Another fallacy. You are committing logical fallacies independent of the fact you mentioned.baker wrote: ↑March 7th, 2021, 2:35 amIf only. Philosophers love to live in la-la land.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 5th, 2021, 4:17 amAnother logical fallacy....baker wrote: ↑March 4th, 2021, 10:56 pmYou can argue that point successfully when your picture is printed on money.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 3rd, 2021, 5:02 pmAnd you are failing to acknowledge that claims made by all magisteria's are acceptable to critical evaluation of their logical foundations. IF you deny that you are guilty of committing a Special Pleading fallacy.
Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
Pls go way back in the discussion and find my first comment on your failed example about a "irrational" universe and 4 sided triangles.Atla wrote: ↑March 6th, 2021, 2:33 pmWhat philosophical question? Tell me.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 6th, 2021, 2:31 pm"Where is the experiment? ".....That was an expression for philosophical question about an irrational part of the universe........Atla wrote: ↑March 6th, 2021, 2:28 pmThat was an expression for the inherently illogical, that may or may not exist (as I said 5-10 times). Where is the experiment? If you are honest, you will copy that part too I'm sure.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 6th, 2021, 2:16 pm
Yes.....sure...like you didn't write "4sided triangle" and I had to copy your statement. We know how honest you are mate.
I am done copying your own statement just because you deny them.
-
- Posts: 608
- Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
La-la land it is.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 7th, 2021, 2:58 amAnother fallacy. You are committing logical fallacies independent of the fact you mentioned.
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
Argument from la-la land....still a fallacy.
-
- Posts: 2181
- Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
Exactly.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 6th, 2021, 12:56 pm(I'm just dropping in on the convo here, so apologies if I'm going over covered ground...)I think the statement ''A 4 sided triangle exists'' could only be coherent within the context of a different model/understanding of the world, which would make the old definitions of sides and triangles flawed or incomplete in some way.
-Correct. The use of the word affects our current definition in a patch of the Universe where specific laws and observations have shaped those definitions.
-Well I did the mistake to entertain Atla's ideas about an irrational patch of Universe "existing"in our regular Universe. My goal was to help him understand that our definitions shaped by our "rational" Universe can not be applied on irrational "pockets" of it.A model which says our understanding of geometry is incomplete, or edges and boundaries flash in and out of existence according to probability, or somesuch.
-Correct. New concepts and language would be necessary.We'd have a new understanding of how the world works then, which might require a different set of rules of logic, and so we'd adjust our language to better describe that new understanding, yes?
But without some new ontological framework, to talk about 4 sided triangles is simply playing with definitions in ways which don't reflect reality appropriately.
-Philosophy of Absurdism.
.It's manipulating symbols we use to make sense of the world within the context of a specific model/framework, in ways which don't fit that purpose. I think..
-We agree
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
I said 5-10 times that that was a common expression for something inherently illogical. You could have Googled the expression instead of lying 5-10 times.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 7th, 2021, 3:02 amPls go way back in the discussion and find my first comment on your failed example about a "irrational" universe and 4 sided triangles.Atla wrote: ↑March 6th, 2021, 2:33 pmWhat philosophical question? Tell me.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 6th, 2021, 2:31 pm"Where is the experiment? ".....That was an expression for philosophical question about an irrational part of the universe........
I am done copying your own statement just because you deny them.
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
And on the other side there are people like philosopher19 and RJG who seem to take logic to false absolutes, give it predictory powers it cannot have.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
I haven't followed the argument between Atla and NickGaspar, but that happened in the OP.Terrapin Station wrote:I wasn't following this conversation but how did we wind up reifying rational/irrational in the first place?
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
An example is not rendered sensical or meaningful just because some people use it. Ad populum fallacious argument. Plus it is a Philosophical useless assumption about the universe.Atla wrote: ↑March 7th, 2021, 3:01 pmI said 5-10 times that that was a common expression for something inherently illogical. You could have Googled the expression instead of lying 5-10 times.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 7th, 2021, 3:02 amPls go way back in the discussion and find my first comment on your failed example about a "irrational" universe and 4 sided triangles.Atla wrote: ↑March 6th, 2021, 2:33 pmWhat philosophical question? Tell me.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 6th, 2021, 2:31 pm
"Where is the experiment? ".....That was an expression for philosophical question about an irrational part of the universe........
I am done copying your own statement just because you deny them.
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
And I pointed out for more than 5-10 times that this expression is semantically null.Atla wrote: ↑March 7th, 2021, 3:01 pmI said 5-10 times that that was a common expression for something inherently illogical. You could have Googled the expression instead of lying 5-10 times.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 7th, 2021, 3:02 amPls go way back in the discussion and find my first comment on your failed example about a "irrational" universe and 4 sided triangles.Atla wrote: ↑March 6th, 2021, 2:33 pmWhat philosophical question? Tell me.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 6th, 2021, 2:31 pm
"Where is the experiment? ".....That was an expression for philosophical question about an irrational part of the universe........
I am done copying your own statement just because you deny them.
