A=A

[David Quinn]

bert wrote:

In the first sentence tord used the word reality.Which might point to the reality of the absolute.If this is so,then he doesn't speak against himself as I will point out.
In the last sentence he says that he can prove things.This proving of things do not have to be things of reality(thruth of the absolute).The prove as a fact can exist within the human reasoning system

Yes, the only way he can eliminate the contradiction is by using different meanings of the word "prove". In the first instance, "prove" means establishing something to be irrefutably true with 100% certainty. In the second instance, the standards are dramatically lowered; "prove" now means supportable by scientific evidence.

As I said before to you quinn:
ONE CAN KNOW THAT HE CAN NOT KNOW.And many did.

The trouble is, there are some things we can know for certain. For example, we can know for certain that Reality is not nothing whatsoever. This is utterly irrefutable.

I've brought this point up a number of times, but Tord makes it plain that he wants nothing to do with it - for good reason, as it completely undermines his belief system. He is so wedded to the philosophy of uncertainty that his mind instinctively blocks out any evidence to the contrary. In this, he is no different to a fundamentalist Christian.


-

[Tord]

Mr. Quinn:

we can know for certain that Reality is not nothing whatsoever

It's not that I want to be difficult here, but for this statement to make sense you must define "reality". Does it mean; something (as an unspecified concept) is not nothing, or do does it mean something else? Does it contain a quantifiable aspect?

[David Quinn]

Tord,

I am glad to see that you are finally making an effort. Thanks heavens all those indignant diatribes are over.

DQ: This passage doesn't make any sense. In the first sentence, you are saying that we only have belief because we can probably never know or prove anything. Yet by the time you get to the last sentence, you're saying that you believe in what can be proven.

T: If I have understood you correctly I think that maybe this is partly the point you have stated earlier actually. Science has limits that makes it impossible as a tool for achieving ultimate knowledge. Where we seemingly differ is that I use it as one of the ways towards that knowledge. I think this is possible despite its inherent limitations. So, the point is; I can use science to "prove" many things, but that doesn't mean I regard those things as true, but for me that can be a starting point. Remember; different paths may lead to the same goal.

I agree that science can be a starting point for one's quest for ultimate knowledge. It can help dispell the cruder delusions which grip the world - such as the religious belief in God, or the secular belief in love. But for anyone who is serious in their quest, it won't be long before they realize that science can only do so much. They'll have to start going beyond science (and religion).

DQ: Are you speaking against the possibility of knowing truth or not? You seem to dancing around this issue, and hedging your bets.

Tord: I thought I made that clear when I said:

Quote:
I don't think I will ever know that I know

How can I speak against it when I'm not sure?

What about the truth that Reality is not nothing whatsoever? Are you not sure about this? Do you think it is possible that nothing exists at all?

Perhaps someday I will get an epiphany that reveals some ultimate truth, but this doesn't seem likely.

You certainly won't experience it if you don't remove those large mental blocks which exist inside you.


-

[David Quinn]

Tord wrote:

DQ: we can know for certain that Reality is not nothing whatsoever

T: It's not that I want to be difficult here, but for this statement to make sense you must define "reality". Does it mean; something (as an unspecified concept) is not nothing, or do does it mean something else? Does it contain a quantifiable aspect?

I mean - Nature, the totality of all there is, the entirety of existence, that of which you and I are a part. Life, the Universe and Everything.

-

[Dan Rowden]

Though somewhat rhetorically clumsy and imprecise, I'm happy enough with Tord's expanation of his position re: knowledge. Mind you, I wonder if there isn't something slightly Freudian in the fact that every time he types the word "believe" he misspells it :)

The matter I do have a problem with, however, is this:

But this is difficult. I see that I'm nowhere near explaining this concept in a easy to understand way. This is the reason why explanations are dangerous, as the more specific you try to be the easier it is to become unclear. The advantage with metaphors and that which can be interpreted in many ways, is that they say so much, that anyone can find a meaning according to his own point of view. Someone once said that to define is to limit, so that the more specific you are the fewer things can fit that which you are describing.

