I like Rorty and love his writing, his brilliance as a writer and communicator of profound philosophical ideas, but I don't know about his view of truth..
What you've said doesn't negate what Rorty says, this is more a problem of our language then anything else. The things you've pointed out arise because of the way we have created the concept of truth. I believe what he meant is not that we shouldn't hold anything as true, but just to realize that our truths are as he put it "justified beliefs".
"What you've said doesn't negate what Rorty says, this is more a problem of our language then anything else."
How can you ascertain that? It also applies to your reasoning. Are you telling the thruth or not?
And if Rorty is only changing the name "thruth" for "justified beliefs" what is the big deal? It would be strange if thruth was an unjustified belief. So I prefer the old, traditional and much more economic word: thruth.
@MMDC2001 Well i guess i would say that most people do not think of what they call truth as a justified belief, they "know" it as "the way things actually are" . So the difference is more than the words, IMO truth is a created concept or framework that you can impose on anything if you so choose, like mathematics. Don't misunderstand me though, for I know little of the philosophy of Rorty and so would not defend it and even less of yours to attack you.
marleyman14: I don't think he said that he denies reality, only that he denies Truth (with a capital 'T'). He likened Truth to God, where it is nearly impossible for us to know whether it exists, and if it does, what is it like. It seems to me -- and I'm not completely sure about this -- that Rorty is not concerned with Truth because of our epistemic limitations. Anyone know for sure whether this is in fact Rorty's stance?
This guy is an idiot, he denies reality!! This anti realist cannot talk about anything because anything refers to and independent reality. Do not listen to this stupid anti-realist.
@0dxpx Thankyou so much for attention, I just want to say how your little understanding of philosophy may actually be useful to monkeys, perhaps you can think about this?
I like Rorty because of his style. He wrote wonderful essays that anybody with an interest could follow and which gave one a great sense of the historical development of philosophy and western intellectual life up to present and Rorty's own radical "take" on it.
But I still don't "buy" his dismissal of epistemology and his absurd disregard for truth. And truth must somehow "correspond" to the world.
all knowledge comes through the sense organs. Concerning math. A few years ago I attended a lecture on the Philosophy of Math at Harvard. I was surprised to learn that a triangle is merely an idea. A triangle is like "God", you'll never find one in the actual world. Science tells us that there's is no such thing as a perfectly straight object (or line). Hence, we have man-made crude approximations of triangles which are common place. But they ARE NOT TRIANGLES.
Harvard is the last place I would go to learn something. And we must consider that philosophers may have a cognitive disorder leading to a personality disorder (the "offness" of most philosophers) which causes them to obsess over what are puzzles for them but not others. "Science" has never proven there is no such thing as a straight line - figure this out for yourself and stop parroting others wrong claims.
Niether is it the goal of science to prove that matter, unless such has a practical, financially beneficial result. Triangles can be seen in snow flakes and many crystals. The triangle is interesting because it is the enlosure with the fewest sides. Neither a line nor two lines joined can create an enclosure, except in the case of the circle, which is undefinable with any math, thus pi is a transcendental (magic) number. Despite oddities, the math does work because it accurately describes...
...something about the physical forces that act on matter. Imperfections in naturally found crystals do not refute the math, rather the imperfections are explained by the math describing other, distorting forces acting at the time the crystal formed. Under controlled lab conditions crystals can be created with extreme accuracy. Of course accuracy will always have to be defined by some standard, but that does not make math "human", rather it suggests that we are clumsy primates.
the "oddities" or imperfections offer some evidence of my whole point. give me ONE example of a triangle in the world we live in... just one. you cannot... can you? space is curved... light itself bends.... nothing is straight...
and I'm speaking of the classical idea of straight (meaning... perfectly straight... no wiggles... haha)
another point is that however sophisticated your microscope is.... IT MUST BE INTERPRETED BY YOUR SENSES>.... you can have the most amazing microscope in the world... but in the end.... you are limited by you eyes..... your senses can be easily fooled.... so..????
concerning freewill. so do you think you are responsible for you actions. do you choose between options? i'm just curious to know what you yourself believe about your own actions. are you an active agent with volition... a gear in a machine... or ?????? what do you believe is true about your own actions??
Ziroland: you really don't like my aswers to this question. Look at the worlld "repsonsible". It actually means "able to take and carry out commands". My car is responsible. Yes, I am an active agent with volition, but so is a protozoa. All human "actions" are directed at obtaining food and water, comfort and security. If there is anything beyond that it is not provable - one can only guess. (ps: I like meditation but reject Karma and the Hindu fabrications)
If it is true that science has never proven the non-existence or existence of triangles.. then..belief in such things in the "real world" is simply a belief. A true triangle in the classical sense has no defects... it is perfect. it is an idea, a very useful idea, a great idea, but to my experience just an idea.
I've never seen one. No scienctist, philosopher, or person that I've ever read about or known has ever seen a perfect triangle..why? because the material is imperfect.
it may be that like so many in the humanities, your vanities interfere with simple clear thinking. I suggest you research "Bucky tubes", "carbon tubes" and you will see that some "perfect shapes" have been acheived. I have seen the photo of 14 carbon atoms stacked in a perfect pyramind - thus a "perfect" triangle on one side. Of course various (silly and non-serious) objections can be raised, like "how can the accuracy of the photo be validated", or .....