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
Let me get this straight. You used a "poisoning the well" logical fallacy by arbitrarily labeling an "irrational" shape "a triangle"...and me and Steve are those who are unable to follow logic??Atla wrote: ↑March 7th, 2021, 3:23 pm It's actually fairly interesting to see that commenters like NickGaspar and Steve3007 don't entirely seem to be able to follow logic, maybe that's why they don't seem to be able to do ontology. The observable universe seems perfectly logical so far (yes even QM, but it can take a few years to get there), you have to be able to tune in to that.
And on the other side there are people like philosopher19 and RJG who seem to take logic to false absolutes, give it predictory powers it cannot have.
Now I was the one who reject false absolutes but you fallaciously argued (Special Pleasiding)in favour of "absolute nothing".
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
I didn't actually label an irrational shape a triangle, it wasn't semantically null, it wasn't an ad populum fallacy, it wasn't an actual 'assumption' about the universe. As for absolute nothing, I didn't actually argue 'for' it. That your mind can't process these things is a demonstration of your inability to entirely follow logic.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 7th, 2021, 8:47 pmLet me get this straight. You used a "poisoning the well" logical fallacy by arbitrarily labeling an "irrational" shape "a triangle"...and me and Steve are those who are unable to follow logic??Atla wrote: ↑March 7th, 2021, 3:23 pm It's actually fairly interesting to see that commenters like NickGaspar and Steve3007 don't entirely seem to be able to follow logic, maybe that's why they don't seem to be able to do ontology. The observable universe seems perfectly logical so far (yes even QM, but it can take a few years to get there), you have to be able to tune in to that.
And on the other side there are people like philosopher19 and RJG who seem to take logic to false absolutes, give it predictory powers it cannot have.
Now I was the one who reject false absolutes but you fallaciously argued (Special Pleasiding)in favour of "absolute nothing".
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
Cheers mate...Atla wrote: ↑March 7th, 2021, 10:54 pmI didn't actually label an irrational shape a triangle, it wasn't semantically null, it wasn't an ad populum fallacy, it wasn't an actual 'assumption' about the universe. As for absolute nothing, I didn't actually argue 'for' it. That your mind can't process these things is a demonstration of your inability to entirely follow logic.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 7th, 2021, 8:47 pmLet me get this straight. You used a "poisoning the well" logical fallacy by arbitrarily labeling an "irrational" shape "a triangle"...and me and Steve are those who are unable to follow logic??Atla wrote: ↑March 7th, 2021, 3:23 pm It's actually fairly interesting to see that commenters like NickGaspar and Steve3007 don't entirely seem to be able to follow logic, maybe that's why they don't seem to be able to do ontology. The observable universe seems perfectly logical so far (yes even QM, but it can take a few years to get there), you have to be able to tune in to that.
And on the other side there are people like philosopher19 and RJG who seem to take logic to false absolutes, give it predictory powers it cannot have.
Now I was the one who reject false absolutes but you fallaciously argued (Special Pleasiding)in favour of "absolute nothing".
-
- Posts: 323
- Joined: September 21st, 2018, 1:34 pm
Re: Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect
No it isn't. Such an interpretation of any empirical observation cannot be made because such an interpretation is absurd. It is not understandable for us to act as though we have understood it. Alternate interpretations must be sought.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 5th, 2021, 1:37 pm -Sure. Superposition in QM is a phenomenon of real life that contradicts an analytical statement "one thing can only be in one place at a time".
But it's semantically inconsistent. It is contradictory in meaning. So it's not semantically valid (let alone logically valid).-IT's not a matter of "understanding". Its a matter of a analytical proposition to be valid.
The label of a semantic is decided by us. We do not give meanings to meanings. We give labels to meanings. Semantics are a priori, labels or words we ascribe to them are a posteriori.-Α Word's meaning is decided by us.
I.e. the world triangle can mean:
a plane figure with three straight sides and three angles.
a musical instrument consisting of a steel rod bent into a triangle and sounded by being struck with a small steel rod.
a frame used to position the pool balls in snooker and pool.
a drawing instrument in the form of a right-angled triangle.
a frame of three halberds joined at the top to which a soldier was bound for flogging.
an emotional relationship involving a couple and a third person with whom one of them is also involved.
a small brownish Eurasian moth of oak and beech woods.
We understand which common usage is relevant based on context or by offering our preferred definition
Does the meaning (not word or label) of 'triangle', mean triangle? Is it absolutely true that triangle = triangle?-I don't know what that means (nothing to be absolute true/ something to be absolutely true). YOu need to provide context to your dichotomy. Without context I can't tell whether are dealing with a false dichotomy. Can you give an example ?
You cannot come to any rational or meaningful theory from empirical observations independently of semantics. Semantics were not made by you. You are given access to them. You use them to interpret your experiences or empirical observations. You can either sincere to them, or insincere to them. The latter of which is the root of all falsehood/evil. The former of which is the root of all progression in terms of truth and goodness.If by science you include all our objective empirical observations, then yes. Logic(all its rules and principles) is the product of our empirical observations. ITs a two way "street". We observed how our world works and we informed our rules of logic and we now use our logic to inform our hypotheses.
Regarding truth, Existence (that which all existent meanings, sets, humans, shapes, pigs, apes, dreams, universes are rooted in) has the first and last truth/semantic (word). Semantical consistency is core to any meaningful/rational theory (scientific, religious, philosophical, psychological, mathematical etc.).Empirical, Objective verification has the last word
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023