This, for me, is totally wrong-headed. The opposite of this is true. Certainly, metaphor has its place in stimulating the mind and is a very useful tool. But the idea that defining things is a problem is one which needs serious rethinking. How does one begin to know what it is one is even thinking about if one hasn't defined it? You can't do any philosophical work with nebulous ideas about what, for instance, one intends by the term "God". It must be defined. The same goes for any important term in philosophical discourse: e.g. reality, cause, exist etc.

This clarity is necessary, in the first instance, for one's own personal philosophical dialogue. Speaking to others about philosophical matters and getting past lexiconographical difficulties comes after that is sorted out. How can one hope to express one's ideas clearly to others when they aren't even clear in our own minds?

Of course definitions limit; this is their job - they give things distinct identity rather than leave them floating like some cloudy suspension within which no-one can clearly identify anything. But then, maybe that's the idea, since such neblosity can in fact give solace to the mind emotionally attached to its scepticism.


Dan Rowden

[Tord]

wonder if there isn't something slightly Freudian in the fact that every time he types the word "believe" he misspells it

I like that, I like that alot!

But, please, not another one of those objections. I'm getting really tired of this. As both you and me pointed out Mr. Rowden, my explanation left much too be wanted. So, in the hope of shedding a bit more light on the issue at hand, I ended with "Someone once said...". This may or may not clearify my point, and I'm willing to hear what someone else thinks of it, but to first build a whole philosphy out of it, and then ascribe that philosophy to me, what possible reason do you have for this? This is pure idiocy! Am I to be held accountable for any crazy meanings other for some reason believe (!) me to hold? And it's not like I haven't pointed it out many times already.

I demand satisfaction.

[Matt Gregory]

Tord wrote:

But, please, not another one of those objections. I'm getting really tired of this. As both you and me pointed out Mr. Rowden, my explanation left much too be wanted. So, in the hope of shedding a bit more light on the issue at hand, I ended with "Someone once said...". This may or may not clearify my point, and I'm willing to hear what someone else thinks of it, but to first build a whole philosphy out of it, and then ascribe that philosophy to me, what possible reason do you have for this? This is pure idiocy!

No, he didn't just pull that out of nowhere. It's obvious in the problems you raise that what he said to you is totally applicable, because if you had concrete definitions for the words you use, you would see the answers to your philosophical dilemmas as clearly as day.

Whether you like it or not, there are logical implications in your posts that anyone can see if they look.

[Tord]

It's obvious in the problems you raise that what he said to you is totally applicable, because if you had concrete definitions for the words you use, you would see the answers to your philosophical dilemmas as clearly as day.

Yes, and if I had complete knowledge of all things I would also see the answers to these dilemmas. But to adress your objection, I have great problems with what I see as the limitation of language. How we speak also forms the way we think, and something I've tried to do is to think without the boundaries of language. Sometimes the hardest part is to define the word itself, and when, that is: if, you do that the rest follows naturally. And I don't necessarily mean complex things like; truth, knowledge, the universe, but, with the exception made for physical objects for the sake of convenience, just about everything else. As in most other things I tend to see problems instead of answers. Just to take an example: My english is ok, mostly because the majority of what I read is in that language, but when I think, I naturally think in norwegian. So when I have to phrase things here, problems arise both with the translation itself, and that, naturally, my english isn't as good as my mother tongue. But as these two languages are not very different, that is easy compared to other things that is affected by this problem.

Whether you like it or not, there are logical implications in your posts that anyone can see if they look

Pray, what are these? I have no idea what implications you draw from my statements, so you need to be specific here. And why should I "like it or not"? Should I care what conclusions you make? The only thing I ask, is that whatever these may be you don't ascribe them to me.

[Kevin Solway]

Something I've tried to do is to think without the boundaries of language. Sometimes the hardest part is to define the word itself.

The main reason it is impossible to discuss the possibililty of the existence of God with a Christian is that they have no idea what they mean by "God". They do not have a definition even for their own use, let alone for anybody else. And without a definition, communication is impossible. This goes for both the communication between individuals, and for the individual communicating with himself (ie, thinking). Both are impossible.

