Did you fail high school science? Do you want to sound like you are educated?
Then you need METAPHYSICS. Yes. METAPHYSICS will make you sound like an academic, without actually having to pick up a single science book, or learn complicated maths or logic.
Everything can be argued away by overly long meaningless diatribes of bullshit.
Cornered into an argument by those pesky scientists? Use METAPHYSICS to bullshit your way out of any logical corner!
If I have learned anything from science it is that what seems "intuitively valid" is very often not. I know that philosophy is not science and I am not trying to suggest that it should be empirical.
I just mean that our inability to have a full understanding of everything places us in an untenable situation when we assert claims or possibilities about that which we can present no evidence. By that I mean that an opposing view cannot be shown to be logically flawed.
Consider the following, a person see a triangle. The brain has the ability to scale and distort that triangle, but in the end, it cannot create something that is new - ex nihilo. That is what you are implying - that the brain can construct "new" concepts out of nothing - it just doesnt happen. The brain takes bits and peices of things we have already experienced, combines and distorts them and suddenly we view them as something "new" - but its not.
Nope don't remember saying that I am afraid. Don't even remember implying it. I make a similar point as you are doing here in my "creating creativity". I am not saying we can just conjure up concepts from the void here. What quote are you specifically referring to?
You said we can derrive concepts without empirical evidence... I am saying that when you break the process down, the empiricism comes from experience, ergo no metaphysics.
A person who has been blind their entire life is limited in their dreams and descriptions of reality to what they feel. Without experience, there is no thought, simply because one cannot exist without experiencing... Therefore, you are implying we can conjure thoughts ex nihilo.
I am afraid you are mistaken again. I did indeed say that some truths are beyond empirical investigation. Maths for example is not empirical, we cannot carry out an empirical observation on the number 5. All I am saying is there are some truths that do not require empirical evidence. i.e. definitions of words, mathematical proofs, deductive logical inferences, etc.
You seem to have misunderstood a very well established issue within philosophy. If you are still unsatisfied with my response....
..then actually go and read some metaphysics. A good starting anthology is "Metaphysics: An Anthology", which is edited by Jaewon Kim.
There are some excellent and important papers listed in that book and it is the first book I read on the subject.
Please do not strawman my argument again without fully understanding the issues involved. If I said something like "there is no metaphysics", I would get laughed off my course.
We sense a quantity of items sitting on the table - both through feel and sight - all of them appearing to be identical. We give each individual item a name - a symbol which represents an "individual". Then as in Roman numberals, we tally and this tally becomes a new symbol which represents that quantity of individuals. This symbol is "5" - an empirically observed quantity of individuals.
We can then take that construct, apply it to and blend it with other constructs of experiences we have had.
Words and symbols have no meaning without something physicaly observable to attribute them to and the brain recognizes this. Is that so hard to understand - that all thoughts are based on experience?
Definitions of words, mathematical proofs, and deductive logical inferences are all derrived from what we ourselves or someone else has experienced - those experiences can be blended and morphed, but we cannot imagine anything that is NOT based in some way on our OWN experiences.
If you think you can, imagine "absolute nothing" - a zero quantity of everything. Sure, we can give it meaning, but that meaning is based on our experience of sensing zero apples. Actually imagining it...
Again, you fail to understand the distinction here. I am not talking about the acquisition of concepts themselves.
But I am saying that given the meanings of words mean what they do now "Bachelors = Unmarried Men" is true without me asking bachelors if they are unmarried. "Bachelors = unhappy" maybe true but it is not true a priori.
I told you not to strawman my argument without first understanding the issues involved..I have explained the issues enough for you to do your own research.
But seriously - if you want a view that isn't shitbat crazy. You will look into the issues in more detail. I am not saying that we don't need experience to acquire the concepts themselves. So please stop restating the point.
I will not respond to anymore of your comments - not because I fear your arguments - but because you keep failing to understand my point and I simply cannot explain it any more clearly.
Well, I was trying to get you to actually think, but since you cannot do that and instead make a claim against strawman, here is a two part syllogism that shows how a priori is actually a posteriori.
All thought processes are reactions of matter.
Reason is a thought process.
Therefore, reason is a reaction of matter.
All reactions ( effects ) of matter are derrived from an experience ( causes ).
p.s. You fail to falsify the distinction and it doesn't look like you have read my last posts. The question is not "how do we acquire knowledge" but more "how many bachelors do we need to investigate before we conclude they are all unmarried men?" - 0
I do not have to have experience of bachelors themselves to arrive at the conclusion. ergo - I can conclude something about bachelors without ever meeting one or having an any experience "as of a bachelor".
