GENIUS FORUMS

Carmel,

my main point is that you need to make use of generalizations in order to engage in philosophy. It is an important component of the reasoning process. My annoyance with your post comes from the fact that you merely point reference to a series of posts regarding Carl, without actually reading through all the material, and without actually doing research on what a generalization actually is, and why they are so important in philosophy.

A generalization is based on studying the instances of particular cases of something in order to draw a more general conclusion about the world. Logic rests on the thinker's ability to make sound generalizations.

For instance: From my experience, all the women in my immediate surroundings have struggled with logic, and so it follows that most women struggle with logic. Notice that I haven't concluded that all women struggle with logic, as there are some examples of logical women in the world.

Notice that a generalization exposes some truth about the world in a particular part of reality. A truth that most people are usually uncomfortable with.

Ryan,

Most is a word you rarely employ. All is a word you frequently use or imply. Most may not be generalization. All usually is a generalization. Your aphorisms and assertions are often unrealistically broad, thus have little to do with logic, and represent faulty reasoning.

and what exactly is a woman ?
chenicals/hormones the same as a man.
Women become men men become women.
a vagina/penis don't define anything other than a physical manifestation of A=A
our completeness is in union
not duality

Carl,

Most is a word you rarely employ. All is a word you frequently use or imply. Most may not be generalization. All usually is a generalization. Your aphorisms and assertions are often unrealistically broad, thus have little to do with logic, and represent faulty reasoning.

you read into what I say too much Carl, many times I will write things like women struggle with logic, and you will assume I mean all women. However, I know the difference between "Most" and "All" when it comes to generalizations. It is so basic that its not worth mentioning for most seasoned thinkers.

Like I said, you tend to pick apart my arguments for things that do not matter very much.

Kunga,

and what exactly is a woman ?
chenicals/hormones the same as a man.
Women become men men become women.
a vagina/penis don't define anything other than a physical manifestation of A=A
our completeness is in union
not duality

There are physical differences in brain structure between men and women, as well as the amount of hormones. The result is that men and women have differences in cognitive ability. The female brain written by a female psychologist illustrates many of these differences well.

Ryan, I don't think I or anyone else should need to infer what you mean. Not on a regular basis, anyway. You defend your sloppy expression and lack of 'editing' like it doesn't matter how you say things. It does. Words are all we have here on a written messageboard. And logic is specific (despite your claim that it is based on generalizations!)

You deserve to be called on what you say.

Btw, your retorts are usually so mild that I wonder if you are on Prozac? Are you?

Carl,

And logic is specific (despite your claim that it is based on generalizations!)

Logic is only specific when it comes to the foundational statements. IE: all things arise from other things, a think cannot be anything other than it is, and all things are divided up by the observer, so boundaries between things are not absolute, they are defined by particular minds in particular moments, so in that sense the boundary between things is purely arbitrary.

Those sorts of things are specific, but when you get into actual reasoning and analysis, using deductive and inductive reasoning, generalizations are vital.

IE: Most of the birds in my province are able to fly.
birds as a species are similar around the world,
therefore most of the birds of the world are able to fly.

Kunga,

and what exactly is a woman ?
chenicals/hormones the same as a man.
Women become men men become women.
a vagina/penis don't define anything other than a physical manifestation of A=A
our completeness is in union
not duality

There are physical differences in brain structure between men and women, as well as the amount of hormones. The result is that men and women have differences in cognitive ability. The female brain written by a female psychologist illustrates many of these differences well.[/quote]


Well...the logic of the Universe includes both sexes....to elevate man as higher than woman is total ignorance...without woman there would be no men or philosophical discussion.....reguardless of our differences we are made of the same stuff..and we canno't exist without each other....we are equally qualified to the highest complete enlightenment....to think otherwise is moronic....

