quote:

---

Originally posted by FoxLeonard:
We have to believe in our free will...

...we have no choice in the matter!

FoxLeonard

---

Yes, I think I agree, our free will is predetermined.

quote:

---

Originally posted by govinda:

[i]The fundamental problem of existentialism is concerned with ontology, the study of being. The human being's existence is the first and basic fact; the human being has no essence that comes before his existence. The human being as a being is nothing. ]

---

I started to read this, but got stuck right here. I don't understand this and find it difficult to keep reading when I don't understand the premise. Does everybody get this? Want to explain it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by bkc:
I started to read this, but got stuck right here. I don't understand this and find it difficult to keep reading when I don't understand the premise. Does everybody get this? Want to explain it?

---

It means that throughout history man has always looked to metaphysically oriented philosophy (god precisely) for the meaning of life. Over the 17th and 18th centuries philosophers had debated this very idea, and existentialism is born of the idea that it is actually impossible to know truth about man, and that metaphysics (god) is really a human invention. Thus humans are "free" from judgement in their actions, and responsible for them in the sense that no "master plan" is accessible from which to dictate right and wrong modes of living. Hence our existence, the FACT that we exist, is primary, and our essence (how we define reality, through god or whatever) can only follow this primary fact. Hence while prior it was thought that "man is created in the image of god", Existentialism sees the idea of god as created by man, as a justifier of man - his essence. Existentialism means we are free of any obligation in our behavior to religion or other systems of thought that seek to predetermine man's path in life (in a fatalistic manner).


[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 12-03-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bkc:
Yes, I think I agree, our free will is predetermined.

---

Then logically, so is your opinion on the matter.

quote:

---

Originally posted by FoxLeonard:
dagnabitt!

---

I always think your yelling at me when you address me (!).

quote:

---

There is actually no difference if we "are" our thoughts, or if we are "the results" of them. It�s just that the latter gives more meaning to life, without being a lie...

---

There is a difference, the latter assumes a seperate entity, a duality between thinker and thought. This is precisely the idea I'm disagreeing with.

quote:

---

Otherwise, keep up the good work of making the simple complicated, and the complicated compilated...

---

Listen. It is complicated. I'm sorry if my writing can be confusing. I know i'm not the most elequant philosopher, but I think my point is made sufficiently. If it could have been more simply put I apologize. I dont usually get much support for debating the great western ideal of free will, so you never know what people are going to reject and accept. I try to keep all my bases covered to avoid repeating myself.

quote:

---

By the way...

...do you happen to know what "silverraven" (also) kind of means?

Apart from a silver raven bird, I mean.

---

I have no idea. I havent looked at that site at all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dagnabitt:
Then logically, so is your opinion on the matter.

---

Yes, my opinion can be seen as predetermined by the entity that knows not time, while at the same "time" preserving my free will.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dagnabitt:
and existentialism is born of the idea that it is actually impossible to know truth about man,
[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 12-03-2002).]

---

What about man? To know if he exists or not? What truth about man? To know anything about man? It's still a little fuzzy. I never could read philosophy.

dagnabitt...

(was that better..?)

First:

Are you not forgetting that it IS two entities, at least as we percieve them; the right and the left brain; the concious and the subconcious. We percieve it as "communication" between them. We percieve thinking as a (partly) active process. We will continue to do so even if we try to convince ourselves that there is only one. The latter is an excuse for fundamentalist determinism (if God is all, how can I be evil, as Charles Manson said), while the former gives meaning and responsibility, and is correct to our perception.

Second:

I was NOT sarcastic in what I wrote about how you write!

Far too often things are simplified for convenience, to the point when they loose meaning, or can be easier misuderstood than understood.

You correct that and complicate it again. And you also show that the complicated is built from different pieces, rather than from one singular assumption; i.e. it�s compilated when it�s complicated.

So, once again:

Keep up the good work!

If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is, infinite...

FoxLeonard

quote:

---

Originally posted by bkc:
Yes, my opinion can be seen as predetermined by the entity that knows not time, while at the same "time" preserving my free will.

---

That doesnt make sense to me. If A(the entity) causes B (existence, temporality etc...), then B is dependent on A for its being. Therefore, any and all things dependent on A (your existential will), insofar as they causally related to A, cannot be free.

You cannot be free if you are caused, at the very least not in the absolute sense of ontology. (please read what's already been said).

To say "I was created with free will" presumes you have access to metaphysical knowledge about your creator (his desires, so to speak), which is precisely what existentialst philosophy seeks to do away with.