..."atoms are not infinitely small points. Only infinitely small points and infinitely thin lines can form "perfect" shapes." What about lasers forming a triangle shape? Is that accurate enough for you? But one can always demand greater precision. Non-engineers and non-scientists don't fully appreciate the practical matters, which we strive to overcome, and have in some cases. Yet there may always be a crank who claims to be unsatisfied. Let the crank sadly sit in the corner while we party.
Ziroland: like bahramf, you suffer from like of word play, with a special taste for certain vague words like "belief" and "perfect" that do not have real world referents or none that are easily tangible. Drop the word play and things clear up. All "beliefs" are not equally "beliefs" - in claiming they are you are playing the game of overlooking matters of scale. But in reality you would not accept 2 donuts when you had paid for a dozen, so scale really does matter to you, so why pretend ?
your argument is irrelevant. i am and have been speaking about TRIANGLES. :D stick to the topic.
the fact that you saw one in a picture is the poorest example or proof I can think of. lol. Once again, triangles exist as vague ideas in reality... they are approximations... you are even conceding the fact that they are not perfect. As an idea they are perfect. in reality not perfect. very simple. :)
As I do trust some scientific sources, I do accept that perfect triangels have been created in carbon nano structures. Again, how perfect does perfect have to be? If no one can invent a device for detecting irregularities in the carbon nano structure triangles, would that satisfy you? Or are you saying that even when something is apparently perfect, you will still demand that it is not? Why? What is the real motive behind that? How do you know your idea of a triangle is perfect?
this idea of perfection in mathematics/geometry is NOT MY INVENTION. look it up. I was just trying to make a point. of course, lines can be relatively straight.... but not really straight. this is obvious. and as an engineer you should know this.
lasers? light BENDS! lol.... one of the results of Mr. Einstien's findings. can't we have a discussion an argument (in the best sense of that word) without PUT DOWNS. lol... this is not the sign of true inquiry.
are you angry at me? i have no anger toward you.... i simply disagree with you..... :)
the problem of language aside, a triangle in the strictest sense DOES NOT exist, in my opinion. No one has ever proven that one does exist. An approximation of a triangle... IS NOT A TRIANGLE i
first of all, light does not always bend - that has not been proven. In fact the theory is that in the absence of gravity light will not bend. Again, you play word games apparently without realizing it. You have established a demand on the word "perfect" that can't be satisfied, since you will never accept the accuracy spec of any instruments. And why don't you look into Bucky balls and other carbon nano structures instead of stoking your ego. How perfect does perfect have to be?
can you give me a REAL EXAMPLE of when light does not bend? a real world example? I am speaking of perfect as in the geometric classical sense!!!! this is not my invention... do some research! i realize that there are straight lines that approximate straightness... even to a high degree... but its all relative.... being very very close to being and orange might be practical, functional, but still NOT AN ORANGE :D
Ziroland: your basic game strategy is to focus on some of the oddities of physics and math when expressed in language, and then ask another to prove something which can't be proved according to the impossible, fantasy based definitions you apply to some of the words. Your game is a set up and likely you find it clever but I assure you some ancient Hindu was playing this game with glee 5000 years ago. .....
...to establish curvature requires at least three measurement points, and then if the three points form a triangle, then the line is a curve. These would be real world measurments with instruments. Now, note that you have already rejected any instrument as being sufficient to establish anything. But if an instrument established a curvature, would you accept the readings of the same instrument in a case where it did not? Or in the latter case would you blame the instrument's shortcomings?....
...By the way, according to your hopelessly skeptical system, how do you explain the advance in instrument accuracy? What instrument is used to make a milling machine more accurate by 0.0005" , assuming the milling machine that made the instrument had an accuracy of only 0.001? By your system, we could not know that we had made the machine more accurate, and worse, no accuracy will satisfy you since we assume that decimal points can extent to the right for infinity......
....I think you have an infinity hang up. You demand of me that I show proof of a straight line. You are using infinity (perfect) as your ground for why there can't be a straight line. Yet you could never respond to a demand to produce evidence of infinity. This highlights again that you are playing word games and are not concerned with things real and tangible - are you a rich kid? As I have said a million times now, the key to avoiding confusion is to avoid words without real referents....
...lastly: You use the word "perfect" and have not yet acknowledged that it is a word without a real world referent according to your fantasy based definition. In the real world, "perfect" always has stated or implicit limits or constraints. For instance, "a perfect ten"( a hottie), "perfect straight"(poker), "perfect score" (4.0), "perfect fit"(it makes me look good). "Perfect" does not mean perfect as in the way a god would be perfect....
....Also note that when we imagine a triangle in our minds, we can't actually tell if it is perfect - we can't examine it up close, and even if we try, it would only be our imaginations, under our direction, that showed it to be glass-smooth and straight or bumpy. And yet even if one imagined it glass smooth, still one could not test it with an instrument. Then, the next odd step is that we tell ourselves with words that it is "perfectly triangular"......
....so there are at least three different realms that you overlap to produce your confusion, but there is not way to tell if the realms can or should be overlapped. Realm 1: real world measurment. 2) mental visualizaion which is not real - not testable. 3) words spoken with the head voice to assign attributes to the image.
