Philosophy Discussion Forums

ApplicationBot wrote: ↑February 23rd, 2018, 1:58 pm

My question is whether there are more sets of logic where a paradox for example would be a completly rational conclusion or where 2+2=3;
Of course we see those to be wrong but they could as well be correct in their own set of rules making them true. We defined them to be wrong, not show they are wrong.

At a certain point it was illogical for something to be both a particle and a wave. Then it wasn't. Logical conclusions are always based on 'assertions considered to be true and things considered real and defined like X' etc. So if there are problems with any of those truths, things, definitions than what seems logical will not be.

Here we are with limited knowledge. If we always rule things out because they are illogical, then we will rule out things that are true. And that is because we are not completely correct about reality. Our models, our universalizing the scope of things, our definitions (semantics), our ability to measure, are limited and likely contain mistakes, blind spots, faulty assumptions, exceptions we are not aware of.

I think any truly intelligent mind will not restrict itself to what SEEMS logical, especially if experience or anomalies are making one consider what seems illogical.

I am not sure if this is what you were after. I do think, for example, that poetry almost approaching but not reaching nonsense can contain truths -that would be a different like of attack on the idea that only logical 'things' can be true.

Another might be to come at language from Reddy's critique of the overuse of the conduit metaphor for language. That what language does, for example, might be to convey truth, even if the sentence itself is not factual.

jerlands wrote: ↑March 1st, 2018, 4:09 am

Namelesss wrote: ↑March 1st, 2018, 3:38 am
Of no importance. 'We' do not need 'all information', we have access to all we might ever need, and all 'information/experience' is 'uploaded' into the same One Universal Consciousness, cumulatively, synchronously! All inclusive!
Any tiny unique Perspective (Soul) provides it's own momentary unique glimpse of Reality/God!

We don't need all the information? Well I need some information to understand what you're saying.

And I agree, you have all the information that you 'need', at the moment. "Some info."
If you experience the feeling of 'understanding', then that is what you feel regarding the info that you have perceived. The feeling passes.

So, one could say that God is making assumptions about God.
You have a problem with that? *__-

Man and "God" are not the same thing.

Not for you, at the moment, anyway.

Namelesss wrote: ↑March 1st, 2018, 10:25 pm

jerlands wrote: ↑March 1st, 2018, 4:09 am
We don't need all the information? Well I need some information to understand what you're saying.

And I agree, you have all the information that you 'need', at the moment. "Some info."
If you experience the feeling of 'understanding', then that is what you feel regarding the info that you have perceived. The feeling passes.

Man and "God" are not the same thing.

Not for you, at the moment, anyway.

They warn about waking sleep walkers but I'm gonna take the risk. You're not with "God." You in a place called OBLIVION!
.

jerlands wrote: ↑March 1st, 2018, 11:04 pm

Namelesss wrote: ↑March 1st, 2018, 10:25 pm
And I agree, you have all the information that you 'need', at the moment. "Some info."
If you experience the feeling of 'understanding', then that is what you feel regarding the info that you have perceived. The feeling passes.


Not for you, at the moment, anyway.

They warn about waking sleep walkers but I'm gonna take the risk. You're not with "God." You in a place called OBLIVION!

And thus ends our rational discussion.
Good night. *__-

Jer, Nameless's comment just looks like his take on pantheism to me, not oblivion.

Greta wrote: ↑March 1st, 2018, 11:13 pm Jer, Nameless's comment just looks like his take on pantheism to me, not oblivion.

To equate Self with "God" is insanity and it is oblivious. Any notion of "holy ground" or presence of "God" is simply rejected in lieu of "little 'ol me.. underdog."

jerlands wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2018, 1:18 am Any notion of "holy ground" or presence of "God" is simply rejected in lieu of "little 'ol me.. underdog."

Dude, talking to you is like talking to a cement block.
I never suggested (sarcasm) that the "presence of God/God" is everywhere, ALL inclusive (of 'little old us').
And "underdog"?!?! Really?

One can take my various responses to you on this topic and write a great book, though!
Thank you for your cement-headedness eliciting my best work! *__-

************************************************

Greta, 'pantheism' also has it's logical errors, as it is defined. One cannot just dump my experience/Knowledge into one trash bin/category or another. It doesn't fit. Not completely, and those not fitting bits are some very important areas! *__-

Namelesss wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2018, 8:20 pm

jerlands wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2018, 1:18 am Any notion of "holy ground" or presence of "God" is simply rejected in lieu of "little 'ol me.. underdog."

Dude, talking to you is like talking to a cement block.
I never suggested (sarcasm) that the "presence of God/God" is everywhere, ALL inclusive (of 'little old us').
And "underdog"?!?! Really?

One can take my various responses to you on this topic and write a great book, though!
Thank you for your cement-headedness eliciting my best work! *__-

************************************************

Greta, 'pantheism' also has it's logical errors, as it is defined. One cannot just dump my experience/Knowledge into one trash bin/category or another. It doesn't fit. Not completely, and those not fitting bits are some very important areas! *__-

No.. you never make yourself clear.. you're obscure like your avatar and your username suggests your identity in that there isn't one.
.