To say "I have free will because I choose it" amounts to to saying nothing other than "I have free will" (and then stamping your foot, it is a logical tautology.

Either way, the argument fails as I understand you are making it. You are not free simply because you assert you are, or understand yourself to be that way.

[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 12-04-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by FoxLeonard:
All that we are is the result of all that we have thought. It is founded on thought. It is based on thought.

---

If we don't eat we don't think. Which came first, the eating or the thinking?

quote:

---

Originally posted by bkc:
If we don't eat we don't think. Which came first, the eating or the thinking?

---

Thinking, as it took a while to get hungry the first time...

FoxLeonard

quote:

---

Originally posted by bkc:
What about man? To know if he exists or not? What truth about man? To know anything about man? It's still a little fuzzy. I never could read philosophy.

---

Our awareness is quite inconsequential to our existence. Just because man believes in something doesnt make it so. We know man exists because it is impossible to think otherwise. Insofar as he thinks, he exists in some mode, if nothing other than thought. Our thoughts at least are real, that we know, to us at least. We do not control our thoughts. Any effort at controlling a thought would itself be a thought, and onward ad infinitum. Thought "happen", insofar as our will is inseparable from our thoughts, our will happens". We experience the struggle, but we do not cause it or have any say of how it turns out. We are simply lead by the most logical paths.

dagnabbit don't you think you are playing down the 'experience' of experiencing our thoughts?
doesn't this add something to us just being out thoughts?

Eating as it took a while to get thoughts the first time.

And I also "agree" with you

Any effort at controlling a thought would itself be a thought, and onward ad infinitum

I understand this but I can't help thinking the awareness of our thoughts (at least the ones we are aware of) adds something to the equation... and it does kind of make a duality.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dagnabitt:

That doesnt make sense to me. If A(the entity) causes B (existence, temporality etc...), then B is dependent on A for its being. (please read what's already been said).

---

What does this word "cause" mean? I doubt if it can be explained. I don't really believe in it. I see it as belief in magic.

I can't read the hard stuff until you answer my easy questions

quote:

---

Originally posted by FoxLeonard:
[B]dagnabitt...


{quote}We percieve thinking as a (partly) active process.

---

Your perception is itself thinking, and your awareness and understanding are also thinking. No matter what happens it is thinking. No matter what you think about thinking, you are still thinking. Thinking is an unmistakable unity that collapses into itself when it deals with self referential issues. It is not a verb in reality, but a noun. It describes a state of being, it does not trandscend this state simply when it refers to itself. It is an all encompassing organic thing called "I". It is a tool of consciousness, but not of man (if you follow). There is no understanding you can have about thought that can trandscend thought itself.

quote:

---

if God is all, how can I be evil, as Charles Manson said

---

There is nothing logically fallacous about this statement. Charles Manson may not be right, but he is not wrong either. The duality of man and his thinking is necessary for the the notion of responsibility, but the duality fails. We cannot effectively reason morality without referrence to metaphysics (god). All moral systems otherwise are pragmatic, and are only dependent on human judgement (not gods). We can overpower charlie manson, but we cannot say he is wrong, simply because he is distasteful. There is no meta-experiential/physical standpoint of neutrality from which to prove him wrong.

quote:

---

I was NOT sarcastic in what I wrote about how you write!

---

Sorry I misunderstood. Brevity is the greatest desire of any philospher, and it is frustrating when one has to belabour a point to death. Thanks for the encouragement.



[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 12-04-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bkc:
What does this word "cause" mean? I doubt if it can be explained. I don't really believe in it. I see it as belief in magic.

I can't read the hard stuff until you answer my easy questions

---

"Cause" refers to a state of affairs which bring about another state of affairs, the latter of which cannot exist without the prior and is hence then determined by the existence of the prior.. You are right to think of causality as a phantom, it is easily deconstructed as simply a category of thinking, rather than an actual attribute of "external" entities. However, when we reason about such issues, make use of logic and communication we cannot escape causality as a fundamental attribute of human understanding. Ie dispell if you want, but dispell every argumentand proposition you make along with it a priori. (of logical necessity)

Thank you. Makes sense

quote:

---

Originally posted by govinda:
Any effort at controlling a thought would itself be a thought, and onward ad infinitum

I understand this but I can't help thinking the awareness of our thoughts (at least the ones we are aware of) adds something to the equation... and it does kind of make a duality.

---

You can't help thinking?

Honestly, does the pecieved delineation of thinker and thought legitimize the duality? Beyond a hunch? How can we talk of some types of thoughts being different merely for the sake of argument? If we talk about thought, dont we necessarily mean thought in general.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bkc:
Eating as it took a while to get thoughts the first time.