The above three realms and their odd feeling interelation was what fascinated Kant. I agree it's all very odd, but certainly only the first realm is real......
....however the conundrums posed by arbitrarily mixing the realms do not necessarily present real world conundrums. They may, they may not, there is uncertainty . Thus a straight ray of light is likely possible - it is not ruled out at all. Even if being bent by a gravitational field, an opposite field could be applied to cancel the first (inversion). Such practice is common in engineering. Dolby noise reduction used an inversion trick to get rid of tape hiss.
your right on! that's why i referred to the ambiguous nature of language way way back in the conversation.
As soon as we speak or write about something.... we are essentially removed from the "reality" of it. signifier and the signified..a word is a sound in the mouth. a signifier.. that points to something else,. but the word is not the thing itself..even at the level of a one to one correspondence in its simplest form... we have division... the word is not the thing, obviously, right?
so... because language is ambiguous... the word "perfect".may not refer to anything that is real..there goes math out the window! .... in a strict sense..
. my overriding comment is that anything worth saying.... cannot be communicated. unless its extremely simple and practical like.... hey! your hair is on fire!
this is the best use of language I know... it's what language is for..practical and as the tool that it is... its' a tool for animals like us... to say..HEY!!! TIGER coming!! RUN!!
you don't understand what i'm getting at. of course .... i know.... things can (for all practical purposes) functional.... and "relatively" accurate .... i'm speaking about IDEA vs. REALITY. And how we often mistake the idea for reality. that's all....
i am not the person who invented the idea of perfect triangles, geometry, math..... i'm too dumb for that... lol.
... i just think it's very interesting that the idea is nowhere to be found in nature. it's interesting because i always thought triangles existed. and when i did a bit of research i found lots of evidence to the contrary. equally interesting is that... the idea of a triangle (even if imaginary) is VERY POWERFUL in reality. it's just interesting to me... that's all... :)
lol.. of course the Hindus probably knew all of this long ago....
I never said anything that hadnt been extensively written about... you're in the same boat my friend. of course....
i can tell you are very intelligent... and i enjoy philosophical debates although it's always usually just a dead end... hot air... but it's a fun exercise.
and you are right... i am playing with words!!! but YOU TOO are playing with words. I'll say this again... and could you possibly disagree? the only thing "i" can KNOW FOR SURE WITHOUT DOUBT is THAT "I" EXIST. or that something exists... which means that there is the observer and the observed..that's all anyone can truly know.
It is the only fact..the findings of science HAVE ALWAYS CHANGED... they are in flux.... any scientist knows they are theories! the world was once thought to be flat.
Ziroland: So, now you know I am an engineer - please reveal your area of specialty. I am pretty sure that if you have a degree it is from the Humanities Dept. You make silly statements. Science does not change wildy without direction, the diriection has always been the same, but rate of progress has varied. Karl Popper wrote much on this and called the steady, focused, directional increasing accuracy of science "versimiltude". It was not a scientific theory that the world was flat.....
...and I am surprised that you feel you can know anything without doubt. But actually you can't be sure you exist without external confirmation, and even that is questionable. You could be dreaming, or what you call your consciousness could be the after affects of something so weird that you could not believe it. These are hang ups for you - none of that stuff matters. What matters is what you do - the alterations you make in the supposedly real world.
so the real thing here is.... no system can adequately describe itself. and language... at its very height (practically speaking) = Tiger RUN!!! Once you get away from a one to one correspondence of word to thing...that's where the trouble begins.... the more abstract the language the more danger of imaginary triangles... things that don't exist... and do not refer to anything real,
i dont work in the humanities..... i just love philosophy..and such.... even tho... it often leads nowhere.
fun game. I'm an adjunct professor at a couple of college in the field of digital imaging and technology. :) i also have degrees in classical guitar.
a word about belief. we all have our own and collective belief systems. there's nothing wrong with belief. let me ask you this: do you think i'm wrong and you are right in this debate/argument? i personally believe that we are acting from opposing belief systems... both of which ARE NOT TRUE.... we just believe different things... haha...at least i can laugh at myself.... don't take your logic too seriously.. logic is a game like monopoly. fun to play.... that's why i've been arguing. :)
triangle in snow flakes are not perfect. no straight lines there.... but they LOOK like triangles. lots of things may seem to be straight... but if you put them under an electron microscope you will see that they are not STRAIGHT and therefore.... NOT true triangles :D
notice... i'm not attacking you personally.... i simply disagree... both of our claims our faith based.... and we are both "parroting" other sources to back up our belief... just as scientists do. :D
the description "perfect" triangle does not necessarily refer to anything other than a categorization scheme for the shape called triangle. by defining the "perfect" case we can evaluate real world triangles and thus we have a useful measuring tool. Obviously a triangle does not have to have straight lines - "straight" is only part of the categorization definition. A triangle does exist even if the lines are not straight, and with carbon atom shaping we can now make perfect triangles.