Thinking without boundaries (definitions) is a contradiction in terms.

It's fine if boundaries and definitions are fluid, changing from one moment to the next, but they must be static in the moment of thought (communication), otherwise no thinking can take place.

It's exactly the same with the "New Age" adherents, who believe in a "Higher Power", but have no idea what they mean by the term. Similarly with postmodernists who say that "there is no truth", but don't know whether what they're saying is true or not, since they don't really know what they mean by "truth".

[Dan Rowden]

In the hope of some clarification:

This, Tord, is what you wrote:

But this is difficult. I see that I'm nowhere near explaining this concept in a easy to understand way. This is the reason why explanations are dangerous, as the more specific you try to be the easier it is to become unclear. The advantage with metaphors and that which can be interpreted in many ways, is that they say so much, that anyone can find a meaning according to his own point of view. Someone once said that to define is to limit, so that the more specific you are the fewer things can fit that which you are describing.

There's more there than just the quote. The implications are quite obvious to me. I can understand that you may have been being speculative in what you wrote, and that's fine, but I think you'll have to accept that sometimes logical implications exist in what we say even if don't explicitly intend them. It was more particularly this part that inspired my response: "as the more specific you try to be the easier it is to become unclear." For me the opposite is clearly true.

But anyway, we don't need to labour this too much. Returning to one of the more important themes of this thread.......for those newer members of the forum who may feel somewhat bemused or confused by the attitude taken towards science by some of us, perhaps the following dialogues from Genius News will help:

The Impotence of Science

The Limitations of Science

Was Einstein a Genius?

Science & Genius

(I should add that some of the links within those newsletters are redundant so just ignore them.)

Dan Rowden

[David Quinn]

Tord wrote:

But to adress your objection, I have great problems with what I see as the limitation of language.

There is no such problem. Language is not limited in what it is designed to do - namely, pointing the mind's attention to realities which lie beyond it. That is all it can do, and it does it very well. This narrowness of this function doesn't hamper the successful practice of philosophy in any way.

I think you are very attached to being fuzzy and uncertain about everything. However, because this is a shameful thing for any man to openly admit, you try to hide it by blaming the supposed limitations of language, the supposed difficulty of formulating definitions, and the like.

This is very much the modern way, of course. Most of twentieth century philosophy has been driven by this dynamic.

Sometimes the hardest part is to define the word itself, and when, that is: if, you do that the rest follows naturally. And I don't necessarily mean complex things like; truth, knowledge, the universe, but, with the exception made for physical objects for the sake of convenience, just about everything else.

It is exceedingly easy for anyone with an ounce of intelligence and a clear mind to create definitions of the utmost precision and clarity. For example, universe = the totality of all there is.

But again, you are so attached to being fuzzy and uncertain about everything and, as a result, you have talked yourself into believing that creating definitions is complex and fraught with difficulty. This is how you have been ever since you have come on here. You're like an ostrich who wants to keep his head firmly buried in the sand of uncertainty.

-

[Matt Gregory]

I wouldn't be too hard on him, David. Nothing is easy if you've never learned how to do it or thought of doing it. It not like we learn how to define our own terms in school. That would create too much work for the teachers!

[Kevin Solway]

If I had complete knowledge of all things

Are you certain that you don't have such a knowledge, or do you only currently believe that you don't?

It sounds to me like you are certain, since you didn't qualify it by saying something like "I may not have a complete knowledge of all things."

So in stating that you don't have a complete knowledge of all things, you are stating something as absolutely true. So it is possible to speak truths you can be certain of, is it not?

[Beingof1]

Kevin:

The main reason it is impossible to discuss the possibililty of the existence of God with a Christian is that they have no idea what they mean by "God".

You make me laugh Kevin.

Why he is the real big guy with a long white beard and you will meet him one day.

Thank you for your thoughts.