---

Then the first thought was: "Yummy, this tastes great!"

FoxLeonard

yes I know they are both thoughts dagnabbit dagnabbit the duality comes from the fact that they both have different sources... I know they come from me - but one could be from subconscious and the other from awareness of choices or awareness of the ideas attached to subconcious. you do get the idea of duality in your head if only it means I am drawing on different sources of information (but this is not what I mean I don't think)

ahhh I can't put a finger on what I am trying to explain. basically I am my thoughts but there are two sources of thought - one I have control (or more truly awareness of it's creation) and the other is for the most part a mystery until it is brought to it's conclusion.
am I making sense?

[This message has been edited by govinda (edited 12-04-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dagnabitt:

That doesnt make sense to me. If A(the entity) causes B (existence, temporality etc...), then B is dependent on A for its being. Therefore, any and all things dependent on A (your existential will), insofar as they causally related to A, cannot be free.

You cannot be free if you are caused, at the very least not in the absolute sense of ontology. (please read what's already been said).

---

If you envision the entity causing your existence then just see "him" giving you free will. And no, you are not free in an absolute sense. Nothing is absolute except for the thought that nothing is absolute.

Whenever I'm feeling the "anxiety" after thinking about existence, this quote always gives me a chuckle

"I don't think we're [here] for anything, we're just products of evolution. You can say 'Gee, your life must be pretty bleak if you don't think there's a purpose' but I'm anticipating a good lunch."
-Dr. James Watson, Nobel laureate Biophysicist, co-discoverer of DNA

quote:

---

Originally posted by FoxLeonard:
Then the first thought was: "Yummy, this tastes great!"

FoxLeonard

---

I might know how to respond if we were face to face

quote:

---

Originally posted by bkc:
I might know how to respond if we were face to face

---

this seems to be the case with fox.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dagnabitt:
Apparently you were stupid enough. Execellent contribution to the discussion by the way.

[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 12-03-2002).]

---

No, I just went to the main page to see what kind of stuff it was associated with.

If I could destroy this discussion, I would.

You are a genius Fox.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dagnabitt:
You can't help thinking?

---

Luckily enough, even if you do your best to convince us that it is not needed.

quote:

---

Honestly, does the pecieved delineation of thinker and thought legitimize the duality?

---

Well, as good as any theory. As there are no proof one way or the other, from science, philosophy or religion, we might as well trust ourselves, for the time being. It worked for a few thousands of years before the dawn of religion and philosophy as we know it. It also works today, when muddled by all kinds of "information".

quote:

---

Beyond a hunch?

---

So the existentialist were able to go beyond thought and find out that it was the same as us, while we can�t go beyond thought at all?! If not they must have based their theory on a hunch as well.

quote:

---

How can we talk of some types of thoughts being different merely for the sake of argument?

---

Because we percieve them as different and have no translation equipment available.

quote:

---

If we talk about thought, dont we necessarily mean thought in general.

---

Apparently not according to ourselves.

No, I�m not fighting your argumants, I�m questioning the use of the existentialist theory.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

FoxLeonard

quote:

---

Originally posted by govinda:
yes I know they are both thoughts dagnabbit dagnabbit the duality comes from the fact that they both have different sources... I know they come from me - but one could be from subconscious and the other from awareness of choices or awareness of the ideas attached to subconcious. you do get the idea of duality in your head if only it means I am drawing on different sources of information (but this is not what I mean I don't think)

ahhh I can't put a finger on what I am trying to explain. basically I am my thoughts but there are two sources of thought - one I have control (or more truly awareness of it's creation) and the other is for the most part a mystery until it is brought to it's conclusion.
am I making sense?

[This message has been edited by govinda (edited 12-04-2002).]

---

Well it seems we have hit a block. I stand by that the perception/experience/instint of a duality between thought and thinker cannot be properly deduced given the nature of thought as I have described it. Your experience of differnt sources is also thinking, and thus falls prey to the same argument. My opinion is you dont quite no what I'm saying, but forgive me if I sound arrogant.

Think about yourself thinking a conscious thought. Think about the thought "I want to raise my arm". Now think, "fine" and raise your arm. What comes before that thought? "I think I will think about raising my arm"? Maybe. What about the thought before that? At what point does the "control" emerge, or do you just experience having the control along with the desire to raise your arm?

You can never isolate the thinker of the thought apart from the thought.

quote:

---

Originally posted by govinda:

this seems to be the case with fox.

---

Yes, foxes are somewhat hampered by virtual realities. We prefer the real realities.