True, but you do have the experience of either someone telling you the definition of what a bachelor is, or reading about its meaning or defining it yourself. You cannot derrive such conclusions via reason without first derriving the definitions of these ideas. Thus, the acquisition of knowledge is intertwined in the use of that knowledge. Thus, a priori is actually a posteriori.
For the 100th time,I am not saying knowledge acquisition happens in a vaccum or without any experience at all,but I do not need to investigate bachelors to know a truth about them.I believe I have made the distinction quite clear here and it is a distinction which you agree with.But you seem to be pushing the point in spite of this...seriously though - don't respond with the same argument because it doesn't work and you have made the same point in every single post and I am getting tired of it
Fine... prove that you can make a conclusion a priori.
Conclude that ANNA = anna through reason alone. I.E. you cannot use deffinitions of the language and or characters to derrive the conclusion. Nor can you use what you observe to derrive the conclusion.
It's good see an Englishman standing up for philosophy/metaphysics, after so many English "philosophers" have done so much to destroy philosophy, in their attempt to replace it with empiricism.
glad to hear you are not a platonist but few are, strictly speaking, any more... but my position is belief in a priori is essentially platonism. Insofar as that's a simplification, I grant the distinction, accept you are not a platonist and I'm only pointing out the similarities in the thinking, though the conclusion is different... that is, a priori truths are obviously not the same as forms... just built of similar motive.
Did you fail high school science? Do you want to sound like you are educated?
Then you need METAPHYSICS. Yes. METAPHYSICS will make you sound like an academic, without actually having to pick up a single science book, or learn complicated maths or logic.
Everything can be argued away by overly long meaningless diatribes of bullshit.
Cornered into an argument by those pesky scientists? Use METAPHYSICS to bullshit your way out of any logical corner!
METAPHYSICS! CALL 080-IM-FULL-OF-SHIT TODAY!
stepchangeable 1 year ago
concepts such as "a priori" are language games, says even analytical philosopherz.
hyperseauton 2 years ago
If I have learned anything from science it is that what seems "intuitively valid" is very often not. I know that philosophy is not science and I am not trying to suggest that it should be empirical.
I just mean that our inability to have a full understanding of everything places us in an untenable situation when we assert claims or possibilities about that which we can present no evidence. By that I mean that an opposing view cannot be shown to be logically flawed.
Still fun to think about :)
aderek79 2 years ago
This is a good color scheme for you. I can really see your facial expressions in this video.
otonanoC 2 years ago
The empricism comes from experience.
Consider the following, a person see a triangle. The brain has the ability to scale and distort that triangle, but in the end, it cannot create something that is new - ex nihilo. That is what you are implying - that the brain can construct "new" concepts out of nothing - it just doesnt happen. The brain takes bits and peices of things we have already experienced, combines and distorts them and suddenly we view them as something "new" - but its not.
krishields 2 years ago
Nope don't remember saying that I am afraid. Don't even remember implying it. I make a similar point as you are doing here in my "creating creativity". I am not saying we can just conjure up concepts from the void here. What quote are you specifically referring to?
LordImmolation 2 years ago
You said we can derrive concepts without empirical evidence... I am saying that when you break the process down, the empiricism comes from experience, ergo no metaphysics.
A person who has been blind their entire life is limited in their dreams and descriptions of reality to what they feel. Without experience, there is no thought, simply because one cannot exist without experiencing... Therefore, you are implying we can conjure thoughts ex nihilo.
krishields 2 years ago
I am afraid you are mistaken again. I did indeed say that some truths are beyond empirical investigation. Maths for example is not empirical, we cannot carry out an empirical observation on the number 5. All I am saying is there are some truths that do not require empirical evidence. i.e. definitions of words, mathematical proofs, deductive logical inferences, etc.
You seem to have misunderstood a very well established issue within philosophy. If you are still unsatisfied with my response....
LordImmolation 2 years ago
..then actually go and read some metaphysics. A good starting anthology is "Metaphysics: An Anthology", which is edited by Jaewon Kim.
There are some excellent and important papers listed in that book and it is the first book I read on the subject.
Please do not strawman my argument again without fully understanding the issues involved. If I said something like "there is no metaphysics", I would get laughed off my course.