"perfect" is a variable metaphor/qualifier and as it does not have a real world non-human easily tangible referent it is ripe for confusion. Philosophy professors waste the student's time (for purpose of their own rent-seeking) by confusing them with what are for the most part variable metaphor/aualifier words. by exposing how this game is played I hope to dethrone a lot of profs and give students back some of their valuable time, thereby increasing societal productivity.
now you are conceding my initial point! haha. mathematically perfect triangles do not exist in the "real" world. but their approximations are very helpful as tools! this is all i was ever saying. you've never seen (in the strict sense) a triangle... and neither has anyone else... if so, please off proof, concrete documentation. ??
if light curves, nothing in the world can be straight (in the strict sense).
You are wrong about the light issue. Light is only curved, so they say, by gravity. otherwise it travels in a straight line. Astro physics is full of puzzles and often requires contexting. Only a defined context of a straight line between two points can be used to prove something else is curving. I think you are confusing matters of relative measurement with absolute measurment - the context is assumed with absolute measurement.
i asked you about FreeWill? freewill as defined in any philosophical text or dictionary.... even if it's a game...
do you believe you have volition? there are determinists, soft determinists, people who believe in freewill, and people who believe in random events....etc....
Ziroland: I did answer this question but will answer it again. "Free" is not a word that has a real world referant, at best it is a valuation word. As I think you can tell by now, I just reject out of hand words that do not have real referants. Any thought initiated on non-real words can never reach a logical conclusion. So I neither "believe" nor "disbelieve". A determinist is a believer in denial. The determinst argument can easily be popped. Try using that one as a defense in court.
i'm curious, what to you do for a living? philosophy, science, engineering? any engineer would understand the non-existence of straight lines. lol
but seriously... both you and i have written all of these words. but language is ambiguous at best, isnt it?
the word tree is not a tree! in fact the word tree is a generalization that points to a million things. but each tree is completely unique. so as here, even where there is a one to one correspondence between word/thing we are off the mark!
Your motives are very suspect - for instance, you lol too much. It may be that you have a personality disorder - that would be consistent with your obsession with "perfect" and "belief" and other words that do not specify real world referents.
I am an engineer and we actually do work with straight lines and curved ones, and did you know that two parts machined to a tolerance of 0.00005 will slide on each other like ice on a frying pan? But even that will not be straight enough for you.
Language is ambiguous for you, because such fits your biases and motives. But it is not ambiguous for scientists and engineers, and when there is uncertaintly, clarification is asked for and received, and the definitions of all the words used by the group are known and published. Our verbiage is very closely tied to real world referants. And when someone with poor cognitive faculties wants something deciphered or built, they come to us. Changing words does not change reality.
rh001yt, of course i have hang ups.... and i sincerely hope you realize that you do too! :) or are you superhuman? i'm human... we all have hang ups... no argument there. any more put downs?
about the Harvard reference.... we are all parrots! lol.... we live in a system influenced by others... taking ideas that suit our BELIEFS about the world and reconstructing then into our own BELIEF systems. But there is just as much BELIEF in science as there is in Religion, or Philosophy. Philosophy has a BELIEF in LOGIC and REASON. these are beliefs.
You seem to take the high road in your comments, this is at least how it seems? Why the personal attacks?
As with others, you play with words and seem not to understand them, especially the more complex ones. "Belief" is a vague, spongy variable metaphor that has no single real world referant. Most folk use this word to mean different brain states: 1) I know it's true, but I don't want to be pushy about it 2) I'm pretty sure it's true because that's what I learned in school 3) I saw it with my own eyes 4) I proved it in the lab 4) I have a sense about a Creator but can't offer empirical proof.
5) I suspect it to be true, as with circumstancial evidence 6) I know it's true with enough certainty to wager on it. and others. As I have mentioned on this YouTube page, a lot of confusion clears up when words are carefully defined and the group is using the same definition for the word (public as opposed to private definition). So we can us instead of 'belief" the more accurate word for the circumstance, such as hunch, suspicion, I'd bet money on it, and so on.
When word use is accurate, then more and better communication can take place, which can lead to more prosperity. Also we can begin to see that 'religious" "belief" is far different than emirical "belief", and in fact the word "believe" is almost totally inappropriate for an empirically established fact. "Belief" in logic and reason, which are ill-defined terms, is hardly a belief either, rather it is the stuff of which beliefs and observations are made.
What you think of as personal attacks are nothing more than me reminding you of what you are likely already aware, namely, that one's cogntive faculties may not be that impressive. Also, that one's motivations and biases can be buried by the ego in childhood, and thus one can "believe" one's search for truth or something noble is pure and unconditioned. Yet a sense of the masking usually remains. Most people are offended when it is suggested their motives are suspect. All motives are suspect.
Even my motives are suspect, even to me. No one is who they appear to be, not even the philosophy professor. For the most part I do suspect that an over-interest in philosophy is a compensation for a disappointment in childhood. We are all that petty, we would have to be, else we would have to believe that something unconditioned has made us "good", or that "goodness" can happen by chance. But "chance" can't really be defined...... Quest for TRUTH? ....an overly dramatic sham & scam.
However is disbelief in TRUTH or human goodness does not lead to relativism in those with well functioning cognitive faculties, rather we observe that relativism is most popular in humanities departments, primarily in English and philosophy. And those who hold relativisim dear often also share a similar place in social ordering. This suggests a genetic predispostion to relativism that is likely tied to a cognitive shortcoming of some kind.