FoxLeonard

quote:

---

Originally posted by abstractAffect:
You are a genius Fox.

---

?!?!?!

FoxLeonard

quote:

---

Originally posted by dagnabitt:
We know man exists because it is impossible to think otherwise.

---

When someone says something is absolutely one way, I take that as a challenge to show that it ain't so.

Can existence be defined?

What do you mean?

Fox, I agree. Insofar as existential theory (deconstructive theory more precisely) posits anything it falls prey to it's own objectivism. However, free will is a metaphysical idea. It presumes certain characteristics about being that man cannot know. Negating free will is not the same thing. I am not positing a theory of how one should view their lives. I am merely using examples to argue against the possiblility of viewing life in a particular way. Negation is strictly logical. I am not (intentionally) claiming any specific characteristic about being that one needs to go outside ones own experience to ascertain. May I be so bold as to assert that we do actually understand ourselves as unfree, in our daily course of living (awareness of our limitations and abilities), and that we only adopt the ideology of free will, in conjunction with the ideology of the acceptability of metaphysics in general.

[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 12-04-2002).]

edit: my posts are making less and less sense and I would rather see where you two take this.

[This message has been edited by govinda (edited 12-04-2002).]

dagnabitt...

Is there actually proof that there is thought, or is that just a percieved thought, that it can be like that?

Quote:
"There is no understanding you can have about thought that can transcend thought itself".

How do we know if we can�t get there to check it out (according to existentialism).

There is nothing logically wrong with Mansons statement, but it seems to me that it somehow points out the usefullness of existentialism...

Why can�t we effectively reason morality in reference to ourselves, rather than to metaphysics?

To paraphrase the Firesign Theatre:

I don�t have to show you no stinkin� reality!

FoxLeonard

quote:

---

Originally posted by dagnabitt:
Fox, I agree. Insofar as existential theory (deconstructive theory more precisely) posits anything it falls prey to it's own objectivism.

---

Among other things it falls prey to. For example, it does not aknowledge any science since the earliest 20th century. In that sense existentialism, as most philosophy, has antiquated itself.

He who stands still moves backwards.

quote:

---

However, free will is a metaphysical idea. we only adopt the ideology of free will, in conjunction with the ideology of the acceptability of metaphysics in general.

---

A good idealogy, if you ask me.

Or to Quote Stephen Hawking:

Everything in the universe is predetermined, but it might as well not be, as we can never get to know what is predetermined. (not verbatim, but close enough)

FoxLeonard

Is the act of raising your arm separate from the thoght? Duality?

Dagnabbit shows how they are the same thing with a reasonable argument and that we don't have free will in the matter.


but we all know that they are dual and we have free choice in the matter. That much is obvious.

It's like the electrons spinning in quantum mechanics. They aren't in one place or the other until we look (measure) at them. Same thing with these questuons.When we go to answer them we will get different answers each time because there is no one right answer.

Philosophers aare like fundamental religionists that have to have one right answer for every question.

All questions have more than one right answer. If you look for just one you will always be wrong.

quote:

---

Originally posted by govinda:
edit: my posts are making less and less sense

---

govinda!

Can I borrow this one, instead of writing my own?!

FoxLeonard

[This message has been edited by FoxLeonard (edited 12-04-2002).]

Touche!

sorry but I had resorted to writing a stream of conciousness and seeing if any of you could tell me what it means.
I am out of my depth I feel... or you guys are moving back into the shallow.

I had wrote another response but it got erased when I tried to enter the wrong password. I have to go to bed. I just want to say thankyou for great conversation. I'll add my two cents tomorrow. Cheers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by govinda:

sorry but I had resorted to writing a stream of conciousness and seeing if any of you could tell me what it means.
I am out of my depth I feel...

---

what�s wrong with stream of conciousness, even if it doesn�t exist (OOPS). I was actually about to answer...kind of ...when I found the other, usefull quote...

FoxLeonard

sure Fox. i believe you.
It's 4am here so i'm gonna finish my mudslide and watch a movie... thanks guys for confusing me even more than I already was.

govinda!

Just be sure you see a movie, when you think you do...

Goodnight all!

FoxLeonard

quote:

---

Originally posted by FoxLeonard:
dagnabitt...

Is there actually proof that there is thought, or is that just a percieved thought, that it can be like that?

---

I believe that it is self evident. We know thought exists, at the vary least, while we can doubt the content of thought at all times.

