22 Apr 03
1 edit
Originally posted by royalchickeni do realize that, i am trying to see how it follows from the truth tables and can't figure out what
That is what bbarr is driving at. If it is trues that all facts are subjective, then there exists at least one fact, namely "all facts are subjective", that is not subjective.
P -> ~P
is
oh wait a second! do you mean then that what we are saying is
P -> ~P
means
if "all facts are subjective", then "not all facts are not subjective"
is the point because that one fact exists that is objective?
but that doesn't always work does it?
say p is "all cars are yellow"
then P -> ~P means
if "all cars are yellow", then "not all cars are yellow"
ah! but the whole statement is
(P -> ~P) -> ~P
which means
if, if "all facts are subjective", then "not all facts are subjective", then "not all facts are subjective"
that makes sense, i think, and is pretty neat - provided i got it right.
22 Apr 03
Yes, you have got it right, there must be an objective fact. The initial question is still somewhat interesting, albeit in a limited sense (interesting Freudian slip-I just typed "sneeze" instead of "sense"😉: To what extent is the universe consisting of objective facts?
22 Apr 03
Originally posted by royalchickengo ahead and sneeze then - gezunti... !
Yes, you have got it right, there must be an objective fact. The initial question is still somewhat interesting, albeit in a limited sense (interesting Freudian slip-I just typed "sneeze" instead of "sense"😉: To what extent is the universe consisting of objective facts?
i do have another question though ...
this whole thing depends on the truth of the statement
if "all facts are subjective", then "not all facts are subjective"
how does one prove the validity of this? i realize it is 'deducable' or even 'obvious' from the argument stated above, but is that good enough? can something like this be proven or has it reached an axiomatic level?
22 Apr 03
Originally posted by pradtfIt has been proven. This is also a truism since most human metaphysical thought divides things into subjects and objects (notice that all modern languages do this), and it would be very strnge to have it divided into subjects and objects in such a way that there are only subjects.
this whole thing depends on the truth of the statement
if "all facts are subjective", then "not all facts are subjective"
how does one prove the validity of this? i realize it is 'deducable' or even 'obvious' from the argument stated above, but is that good enough? can something like this be proven or has it reached an axiomatic level?
22 Apr 03
Originally posted by royalchickenIf you understand love,then you can start understanding GOD.
It has been proven. This is also a truism since most human metaphysical thought divides things into subjects and objects (notice that all modern languages do this), and it would be very strnge to have it divided into subjects and objects in such a way that there are only subjects.
If you understand evil,then sit by me.(God will be along soon)
Linda.
22 Apr 03
Originally posted by bbarrOne of the weaknesses of this kind of reductive, mathematical philosophy is that it closes off potentially interesting arguments with the apparent certainty of its conclusions. Because while most of us feel intuitively that there is such a thing as objective reality, it is actually pretty hard to put our fingers on exactly what it is that we objectively know.
Look, either it is the case that all facts are subjective or it is the case that not all facts are subjective. If it is the case that all facts are subjective, then there is at least one objective fact, namely the fact 'all facts are subjective'. This is just another way of saying that the claim 'all facts are subjective' is incoherent, the claim implies ...[text shortened]... truth:
(P -> ~P) -> ~P
QED
Anyone who disagrees with this is irrational by definition.
Modern society regards science as the great arbiter of knowledge. But one of the great misconceptions about science is that it produces facts. It doesn't, it produces best guess hypotheses that stick around until someone puts a strong enough case for another best guess hypothesis to take over. Some of that case will consist of the evidence they have gathered (which is never truly objectively gathered), some of the case will be made by sheer rhetorical strength, social circumstance or force of personality.
All this means that what we take as certain is very often nothing of the sort.
Rich.
22 Apr 03
Originally posted by richhoeyWould you prefer a philosophy unburdened by logic? My claim is hardly mathematical, and still less reductive. If people want to converse in contradictions, fine. But if people want to explore issues without falling into nonsense, they would be wise to adopt standards of good argument. One very good standard is that one's claim ought not imply its own falsity, don't you think? Of course nktwild's original point was inspired by the recognition that our experiences, although seemingly of an external world, do not necessitate that there be a world even roughly approximating the type represented by our experiences. We cannot be certain that we are not all brains in vats, or disembodied minds subject to the deceptions of a demon of the utmost cunning and power. But this relatively interesting point (one philosophers have been bringing up for thousands of years) does not imply that the incoherent claim that all facts are subjective, merely that whatever reason we have for thinking that particular facts obtain will be a fallible reason. So, far from cutting off conversation, logical constraints steer conversation in more fruitful and ultimately more interesting directions. That is, unless you prefer conversations to consist merely in the barking of various noises and not in the speaking of sense.
One of the weaknesses of this kind of reductive, mathematical philosophy is that it closes off potentially interesting arguments with the apparent certainty of its conclusions.
Rich.
22 Apr 03
Originally posted by bbarrWhen I was a little girl.I could not understand the kindness I got from my parents.
Would you prefer a philosophy unburdened by logic? My claim is hardly mathematical, and still less reductive. If people want to converse in contradictions, fine. But if people want to explore issues without falling into nonsense, they would be wise to adopt standards of good argument. One very good standard is that one's claim ought not imply its own falsi ...[text shortened]... nversations to consist merely in the barking of various noises and not in the speaking of sense.
I thought These people.I hated my parents so much I thought they got me mixed up at the matertenatiy hospital.I have nothing in common with my parents.
Kindness grows.
Linda.
23 Apr 03
Originally posted by richhoeyAs to the first, this argument did not say in any way what reality is or isn't, besides that it is not wholly subjective.
One of the weaknesses of this kind of reductive, mathematical philosophy is that it closes off potentially interesting arguments with the apparent certainty of its conclusions.
Modern society regards science as the great arbiter of knowledge. But one of the great misconceptions about science is that it produces facts. It doesn't, it produces best guess ...[text shortened]... round until someone puts a strong enough case for another best guess hypothesis to take over.
As to the second, you are thinking only of experimental science.
23 Apr 03
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarri have a beleiver.im not claiming that everything is subjective, but everything we see and experience is subjective.
Would you prefer a philosophy unburdened by logic? My claim is hardly mathematical, and still less reductive. If people want to converse in contradictions, fine. But if people want to explore issues without falling into nonsense, they would ...[text shortened]... in the barking of various noises and not in the speaking of sense.
1st sence, sight.
light enters our eyes at which point certain cells convert the photons into electrical energy, which then gets inturpreted by the brain, these photons are simply energy emitions from electrons.
we all know that the grass is green, because we were taught it is green, but what color do we really see?? surely because of genetic variation and environment, the green i see is different to the green you see.
23 Apr 03
Originally posted by missleadBut does love ? can it grow from emptyness ?
When I was a little girl.I could not understand the kindness I got from my parents.
I thought These people.I hated my parents so much I thought they got me mixed up at the matertenatiy hospital.I have nothing in common with my parents.
Kindness grows.
Linda.
mike
23 Apr 03
Originally posted by royalchickenYour first point was also mine. All the first argument did was to say that not all reality is subjective, without commenting at all about how much we can objectively know in our everyday lives.
As to the first, this argument did not say in any way what reality is or isn't, besides that it is not wholly subjective.
As to the second, you are thinking only of experimental science.
As for your second point, all science is experimental (under most definitions anyway). For that very reason, to touch on another thread, I'd argue that maths is not a science in itself but rather the language that science (and philosophy) are expressed.
Rich.