Thus you may have noticed that those from the Humanities department make far less contribution to the the GDP than those from Science or Applied Science or Business departments. From the Humanities we get little more than decoration and confusion, and some developement in the expertise of lying. Unclear thinking, which can be cleared up to some degree, actually has a negative impact on prosperity. I am cheering the cutbacks in Humanities at California public college and Universities.
my guess is that all "i" can know without doubt, is that "I" exist. At the very least "some thing" is perceiving "some thing". that is all "I" can be sure of 100%!!!! Anything else is just a bunch of words... whether reasoned out with logic or not. There is only one unwavering fact in life... that of existence. if you want proof go slam your head against the wall. in order to feel that pain, something must exist! cheers bud.
nice playing the game of words and logic with you.
There is little liklihood of the post to which I am now replying being very true at all. You have and will live your life almost entirely based on a ranking you perform, using empirical analysis, of empirical claims. You and virtually all people (aside from the very superstitious) live by empiricism and induction. The same has produced the sciences and engineering. All else is fantasy and whimsy. But you lie!! You conceal your motives, and even pretend not to have any, and that you are just!
At least I have partially de-masked you. I have you "lol"ing a lot, as a kind of snort, and now I have you suggesting I slam my head against the wall, and using discardance phrasology like "cheers bud". I have exposed elements of your rat ancestry, which is still in your genes. If only you would tell about your biases and motives and how they lead you to staking it all on a definition of perfect that is unattainable? How is it that you think that validates you as you are?
talk about parroting! Have YOU every directly observed a perfect triangle in the "real World"? I'm guessing the answer is no, so you are basing your assumptions on other peoples assumptions and hypotheses. A triangle is like GOD, but it's purely a matter of belief. Surely they exist as ideas - I cannot say I've ever seen one, nor has anyone else to my knowledge... i could be wrong,
Is there empirical knowledge that does not come from the senses? If so, give me a concrete example. :D
lastly, no system can adequately describe itself.... and since we are in the system we cannot understand the true nature of the system. it's like frogs trying to understand the truth about their world.... they cannot (as an analogy) because they are blinded by the system they are in. such is the case with you and I.... lots of words, logicetc..but it's all hot air... we will never arrive at the "truth" one problem is LANGUAGE itself..
language can never touch reality, never, never...peace.
"freedom of the will" is a set of words without real world referents, thus it is a perennial subject of debate and confusion. The game here is that "free" is not anything that is provable. "Free" is an adjective in which it is always implicit that there is a range of the quality - but never absolute. Also, free has other meanings that are in fact very closely related, such as free=no charge. What would we mean by a "no-charge will?" That suggests no price to pay to do what you want.....
Rorty was largely a big dummy, and only out-dummied by those who fawned over him. His games - his slight of hand - were little different than those played by sly foxes since forever. He should be placed in the category with snake charmers. Puzzles can be interesting but why spend a lot of time on them, especially if they are designed to be unsolvable. The unsolvability of the puzzles does not mean you should adopt a pious mask of claiming not to know anything for sure. Piety=dishonesty.
of course i know i don't own the word "knowledge"... no one owns any word.. the thing is i can define knowledge as i please... and you can define it as you please.. but... that 's the nature of language. by the way this whole thing about perfection in math... was invented by mathematicians. by chance i was speaking with a mathematician today about triangles. in math they are considered perfect.. ideas.. he said that it's understood that they are not found out in the world..his words not mine
Actually some words are owned, such as trademarks. I was re-emphasizing the issue of word definition to point out, again, that speaker and listener can communicate best when the definitions of words are established, else discussions break down into debates over word definition. You want to define knowledge as completely "a posteriori". I would prefer it includes "a priori" as well as "synthetic apriori". But we could simply use those three sub-deninitions.
Math was invented by engineers and accountants to serve Kings and merchants. The entire foundation of math is shoddy, in that it began with whole numbers, which were arbitrary value judgements. No math can prove that a "perfect" triangle does or does not exist, and no known technology can either. Of all the snowflakes that have every fallen, do you really believe not one was "perfect". Likely you don't, but you could never provide a proof.This highlights a previous point that thinking can't...
All knowledge does not come through the sense organs, but anyone can make that declaration and if you have power then you can sway others with such an arbitrary claim, but all of that will only describe your power and the weakness of others and nothing else. The blind can visualize geometric shapes - of course they have to touch them first. This was Kant's very point: that somehow the essences of shapes and their mathmatical relations are already in the brain. The brain/mind can conjure a ....
new idea - some of us would call that new knowledge - and then put it out into the world in some tangible or communicative form, thus basically reversing the flow direction of senses to brain/mind. This act can be seen in mammals other than human, giving support to the idea that brains form structures according to the physical laws - which does not strike me as all that outrageous a claim. The opposite is more outrageous: that brains from wholly independent of physical laws.
i'm guessing, using history as a starting point... that in 4 thousand years.... (if humans are still around)... scientists will LAUGH like crazy at what scientists today believe to be true. I'm guessing future scientists will see us like believers of a flat earth. :) nothing i can prove... just projecting... from what history has consistently shown us.
Ziroland: I will answer all recent comments briefly here: I have not demeaned you, but you feel demeaned - that is a neurochemical reaction based on your aculturation. What you may be "getting" is that a persons posture in philosophy is not really about anything except their own personality. My research suggests the those with depression, manic depression and all the various disorders have a common take on philosophical matters realitive to their condition.....