Is this an argument? No, its an assertion, but can you argue against it? Keep in mind any argument would itself be thought. If you want to say that you do not believe in thought, fine, but you could never reasonably argue this.

quote:

---

Quote:
"There is no understanding you can have about thought that can transcend thought itself".

[quote]How do we know if we can�t get there to check it out (according to existentialism).

---

.

Because we dont have to "get" anywhere anywhere to affirm the existence of thought. It is a precondition of any experience, and at the same time is that experience. Now whether this is "true for you" is debateable. But the logic of the scenerio is consistent, in terms of argument. I have already said that assertions of free will tend to be based on nothing if we cannot make reference to metaphysical reality. Preciesely because we then have to look within human experience to define human experience. Where upon close observation, we see we are not in control of that experience.

quote:

---

Why can�t we effectively reason morality in reference to ourselves, rather than to metaphysics?

---

.

Because how do we judge them right beyond human convention? Whats to stop anyone from disobeying a moral system if he feels powerful enough to do so?

quote:

---

I don�t have to show you no stinkin� reality!

---

You dont have to, yet you attempt with each spoken or written word, to communicate precisely that. This is the nature of all propositional language.



[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 12-04-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bkc:
When someone says something is absolutely one way, I take that as a challenge to show that it ain't so.

Can existence be defined?

What do you mean?

---

We know something exists, we just dont know anything about it. It cannot be accurately defined, no. But there are hints within the manifold of what reality is not. For example, because we are hungry each day, we know reality commands us to nourish ourselves. But we can never know why.



[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 12-04-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bkc:
[B]Is the act of raising your arm separate from the thoght? Duality?

[quote]but we all know that they are dual and we have free choice in the matter. That much is obvious.

---

.

I think if you understood my example you wouldnt say this. I have shown throughout the argument how and why reality is coerced. The experience of free will, is simply another thought entering your head when the issue arises. If I say all thoughts are coerced, than this thought is no
acception. Think about the behavior of thinking, not the thoughts themselves. Look how you actually behave. You cannot comprehend this independent of causal factors (pre-cognitive motivation, external circumstances etc...)

quote:

---

It's like the electrons spinning in quantum mechanics. They aren't in one place or the other until we look (measure) at them. Same thing with these questuons.When we go to answer them we will get different answers each time because there is no one right answer.

---

You will get the same answer every time if you understand this. Belieive me. Free will is not an option that "can be true because we dont know any better". We can know we are not free by observing what we actually do (fight, fuck, piss, and shit, eat drink think etc...), and analyze how those events come to be. We will not find ourselves in the explanation of how or why we behave as we do. Our behavior is predetermined by unknown factors. We simply dont think about it because our most intimate behavior (thinking itself), is so natural to us we fail to ask why. We cannot look at thinking as this thing we do, as we are soemhow someone else, or it is some new invention. We cannot escape our thoughts to go beyond or criticise them. We can only experience. All events fall into this category. It is an absoulte, as you cannot argue against it. It is not a choice to reject this argument when you understand it. You can ignore it if you like, and see yourself as different from your self, but you have no grounds for doing so that contradict this argument.

quote:

---

Philosophers aare like fundamental religionists that have to have one right answer for every question.

---

When we debate, we assert our wills, or views. We do this through logical methodology. You can believe what ever you want, regardless of truth, and not be wrong (what existentialism has shown us). But you cannot argue on this premise. In debate our truth is garnished from logical axioms. Insofar as we can posit and defend these, is how validity can be judged.

The argument (1)that thinking is primarily a unity, and that all dualities are but particular expressions of that unity, logically subsumes the idea that {2)there can in fact be an ontological division between thinker and thought.

"2" can be explained by "1", but 1 cannot be explained by 2. It is nnot a choice to accept one because we cannot know otherwise, as is the argument for 2. We are forced to accept 1, as necessary for all phenomena. If you disagree simply think about it. There is no escaping that all thoughts form a unity of consciousness. The particulars contained within this unity are of secondary concern. (As is the idea of the delineation between thinker and thought.)

quote:

---

All questions have more than one right answer

---

Not the question "Do all things experienced exist, at least in thought? The answer is yes, necessarily. This is a purely empirical statement. You will never be able to logically argue against this. It is a fundamental premise of all existence.

This is a genuine synthetic a priori truth. Garnished from experience, but indesputable through reason.



[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 12-04-2002).]

dagnabitt...

(see, I�m learning...)

I agree that thought is self evident, but to me, and many others, the different "layers" of thought are AS self evident, including the "duality" between thought-as-inspiration and "thinker" as reciever-of-inspiration. I would rather say it�s more than duality, than I would agree on the thought/thinker as one and the same, or exclusively one and the same. Wich connects to my next answer...