LordImmolation 2 years ago
The empirical observation of the number 5:
We sense a quantity of items sitting on the table - both through feel and sight - all of them appearing to be identical. We give each individual item a name - a symbol which represents an "individual". Then as in Roman numberals, we tally and this tally becomes a new symbol which represents that quantity of individuals. This symbol is "5" - an empirically observed quantity of individuals.
krishields 2 years ago
We can then take that construct, apply it to and blend it with other constructs of experiences we have had.
Words and symbols have no meaning without something physicaly observable to attribute them to and the brain recognizes this. Is that so hard to understand - that all thoughts are based on experience?
krishields 2 years ago
Definitions of words, mathematical proofs, and deductive logical inferences are all derrived from what we ourselves or someone else has experienced - those experiences can be blended and morphed, but we cannot imagine anything that is NOT based in some way on our OWN experiences.
If you think you can, imagine "absolute nothing" - a zero quantity of everything. Sure, we can give it meaning, but that meaning is based on our experience of sensing zero apples. Actually imagining it...
krishields 2 years ago
Again, you fail to understand the distinction here. I am not talking about the acquisition of concepts themselves.
But I am saying that given the meanings of words mean what they do now "Bachelors = Unmarried Men" is true without me asking bachelors if they are unmarried. "Bachelors = unhappy" maybe true but it is not true a priori.
I told you not to strawman my argument without first understanding the issues involved..I have explained the issues enough for you to do your own research.
LordImmolation 2 years ago
But seriously - if you want a view that isn't shitbat crazy. You will look into the issues in more detail. I am not saying that we don't need experience to acquire the concepts themselves. So please stop restating the point.
I will not respond to anymore of your comments - not because I fear your arguments - but because you keep failing to understand my point and I simply cannot explain it any more clearly.
LordImmolation 2 years ago
Well, I was trying to get you to actually think, but since you cannot do that and instead make a claim against strawman, here is a two part syllogism that shows how a priori is actually a posteriori.
All thought processes are reactions of matter.
Reason is a thought process.
Therefore, reason is a reaction of matter.
All reactions ( effects ) of matter are derrived from an experience ( causes ).
Reason is a reaction of matter.
Therefore, reason is derrivitive of experience.
krishields 2 years ago
You are right - I can't think.
p.s. You fail to falsify the distinction and it doesn't look like you have read my last posts. The question is not "how do we acquire knowledge" but more "how many bachelors do we need to investigate before we conclude they are all unmarried men?" - 0
LordImmolation 2 years ago
If reason is a derrivitive of experience, then we cannot make conclusions without experience - ergo a priori is a posteriori.
krishields 2 years ago
I do not have to have experience of bachelors themselves to arrive at the conclusion. ergo - I can conclude something about bachelors without ever meeting one or having an any experience "as of a bachelor".
LordImmolation 2 years ago
True, but you do have the experience of either someone telling you the definition of what a bachelor is, or reading about its meaning or defining it yourself. You cannot derrive such conclusions via reason without first derriving the definitions of these ideas. Thus, the acquisition of knowledge is intertwined in the use of that knowledge. Thus, a priori is actually a posteriori.
krishields 2 years ago
For the 100th time,I am not saying knowledge acquisition happens in a vaccum or without any experience at all,but I do not need to investigate bachelors to know a truth about them.I believe I have made the distinction quite clear here and it is a distinction which you agree with.But you seem to be pushing the point in spite of this...seriously though - don't respond with the same argument because it doesn't work and you have made the same point in every single post and I am getting tired of it
LordImmolation 2 years ago
Fine... prove that you can make a conclusion a priori.
Conclude that ANNA = anna through reason alone. I.E. you cannot use deffinitions of the language and or characters to derrive the conclusion. Nor can you use what you observe to derrive the conclusion.
krishields 2 years ago
Thanks for the Education. The Best Metaphysics for this world is: Compassion.
Relax........Peace......&......Joy!
1whotambuddha 2 years ago
It's good see an Englishman standing up for philosophy/metaphysics, after so many English "philosophers" have done so much to destroy philosophy, in their attempt to replace it with empiricism.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
great set
-thanks alot
f417h 2 years ago
Time is irrelevant to identity. Variance in perception, likewise.
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
glad to hear you are not a platonist but few are, strictly speaking, any more... but my position is belief in a priori is essentially platonism. Insofar as that's a simplification, I grant the distinction, accept you are not a platonist and I'm only pointing out the similarities in the thinking, though the conclusion is different... that is, a priori truths are obviously not the same as forms... just built of similar motive.
pyrrho314 2 years ago
fyi, it's peer-oh... though pie-ro is fine with me actually.
pyrrho314 2 years ago