...For instance, most bipolars are atheist hedonists with a marked lack of mindfulness. Cutting to the chase, even relative levels of neurotransmitters will alter a person's take on philosophical matters. Problem is that as a person goes in a certain philo direction, changes in the brain/mind tend to reinforce and send him/her further in that direction, while all the while one has the illusion of thinking for oneself. Mind controllers know all about this.....
....So my slight sympathy for humanity leads me to try to show people that they have little if any control of their own mind but they have the illusion that they do. This stuff that Rorty and other "philosphers" deal with is baby talk. this baby talk is dangerous and leads to increased taxes for me as it actually creates cognitive impairment in the population as the ideas sift out to the folk and they get stupid - they get "ennui" which is a symptom, not a piety.....
...The philosophy profs are, as I mentioned, snake charmers and rent-seekers. They think they are so smart, but are quite limited. Real genius can be found in the likes of the late Prabakaran Velupillai or the Rajapaksa brothers, who did him in. I would sit at the feet of the Rajapaksa brothers, but the phil profs are only suitable for washing my car. I hope I can continue to encourage people to think clearly and concretely, and to question every thought they have as to why they have it.
if the blind need to touch in order to "visualize" then the knowledge comes through the sense organs... and i'm not sure that this refers to people who were blind from birth or not? the sense organs are necessary for all "knowledge". as far as I can tell anyway... ??
If you want to define "knowledge" that way, fine, but certainly you know that you don't own that word. Kant's point was that all the forms and also the process of induction are already in the brain from birth, and all we do with our senses if collect data which is filed according to the forms and induction. This is why the blind can learn math and so on. So the question becomes, is the "knowledge" the data, or the forms and relations pre established in the brain? .....
....well, we are free to define "knowledge" any way we want. It is interesting that the debates over Kant turn out to be little more than personality profiling expositions. N. Chomsky, they say, proved that all the linguistic forms are in the brain from birth. Note: Chomsky thinks he's really smart, but he's not. He, like Rorty, have made the mistake of brain abuse - thinking too much about puzzles - which problably caused their depression and poor health. Chomsky looks terrible.....
....people who don't commit brain abuse and either are simple minded, or smart but see past the BS, usually look kindly and happy in their old age, even while dying. Buddhist scholars simply laugh at the Western Philosophical traditons - they think it's silly. Non-thought (silence meditation) is a surprising experience few westerners ever have - you can actually not have a thought in your head, and still be alive and alert. I think real philosophizing has to start there......
....Once one experiences non-thought, then all thinking seems very suspicious, and it is easier to see that it is driven mostly not be "you", which would be the "you" that is still alert without thoughts.
So good luck to you. I hope some things I have said will one day contribute to your wisdom and prosperity. Avoid people from the Humanities as they tend to have what I call infected minds. They will usually cause you loss if you get involved with them.
concerning science... my "the world is flat" statement simply meant that scientists know that they dealing with working theories... hypotheses.... until a better one comes round.... and it is the experience of all history that
theories WILL CHANGE and be replaced.. the great thing about science is the METHOD.... it's a great method.. for creating transitory theories about the world
i'm quite surprised to read some of the over childish malicious comments brought up in the differing opinions below. please use logic and not personal insults for you are bringing down Philosophy to mere name calling. lol.
Rorty's skill is simply a kind of sly word gaming. As bias and motive are behind all thought and speech, I wonder what his are? Sometimes homely people become very cynical and relativistic or "interpretive" , and since he is homely I have to consider that. People worldwide do agree (not counting nuts and mentally ill) on a lot of matters, and virtually all agree that "chocolate tastes good" is a true statement. There is much more agreement than disagreement in the world.
Rorty is not saying that people don't like chocolate, what he's saying that the mutual exchange of these beliefs, and the philosophical concept of 'warrant' that arises from it is an ethnocentric concept.
Try to understand people's arguments before disagreeing.
I did understand his argument, which is why I used the chocolate example, since chocolate is universally liked and therefor not ethnocentric. Somethings that a Chenchu of India might try to communicate to me would seem strange to me, but I would still understand. Most human thinking about the world is essentially similar because it is a response to the world. The terrain of India is not that different than California or Guatamala. Street kids in both India and Guatamala sniff glue.
continuation...apparently, aboriginal men in Papua N.G think women are nuts. Virtually all "ethnocentric" claims regarding right/wrong, good/bad are essentially the same, just as two choclate bars from different confectioners are essentially the same, even though they have different markings. Rorty is either untraveled, unread, or just plain dishonest - I suspect the latter. He is hiding something about himself of which he is ashamed. Many people are trolls.
You're still not engaging with the argument, he's not arguing that chocolate is not 'highly liked' or enjoyed by a lot of people. But the way in which you justify the belief 'chocolate tastes good' is dependent upon extrinsic normative values not upon some internal state.
Seriously, ad-hominems like "He is hiding something about himself of which he is ashamed. are pathetic.. But I'm not going to respond to you any more because you're a poo poo brain.