According to some "schools" - if not of philosophy - we CAN have thoughts that transcends thought (in lack of better terms). Supposing this is true, then that is the "place" we can�t "get" to, according to existentialism.

I don�t have to show you no stinkin� reality!

quote:

---

Originally posted by dagnabitt:
You dont have to, yet you attempt with each spoken or written word, to communicate precisely that. This is the nature of all propositional language.

---

And that�s one reason I used that quote.

Reality is allways plural and mutable.

FoxLeonard

But is your intuition necessarily accurate, the way your intuition necessarily is thought? Can you justify your hunch beyond your desire to affirm it? Can you say I am logically incorrect. (please read my last post). It is not of the same logical necessity that there is a duality between thought and thinker (quite the opposite), as there is in all thoughts being subsumed by the unity thought.

Your belief is a particular mode of thought itself (as are all). Many people believe many things are self-evident. But this does not make them so. We can only dispell falsities by using logic. You have yet to show how my logic is wrong. You have merely reaffirmed your position via reference to consensus on it, and how it feels or appears to you. You have not really addressed the logic I have used.

[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 12-05-2002).]

[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 12-05-2002).]

dagnabitt...

Can you UN-justify my "hunches" beyond so called logical reasoning, wich is in itself a construction of thought, within the limits of consensus language, and far from a law of nature.

If your answer is that you don�t have to go beyond logical reasoning, let me point out that the laws of nature, and nature, themselves go beyond what is called logical.

This is to say that there is NO flaw what so ever in your reasoning - as far as I can see - as long as you want to describe the particular philosophic theory. But the theory in itself is flawed, and the logics you use are far too limited, when compared to the realities.

The map is not the territory.

FoxLeonard

quote:

---

If your answer is that you don�t have to go beyond logical reasoning, let me point out that the laws of nature, and nature, themselves go beyond what is called logical.

---

Like I said, we are debating (not simply reveling in our own intimate truisms). Logic is our best available means to do this. The fact that logic only goes so far is not at issue. We have done away with metaphysics, and are here focussing on discourse. We are describing what is in our experience. The fact that we fail to do this truthfully outside of logic is not relevent to this argument given the conditions already stated.

So if one proposition stands against more logical deconstruction than another, it can be considered more stable pertaining to a given argument.

So attack my specific logic, and say where it is fallacous, without merely throwing away the system entirely. Remember, so long as we speak or write at all we are participating in logic and reason. While it might not bring us anywhere ultimately (as I implied before believe what you want, but argue by the rules), it does bring us closer together, so to speak.

quote:

---

But the theory in itself is flawed, and the logics you use are far too limited, when compared to the realities.

---

I disagree, by your own admission, provided the logic is cogent, the theory is true. I am not claiming this is true in the sense that you must believe it, but it does hold more water, communicatively, argumentatively, logically, than the theory of the delineation of thinker and thought. If you care to do a meta-analysis of the whole shabbang, criticize the effectiveness of logic in general, and say "I prefer to believe something else", by all means this is your perrogative. It is simply that I charge the arguments I have argued against with holding less water when held up to logical criticism than the viable alternatives I have provided. I think there is something to be said for thinking and communicating logically, in the discoursive if not the metaphysical realm of knowing. If we truly do away with metaphysics then logic becomes all we have. Also, you cannot criticise the logic of a system by criticising system itself (not that you are) As to do so would implicate the very system you are criticizing, and hence we face another infinite regression. And I dont think human thought can really trandscend logical matrices given my argument. Anyway, this is a good place to conclude this unless you want to add anything. I have really enjoyed the discussion with everyone, and I thank you all for your open mindedness towards a fairly unorthodox idea. Cheers.

PS

quote:

---

The map is not the territory.

---

The map is some of the territory


[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 12-05-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dagnabitt:
The map is some of the territory

---

Depending on accuracy, well yes...

...but could you say the same about this:

The menu is not the meal.


dagnabitt...

Jokes aside! As I said, I am not in disagreement with your reasoning. Nor Am I actually reveling in my own intimate truisms, even if I use them, and abuse them.

As much as I don�t entirely agree that we must use (traditonal) logic to speak or write, I agree that consensus language discourse usually requires that, and that he who refuses to go by the rules, is bound to be accused of... truisms, perhaps?

Yes the system you argue hold water, but what�s the actual use, when it doesn�t describe the realities? Shall we force the realities to learn logic and go by the map/menu, or shall we change our theories and ways of reasoning to suit the realities? Yes that is another topic, I agree. But I�m in habit of digressing...

