehend all things. In utter objectivity one sees consciousness, one then has to begin to understand that in relation to ALL. Nothing more than a religious claim for the absolute. But still you haven't managed to explain how to di...

When by 'knowing' you mean 'reaching an internal (tentative) conclusion' then perceiving what and how you are knowing doesn't add up to understanding. For the fact that you have perfectly kept track of what your conclusion is and what premisses you've used along the way to reach the conclusion, in i...

If you on the other hand by A=A mean that by definition A always is equal to A, your statement is an identity statement which is trivial or self-referring. Only trivial statements are logically absolute. But the logical correctness of trivial statements is in no way evidence for the fact that non-t...

A=A can be doubted by other than fools. The reason is that it is presented without context. But context (such as underlying assumptions) is everything. I'll now proceed to doubt the entire area (from a former post): If you state that A=A is true, it is not given which degrees of freedom are included...

Philosophaster wrote:

Fujaro wrote:It is certain however that you can ever be certain that you're certain that you're reasoning correctly.

Did you mean "that you can never be certain?"

Certain is for megalomaniacs and fools, but even that could be uncertain.

It is certain however that you can ever be certain that you're certain that you're reasoning correctly. Religion is based on it.

Matt Gregory wrote:Alright, I'll be more serious. Just give me some time to reply.

OK Matt, fair enough, I look forward to the discussion.

I see nobody judging nobody here! They're just all geniusses.

There really is no sense in pursuing Ultimate Truth and at the same time arguing for separate truths for philosophy and science They're not separate truths. They're merely on different rungs of a hierarchy, distinguished by merit of contingency. Assuming you are referring to philosophical and scien...

That's in essence a religious statement. It's a philosophical statement. Religion takes philosophical concepts and distorts them for its own ends, but that doesn't have anything to do with their original intention. Modern philosophy seeks coherence with science (what else would philosophy of scienc...

There really is no sense in pursuing Ultimate Truth and at the same time arguing for separate truths for philosophy and science, for logical truth and truths about the real world, for truths we think about and truths we can't think about. There's only the appearance of two truths for those who have...

Carl G wrote:

Fujaro wrote: We seem to share some moral ground on this one :-)

What has public safety and social manners to do with morality?

Social manners are the implementation of morality.

I see neurotic cell phone use as a public safety problem, at the very least, since people talking on cell phones get in many more wrecks than people who don't use their phones in the car. I also find it annoying that many people feel obliged to interrupt whatever they're doing to pick up their phon...

Philosophaster wrote:

Fujaro wrote:hmmm...
Does this mean that love can safely be called a neurotic obsession?

It certainly could be in many cases.

Then, is there any problem with neurotic cell phone use, or is there only a problem in the eye of the beholder who sees it as an annoyance?

I don't think anyone was saying that cell phone use is morally wrong. That's just the faulty interpretive net that you cast on the conversation, Sam. I saw people talking about how cell phone use has become something of a neurotic obsession for many people, and also quite an annoyance in public pla...