Men are women with SRY genes

Kunga,

Well...the logic of the Universe includes both sexes....to elevate man as higher than woman is total ignorance...without woman there would be no men or philosophical discussion.....reguardless of our differences we are made of the same stuff..and we canno't exist without each other....we are equally qualified to the highest complete enlightenment....to think otherwise is moronic....

you are in denial, life is not fair, and not everyone is created equal. The odds of either men or women becoming enlightened is very rare, but much more rare for women. probably something like 1 in a million for men, and 1 in 100 million for women. History speaks for itself - Almost all of what has been created in civilization - from construction, to technology, to science, to philosophy is dominated by men. That is not to say it is impossible for women to become enlightened, just the probability is much lower.

wouldn't power corrupt the path to enlightenment, which would put women at an advantage? i think enlightenment is a lost cause, or not even really a cause- a myth, really.

something is weakest at its most powerful point. the human race will be perfect when it becomes extinct, or it will become extinct when it become perfect.

Ryan Rudolph wrote: Most of the birds in my province are able to fly.

This is fairly specific and not general. We would still need to define 'most' and qualify 'able' but it is a step up from many of your usual sweeping statements implying 'all'.

birds as a species are similar around the world,

Similar? This is so general as to be useless for the purpose of the argument. And incoherent besides, birds not being a species, but a genus comprised of many species, some of which can fly and some which cannot.

You will probably regard that as a typo on your part. In formulas, however as you well know, accuracy counts. What you've got is an attempt to open a safe with the middle number off.

therefore

Nothing follows the first two statements, therefore your therefore is moot.

most of the birds of the world are able to fly.

This is as specific as the first statement.

Even if the middle statement was corrected and clarified (made more specific), I don't think your example serves your opinion that generalization is part and parcel with reasoning. Quite the opposite.

Carmel wrote:

Ryan Rudolph wrote:philosophy consists of systems of generalizations, it is one of the pillars of rational thought.

weak. A good example of why youngsters can't philosophize. ;)

You can't use a generalization (youngsters can't philosophize) to try and refute Ryan's point that generalizations are important. If you're doing anything, it's proving his point.

This is a good example of why hypocrites don't make good philosophers.

Nick,

lol!

I made a generalization intentionally to make a point.

I was being facetious.

Some younger people actually can philosophize and think logically. Animus would be a good example of this.

Carmel wrote:I made a generalization intentionally to make a point.

And what exactly was that point? I must have missed it.

Carmel wrote:Some younger people actually can philosophize and think logically. Animus would be a good example of this.

Alright, so what qualifies you to judge the quality of other people's philosophical skills and their ability to think logically?

Nick Treklis:
I made a generalization intentionally to make a point.

And what exactly was that point? I must have missed it.

Carmel:
The point is that it's illogical and inaccurate to generalize whether it's about women, men, young people, blacks etc. I was using sarcasm to make that point, but it's true that I could have expressed it more clearly.

Carmel:
Some younger people actually can philosophize and think logically. Animus would be a good example of this.

Nick Treklis:
Alright, so what qualifies you to judge the quality of other people's philosophical skills and their ability to think logically?

Carmel:
Are you trying to be ironic? I could ask you the same question, but I won't.

Lovin' me some Carmel.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Kunga,

Well...the logic of the Universe includes both sexes....to elevate man as higher than woman is total ignorance...without woman there would be no men or philosophical discussion.....reguardless of our differences we are made of the same stuff..and we canno't exist without each other....we are equally qualified to the highest complete enlightenment....to think otherwise is moronic....

you are in denial, life is not fair, and not everyone is created equal. The odds of either men or women becoming enlightened is very rare, but much more rare for women. probably something like 1 in a million for men, and 1 in 100 million for women. History speaks for itself - Almost all of what has been created in civilization - from construction, to technology, to science, to philosophy is dominated by men. That is not to say it is impossible for women to become enlightened, just the probability is much lower.