My Null-A meta-analysis of your, and my own, whole shabbang, will have to wait, not least because it�s not my point here. Nor is actually Metaphysics, from my standpoint, even if it comes into play through the back-door, as it seems.

It�s more than enough to use Quantum Physics and Quantum Theory. Nobody understands it, but it works. It refuses to follow logic, but it works. And it is not an add to nature, it is nature in itself that works this way.

The more they find out about this, the more "metaphysical" it becomes, and quite a few, old metaphysical "truths" are (on their way to) becoming Quantum Physical truths. Among those, is theories about brain-perception-universe-realities. The so called Holographic Paradigm is one such theory, that slides off, or bounces back from, logic and logical reasoning, such as what you have used in this topic.

Therefore I actually believe it is time to extend what we now call logic, to "post-logics" that suit the realities. Something philosophy is very reluctant to do, for some reason. Even Stephen Hawking complains about it, in one of his books, in somewhat the same fashion I do it here.

Let me just point out that this post is NOT meant to continue the discussion one more lap. With that in mind, it would be interesting with your comments on this; besides the existentialism/deconstructionism etc...

I can only agree that this discussion has been a pleasure. And I would like to add that it is allways a pleasure to read your posts. Whether I agree with them or not.

This also means that you have not seen the last of me and my pet truisms...

Cheers & Goodmorning

FoxLeonard


[This message has been edited by FoxLeonard (edited 12-05-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dagnabitt:
We know something exists, we just dont know anything about it.

---

If you compare the concept of existence to the concept of infinity, then the concept of existence seems to be brought into question. For instance, if you say "I've been thinking a thousand years", that is zero compared to the "duration" of infinity. If you say, "I've made huge things and had great hunger, those become zero in comparison to the "size" of infinity. Your own thinking can think itself out of existence. Nothing is proved except that the only absolute is that there are no absolutes. This is an idea that proves itself.

Your philosophy seems based on the idea of existence. I don't see it as a foundation. Size and time are nothing in one way of viewing things. They are important from other ways of viewing them.

Is the premise here that man exists? Can you make a convincing argument for it? This goes back to the first paragraph or two of the thread and was my first question. How can you prove this existence?

I would say we know something about existence, but we just don't know if it exists.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bkc:
If you compare the concept of existence to the concept of infinity, then the concept of existence seems to be brought into question. For instance, if you say "I've been thinking a thousand years", that is zero compared to the "duration" of infinity. If you say, "I've made huge things and had great hunger, those become zero in comparison to the "size" of infinity. Your own thinking can think itself out of existence. Nothing is proved except that the only absolute is that there are no absolutes. This is an idea that proves itself.

Your philosophy seems based on the idea of existence. I don't see it as a foundation. Size and time are nothing in one way of viewing things. They are important from other ways of viewing them.

Is the premise here that man exists? Can you make a convincing argument for it? This goes back to the first paragraph or two of the thread and was my first question. How can you prove this existence?

I would say we know something about existence, but we just don't know if it exists.

---

There is no argument for the existence of being (so to speak). You either take it as self evident or not. That is the premise has no logical predicate. But you cant argue against it either. If you reject the existence of anything, you face an inherent contradiction. IE how can something that doesnt exist possibly make a truthful statement. Therefore, "nothing exists" is a self contradicting statement, and is inherently false (Because at the very least the statement itself exists). This is called a paradox of self-refference, and is inherent in any logical system that tries to justify itself. No absolutes being an absolute and whatnot. That particular truism is where existential philosophy begins, and why it often contadicts itself in its prescriptions, btw.

I feel one of the reasons my philosophy is valid is precisely because it makes no claims about what why or how people should exist, it merely gives a logical description of reality, that I feel cannot be refuted by examples or logic, but only preferrence. It does not contradict your "no absolutes" rule (which I assure you I am more than familiar with, and dont necessarily agree with), because it prescribes nothing. There is no "should" anywhere in my philosophy. I have said nothing that can force you to accept my logic if you simply dont want to, but you cannot deconstruct it either (as is my opinion). A good philosophy is one that can stand up to logical attacks and is void of inherent contradiction, not neceesarily the strong wills of others.


And no offence, but the rest of your post isn't really relevant to the conversation (deconstruction of time and space for example). Why dont you start another post with it.

You remind me of myself bkc, before I actually studied philosophy in school (not to sound too arrogant ). You have insightfull ideas, but they need refinement and contextualization within the discipline of philosophy, and historical discourse of the western tradition (make sure we're all talking about the same thing).