[Tord]

Mr. Solway:

without a definition, communication is impossible. This goes for both the communication between individuals, and for the individual communicating with himself (ie, thinking). Both are impossible

The first part of this statement is obvious, as if language is to make sense at all, these definitions are essential. But the second part doesn't necessarily follows from the first. Yes, if we think in words, the same can also be said. But if, like I said, I try to think not with words (not without any boundaries at all as you seemed to think) then these definitions doesn't exist. If you don't accept that this is possible, would you then say that a person that has no language is not capable of thinking at all?

Example: A a tribe in the Amazones, have no numbers in their language. They have 3 distinctions: One, Two, or Many. Because of that they have no possiblilty to see the difference between 7 and 8, not even when they have had this explained to them. Are these people stupid? I do not think that is a given conclusion. It's just the limitation of their language.

If we aply this to our own situation, wouldn't it seem reasonable that our language (english in this case) also contain certain aspects we are not able to put into words? Sometimes I have thought of language as only a circular argument. Just to clearify for those not familar with logic: You can't prove A with B if the only way to prove B is with A. If you read through a dictionary it only makes sense when the words that describe a word at the same time is described with other words which... etc, until the only thing that they tell is of the words themselves. I point out that this is not a truth or my definite opinion, just a thought I've had. Anyway, if you reduce it to a "hen or egg" discussion, I would say that the first word came after the first thought. Perhaps it is possible to conclude from this that words just are ways to communicate our thoughts, but that they are able to do this without form of adding or subtracting is very optimistic. If we were telepatic would we then use words or pictures/abstract concepts to communicate?

Tord wrote:
If I had complete knowledge of all things


Are you certain that you don't have such a knowledge, or do you only currently believe that you don't?

Well, perhaps not, if you put it that way, but do you really think this is a reasonable point Mr. Solway? My uncertainty does seem enough of a reason not to think that I do. Or do you mean in a subconsciouss way?

From Mr. Quinn's postings I get the feeling that admitting ones ignorance is something that is frowned upon here, but for me statements like that says more of him than it does of me. It's that fear thing again. What is more unclear, is why he seem to think I prefer or even more extreme enjoy this fact, but as have become increasingly clear he does tend to use his intellectual powers to find faults with others (even inventing some when he when he feels like it) instead of examining his own opinions. Well, it's not like I haven't seen that before either.

Mr. Solway:

The implications are quite obvious to me.

Then perhaps you could tell me what they are, so I can see if I think you have misunderstood me or not? You do understand that what meaning you read into a statement isn't necessarily what was intended? Example: Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law, Crowley said. Someone uses this as a reason to revel in whatever hedonistic urges they have at any given time. Personally I think this says something else, and that these people perhaps haven't seen the second layer in the statement. It's all in the interpretation, no?

"as the more specific you try to be the easier it is to become unclear." For me the opposite is clearly true.

Absolutely. I should have looked at that again before posting it. What I was trying to say, is that the more specific you are, the more things are excluded by the definition, so in the end the definition is only true for one single thing, and then looses its function.

[joel knoll]

The spirit of Socrates is dead. I arrive fortuitously at a forum that purports to be of people of intellectual concern and sophistication. I share my thoughts in the only way that I know how. Instead of being listened to and met with legitimate discourse, I am called a "wanker" and a "politician". (The Shakespeare reference was very flattering, Matt. Thank you.) Why not cast your pearls before swine? Because a pig does not know the value of a pearl; he will trample it without thinking. Why can't you teach a pig to sing? Because a pig is a pig is a pig, and never will be more. Kevin Solway and David Quinn: fare you well, both. As for the rest of you... well, I love philosophy, but I can't stand "philosophers". And I weren't made for playground polemic. Adieu, you bunch of fucking geniuses.

[Tord]

Indeed, Mr. Knoll. I'm also starting to tire of this.

[DHodges]

How we speak also forms the way we think, and something I've tried to do is to think without the boundaries of language.

It not at all clear to me that it is possible to think without language. Of course, this is a matter of definition, since there are all sorts of brain activities that are non-verbal; and there are such things as intuition and half-formed thoughts that haven't quite made it into language.

But conscious, rational thought, it seems to me, must deal with premises and ideas - and how can those ideas be thought about, without expressing them in some language?