You like rorty, thus you can't like me because I don't like him. Only those that flatter can be liked, by definition. Chocolate is intrinsically good and does not depend on any normative values. Chocolate is good due to various chemical processes that affect the brain's assignment of good. I think we must psychologically deconstruct everyone, including philosophers, because then we often get closer to knowing their motives which they conceal. Everyone is wearing a mask.
...continued... We only wear the mask to conceal and deceive for advantage, or just to survive. All claims to truth do have a neurobiological basis based on the brain's interaciton with the evironment, which included the body carrying the brain. Brains differ, but only slightly. Bodies differ more than brains. But survival on the planet is about the same for all people - there is a range - and is the cause of all perspectives. "Survival" is truth. Variations in truth do not refute truth.
May I point out that I have driven you to the point of making ad hominem attacks on me, though I have not made such on you. I have triggered you. You are triggerable. What has provoked you to loose your cool? I suggest you are not too mature and don't really take matters seriously, and can't imagine a universe in which your thoughts are not at the center. I sense you are not very well read, and have motives for your beliefs for which the beliefs serve as flattery. Perhaps in time you will see
I don't mean to be disagreeable, but that's a lot of word play. In physics, "truth" is defined via experimentation to discover the behavior of , for instance, atoms and molecules, and then the proof that a claim is true is based upon the predictive value of the claim. In physics there are virtually no exceptions (not talking about quantum physics). "truth" has to be defined in order to use the word. It is word play to suggest that it is always out of reach - a refusal to define it.
It is not word play, it is recasting of the paradox of meno, and simply defining truth empirically does not give us an answer as it simply presupposes the truth of empiricism.
No, you are engaged in word play, which for some is a sport, but for others it is a symptom of something..... "Truth" is a word like "love" that lends itself to vagueness, and so serious persons have to first agree on a localized defination in order to move forwards with a serious discuss that has an actual benefical outcome as its goal. Serious persons don't play with words as they don't find it amusing, and they are free of issues that would have word play as a symptom.
"Science" is also a somewhat vague word, "physics" is better. There is not such thing as "truth with a capital T". The search for such is like the search for the Fountain of Youth. Such a search will lead one all over the place, and you will listen to any huckster that can convince you he knows where the fountain is. See Ponce de Leon. Time spent in such discussions is time wasted, and will be a cause of great regret on your death bed, as it was for Rorty.
I don't think it is accurate to call rorty a pragmatist, since he did not maintain his health and vigor. He was in fact a dissimulator. And for one who poo-pooed the "examined life" he certainly was a bookish grandma who spent too much time reading and lost in thought. Which brings me to an important point: Virtually all those who reject simple empiricism or an honest idealism, with steam shooting from their nostrils and ears, are in fact reacting to something they don't like about ...
..themselves. As a child ages, he/she comes to know where they have been slotted into the socio-political hierarchy. Some are slotted into undesirable niches, and some of those draw upon "theory" to try to change or deny the age old meanings of words, thinking that they can then ascend in rank if the words that describe what is undesirable about them are upended. That's all an illusion of the ego. A toad is a toad is a toad, even if it is called a prince. Also, as most of the people...
..who have ever lived have been assiduous and somewhat anhedonic, those who are lazy and/or hedonic are often demonized by majority, and no one likes to be demonized. Some try to use "theory" to upend the hedonic/anhedonic word spectrum, hoping that they can escape demonization. This does work to some degree when the economy is robust enough to allow for a lot of foam on the beer. Unfortunately, a lot of health problems, pain and loss often beset the hedonist. Normals win on average over time.
In the final analysis, Rorty's perspectives are something he should have only shared with his therapist, since it tells about him, but nothing about "the world". Of course as there are only about 16 personality types, many will identify with Rorty. But still, the individual tells about him/herself when speaking. So, for instance, most of the depressed/bipolar in the West are relativists. The individual's mental state / world view can be constructed from their statements.
But note that when depressed/bipolar persons recover, they often move away from relativism (see AA or NA ). Mindfullness then requires us to accept that our world view is conditioned by our brain chemistry, which can be conditioned by our world view - the matter is slef sustaining, but in the depressed direction there is positive feedback to make the matter worse, while in the happy direction negative feedback brings correction but also requires constant additional effort.
Unfortunately for the analytic philosphers and others, new info generated (more or less empiricaly) over the past 50 years has to be figured into the pie. Data suggests that world view is conditioned by brain chemistry profile. For instance, the vast majority of those diagnosed with a mental illness register and vote the Democratic ticket. (study easy to find on internet) . Strong, effective and independant personalities are usually Republican or Libertarian. This holds true in other ....
...cultures, for instance India (what culture could be more different than the West?) (Ther political parties do not map one to one to ours, but the math can be worked out (CPI & CPM = LEFT, Congress=CENTER, BJP=RIGHT)). So in fact it may be the philosophizing is a personality trait or perhaps a symptom of a personality disorder.
"Perspective" is the problem. Empiricism is not a perspective, it is a tool for doing things. Empiricism is a universal language. I can show a simple...
...empirical experiment to a tribal in Orissa and he will be able to confirm with his own senses that the claim I made at the outset is true. Empiricism requires honesty, while perspective does not. Empiricism does "tell about the world", perspective does not. It is simply a word game to say that empiricism does not tell us anything about reality. The game hinges on holding hostage some kind of rarified, perfect reality that could be so different from what our senses and empiricism+math ...