[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 12-05-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dagnabitt:
how can something that doesnt exist possibly make a truthful statement. Therefore, "nothing exists" is a self contradicting statement,

---

You are getting close.

All statements are self-contradicting. That's the point I'm making. The only statement that isn't is that "There are no other absolute truths other than this one".

If you take this statement as a postulate and test it then you can see how "something that doesn't exist" can make a truthful statement. Just because it doesn't fit into your conception of what is logical doesn't matter. The universe doesn't think like you do. The postulate is self-consistent.

I gave an explanation of how things can both exist and not exist that is consistent with the postulate.

Already posted: "The question to answer all questions". There are many ways to say this. It may be to easy for you to understand. Maybe I can glimpse it due to my lack of schooling.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bkc:
You are getting close.

All statements are self-contradicting. That's the point I'm making. The only statement that isn't is that "There are no other absolute truths other than this one".

If you take this statement as a postulate and test it then you can see how "something that doesn't exist" can make a truthful statement. Just because it doesn't fit into your conception of what is logical doesn't matter. The universe doesn't think like you do. The postulate is self-consistent.

I gave an explanation of how things can both exist and not exist that is consistent with the postulate.

Already posted: "The question to answer all questions". There are many ways to say this. It may be to easy for you to understand. Maybe I can glimpse it due to my lack of schooling.

---

OK, I mean this kindly. But you dont know what your taling about. All statements are not "self-contradictory", or necessarily untrue. Statements rely on logical reference for validation and falsification. Only sometimes are they self-referential.

There is nothing "inherently false" about the statement "All crows are black". It relies on its validation from a logical system that is not itself verifiable beyond human use, but it has plenty of relative meaning. I know all statements regarding reality are ultimately unjustifiable. But that does not mean they have no truth value at all.

And "there are No absolutes", if we accept this, as you do, also means that all partial truths are of relative value. But that doesnt totally negate there value. If I say Youcant have all the money in the world, does that mean you cant have any of the money in the world? You cant negate existence itself with that statement, only the ultimate truth (not relative) of the particular propositions we posit as existential beings.

No offence, but read a book sometime on how philosophy has developed and it's main issues and arguments . I know what your trying to get at, you didnt invent it, its not a unique idea, and other philosophers have posited it far more eloquently than you or I ever could.

Your not grasping the conversation, or even your own point. Trust me.

Anyway, sorry if I came off as a dick there. I just think this thread is ready to end. We've already hit the usual walls a few times over. Cheers.



[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 12-05-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dagnabitt:
I know all statements regarding reality are ultimately unjustifiable. But that does not mean they have no truth value at all.

---

I'm saying they ARE justifiable, but where you think there is only one answer to questions such as we have discussed, they have more than one answer. This does not make one of the answers "bad", they are both true. We exist in a sense, and don't in another sense. The answers are "contradictory" but they are both true.
Their "truth value" remains intact.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dagnabitt:
OK, I mean this kindly. But you dont know what your taling about. All statements are not "self-contradictory", or necessarily untrue.

---

I don't mean they are untrue. More like they are both true. No statement is absolutely true or absolutely false, except one.

This makes them untrue to YOU because you think there are certain questions that can have only one answer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dagnabitt:


And "there are No absolutes", if we accept this, as you do, also means that all partial truths are of relative value. But that doesnt totally negate there value.

---

This "no absolutes" means that answers about things other than the absolute are all valuable and unvaluable, both. You can find circumstances where they are all true, and cicumstances where they are all false.

You might be thinking they are EITHER valuable OR unvaluable.

ok.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dagnabitt:
[B . I know what your trying to get at, you didnt invent it, its not a unique idea, and other philosophers have posited it far more eloquently than you or I ever could.


[/B]

---

I would be interested to see where this idea has been elucidated before. I haven't seen a philosopher yet that didn't think the question he was trying to answer had one right answer only. This idea is too simple for a philosopher.

I know you were checking out but i wanted to answer those areas.

I also know my posts sound blunt and impolite but they aren't intended that way. I'm not very wordy and it doesn't read very good . I apologize.

The ideas your talking about are as old as philosophy. Things to read about:

Sophism
Anti-realism
Relativism
Empiricism (particularly Berkeley and Hume)
Phenomenalism
Postmodernism (Derrida, but dont actually try to read him.
Solopsism
Buddhism ("mind only")
Later philosophy of science (Feyeraband, Kuhn)
Much Aesthetic philosophy

And I'm sure others.

Like I said, its simply a logical cunundrum called the paradox of self refference.

Thanks, I'll take a look. Bkc