The question here, I think, is does a statement in a language represent a thought, or it it the thought itself? I understand the language to be the thought itself. If it is not, then is there some underlying "language of thought" in which the thought occurs - and then, don't you have the same problem? A thought, it seems to me, is a thought about something - is pointing to something - and therefore must be symbolic in nature. And a system of symbols is a language.

If we aply this to our own situation, wouldn't it seem reasonable that our language (english in this case) also contain certain aspects we are not able to put into words?

Quite possibly. I'm told that there are ideas that are easier to express in other languages. But it's also possible to invent words, or import words or phrases from other languages. Being a native English speaker, it would probably be very hard for me to articulate such things.

As a math-oriented person, I know that there are ideas that are (relatively) easy to spell out in a formula, but may be hard to express in a sentence in English. English is just not well-suited to expressing mathematical ideas, which is why we have the whole alternate symbol system found in mathematics.

My english is ok, mostly because the majority of what I read is in that language, but when I think, I naturally think in norwegian.

Your English is quite good!

[David Quinn]

I'm sorry to see you go, Joel. I thought you were making some good contributions.

-

[David Quinn]

Tord wrote:

From Mr. Quinn's postings I get the feeling that admitting ones ignorance is something that is frowned upon here, but for me statements like that says more of him than it does of me.

I have no problem with people admitting their ignorance. If a person is indeed ignorant, then it is only honest that he should admit this fact. More power to him. But to do everything possible to remain stuck in ignorance and uncertainty by utilizing all sorts of postmodernist tricks - that's a different matter. That is a sickeness of mind which I will always speak against.

I mean, you can't even bring yourself to admit you are certain that you don't have complete knowledge of the world. That is insane. It shows just how strong your allergy towards truth and certainty is. It seems to have completely taken over your brain.

-

[Tord]

Mr. Solway:

Are you certain that you don't have such a knowledge

Mr. Quinn:

you can't even bring yourself to admit you are certain that you don't have complete knowledge of the world. That is insane

Do you make the claim that Mr. Solway is insane?

[Tord]

Mr. Hodges:

But conscious, rational thought, it seems to me, must deal with premises and ideas - and how can those ideas be thought about, without expressing them in some language?

Therein lies the challenge as the saying goes. I don't know how successful this line ultimately can be, but I believe it is something worth exploring. All efforts to learn how to think in unusal ways, will, if properly done, give some reward in a new perspective to different things and concepts. But as you mention yourself, this is perhaps something of the same that you do in mathematics? e.g. in geometry there is no language. And it's also a subject that has it's own paradoxes and weird facts, like; impossible numbers, pi, the fibonacci numbers etc. If you are proficient in mathematics I think you can use this as one of the paths that leads to true knowledge. But this is very theoretical on my part, as my insufficient knowledge rules out any real insight of its nature.

[Matt Gregory]

Instead of being listened to and met with legitimate discourse, I am called a "wanker" and a "politician". (The Shakespeare reference was very flattering, Matt. Thank you.)

Yeah, that was a bit harsh. Sorry about that. You did insinuate that we are all criminals, though, and I find that to be totally unjust.

[Kevin Solway]

A tribe in the Amazones, have no numbers in their language. They have 3 distinctions: One, Two, or Many. Because of that they have no possiblilty to see the difference between 7 and 8, not even when they have had this explained to them. Are these people stupid? I do not think that is a given conclusion. It's just the limitation of their language.

Let's say an Amazonian has one wife and one child. So, including himself, he has a family of three ("many"). If he comes home one afternoon and there are 30 people crowding his hut, are you telling me that he won't notice that there are more people?

Or, if he had 10 children, but 9 of them died during the day and their bodies disposed of, he wouldn't be able to tell the difference - since he still has a family of three ("many")!

You are dreaming.

[Tord]

Mr. Solway, it is not that you and Mr. Quinn are stupid and that your psyche is blocking every possibility for you to achieve wisdom, both facts which your every statement seem to confirm, it's just that you bore me. You are so hopelessly boring.