Dearest Ryan....in denial of what ???? That man is superior to woman ? Man has had the advantage of being conditioned and educated throught history to think and have freedom....whereas woman has been conditioned to stay at home and care for the family...it was always rare for woman to go beyond her social duties imposed on her by man. If you think women are inferior to man you are no better than those who commit infantcide of female babys born in third world countries . Enlightenment is rare for a woman because she had not had the opportunites or inclinations towards the study of the philosophical arts due to conditioning in society....run by man...so it is only lower because of quanity, not the quality of intelligent women willing and interested in persuing the love of learning . It's not that we're not created equal but that we were/are treated as unequal. Ha! All that has been created in civilization by man....how about woman creating a human being in her womb....has man mentally or physically attained the conditions to do that? No...man is selfish, and denied woman her freedom. Look at the state of the world in all it's history...man (mostly) is responsible for all the wars and lack of peace in this messed up world ! Man with all his uncontrolled agressive nature and greed is the cause of all the world wars and weapons of mass destruction. If you want to claim responsibility for all the production in the world...you can claim responsiblity for the destruction that it's caused also. Don't get me wrong...i've never been a feminist...i love men...but women have been repressed throught history....you canno't in all your wisdom deny that fact.

lol!

Steven and dejavu...I love you guys too. :) and lest there be any confusion...it's love in the pure sense, for the same reason that I love prince. You speak your own truth, not somebody else's.

Shine on you crazy diamonds!

I want the pains!

Steven Coyle wrote:I want the pains!

lol.....you bodhisattva you !

Carmel wrote:The point is that it's illogical and inaccurate to generalize whether it's about women, men, young people, blacks etc.

This statement is a generalization about generalizations. You're saying that all generalizations are illogical, but the examples you gave let on that you only think it's illogical to make generalizations about people. For me, a generalization is logical/accurate if it's useful in helping me make sense of the world around me. I'm certain that if you were to analyze your world-view you will find that you make generalizations all the time, and make critical decisions based on them because you do in fact find them useful.

Carmel wrote:Are you trying to be ironic? I could ask you the same question, but I won't.

Not at all. It's just that when one judges another person's philosophy as "weak", they are necessarily placing their own philosophy above it. You've been a member of this forum for over a year, but only recently have I begun to notice you, so I'm trying to understand your philosophy.

But if you don't want to answer the question that's fine. Because with all due respect (and I'm being sincere here) I'm already starting to lose interest in our short-lived discussion because of where it appears to be headed.

Animus wrote:Men are women with SRY genes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRY_gene


whatever men and women are they are human beings (homo sapiens)

is a man of infinite wisdom finite in his existence?

Carl,

Similar? This is so general as to be useless for the purpose of the argument. And incoherent besides, birds not being a species, but a genus comprised of many species, some of which can fly and some which cannot.

Again Carl, you miss my entire point. It is irrelevant whether my hypothetical example is correct or not, I gave an example merely for structure. We are discussing why generalizations are so important for both deductive and inductive reasoning.

Each involve either studying a population of similar things, and making conclusions down to the individual or studying a small sample of similar things, and making conclusions up to the population.

Each involve a generalization of sorts. Plus, when a philosopher generalizes, exceptions are usually implied, so for you to nick pick my use of words constantly shows me that you continue to ignore the big picture, while having an inclination to criticize small details that aren't as important.

However, this is not to say that you are wrong when you suggested the use of the word genus instead of species, that is correct, but the truth of my example wasn't the main focus here.

And you asked earlier if I was on prozac because my retorts seemed mild, well no, I do not take medications for my mental state, and the passion is not needed in retorts as observed in some of my previous posts, sometimes I use the passion to cause a jolt in the reader, but mild can be very effective as well, Solway's posts are almost always mild. (Look there - another generalization about Solway's posts. See how important they can be - I thought back to individual instances of Solway's posts, and realized that most of the ones I read were mild, which allowed me to generalize to all of Solway's posts. A generalization allows me to make a statement about all of Solway's posts without actually reading them all. It is numbers game. For instance: Suppose I read 500 of Solway's 2200 posts, and all were mild. Statistically speaking, that should be enough for me to generalize an accurate observation to all of Solway's posts based on only the 500 I read, got it? You cannot reason without generalizations!