..reveal that we simply have to accept that we could be way off the mark. Then of course the next step follows, that we have constructed it all from faulty data. Now, abandond the game on the word reality and then the "constructed it all" goes away. Reality is just that which we discover with empiricism and the supporting math. Then we can ask about the psychological reasons why one would want there to be some other reality. Of course studies of the ego show us why.
Regarding "what we know we have constructed and therefore it can be reconstructed" . The second half of the sentence does not axiomaticly follow from the first - yet another word game. Concrete can be molded any way at all, but once set, that's it. You can pulverize it and add water, but it is no longer concrete and will not set. That we have "constructed" what we "know" simply describes the piece meal process of knowledge history, which began well before we were apes. ....
the forces of nature that affect atoms and molecules also affect cells and minds and millions of years of evolution have shaped the mind to be a record of those forces, which is all the "a priori" stuff that lets us comprehend physics and math. Humans have no ultrasonic sensors, bu tthe math suggested there would be ultrasound and we figured out how to detect it if it was there and sure enough it was. We have been rather accurately shaped by the laws of physics! (you would expect other?)
Empiricists don't believe in a priori stuff like that.
Also, your point about ultrasound doesn't mean much as a defense of scientism against post-analytic philosophy.
Those laws are useful, but they can't be said to be certain. It could be that the next time I drop a ball it falls up to the sky. We just can't know otherwise because all we have is induction.
Also, there may be infinitely other physical laws we don't care to look at at all. Those laws could just as well account for...
We're on a small patch of a larger painting. If all we can see is green and yellow, that doesn't mean that all there is is green and yellow.
Also, "Reality is just that which we discover with empiricism and the supporting math" How do you know that? How does a mathematic understanding of the world trump all others? You lack understanding of the other side. We don't deny math is useful, it's just not our God. It doesn't define reality. Everyone since pythagoras agrees.
You continue to project standard philosophical stereotypes on me. Math is not my god, it is only a means to an end, the end being more power for me and those I hold close. We are on a small patch, but since our minds were shaped by evolutionary processes it is fortunate and amazing that we can figure out so much about the operation of the physical world, including the body and brain. You do want a brain tumor skillfully removed if you get one, don't you?
interesting..yes, science can describe what "water" is. it knows that it boils at such and such a temp. and freezes. and hydrogen Oxygen...etc..but no scientist on the history of the planet could tell you WHAT water is.
Scientists know how to use things.... they do not know WHAT they are. Science cannot penetrate the "essence" of matter. the more they pursue it the further it recedes. the question what is water... is like asking what is existence.. we cannot know!! we are tool makers at best!
Ziroland - you have a lot of hang ups. I suspect you will become depressed if you are not already. If you are depressed ( alot of those in philosophy/humanities are) then I suggest silence meditation, like that in Shambala Warrior. Water is a combination of 2 atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen. There is no other question to be answered, and no answer would satisfy you. There likely are no essences, rather what we call essences are the rules for inclusion in a category.
I have not defended scientism - you are projecting on me. The discovery of ultra-sound and the entire electromagnetic spectrum beyond light proved the incredible predictive nature of empirical investigation. The "truth" of the coincidence of the math and the directly observable electromagnetic was born out as a truth and not a mere measurement. We do care to look at all physical laws - all that we can find have been found, the remaining mysteries seem to be in quantum physics. ...
..and youi don't really beleive that a dropped ball will ever fall up to the sky. Why do you say such things...that is the real mystery here. I don't mean to pry, but your perspectives suggest issues with your father.
I think it does follow. If you accept that truth and knowledge can be constructed (which is a controversial claim in most anglophone philosophical schools) I believe that reconstruction would necessarily follow.
The word play never ends with you, even after I have pointed it out to the world. The only "truths" are those of empiricism when backed up by math. All else is guessing or customs. Customs could be looked at as constructed, but then so could the shape of a tree. Hidden behind your perspectival mask is the assertion that bad or misinformed people cunningly constructed a social reality that is far worse than it could be. Where is your proof? I say the real issue is your dislike of self.
And what motive would you assing those cunning mis-constructors? And how would you explain the evolution of those perspectives? Where in the chain do you assign blame? Because you must assign blame at some point in order to highlight the point of departure where things began, according to you, to become mis-constructed. Or was it misconstructed from the beginning, from the appearance of the first life form? Or before that? And by what yardstick will you prove the point of departure?
bahramf - you write as if you recently came to earth from another planet. Many different forms of social reality have been experimented with and all have failed (disappeared or bogged down in intransient poverty) except 2: capitalism/free markets and tribal village existence where there are bountiful huntables and gatherables. Anyway, isn't it interesting that the social reality you dream of requires the imposition of human wills upon other wills? How is that right or new or different?
These truths backed by math don't exist in any sense aside from conceptually. You're saying that killing babies is wrong is not a truth just as much as 1+1=2 is?
"when backed up by math"... hmmm? have you ever read anything about the philosophy of Math or Science. It is terribly problematic. There's only one thing we can "know" without doubt. "Something" is perceiving "something". haha. that's it. Everything else is up for grabs.
Truth in physics, of course, is a matter of social consensus-- how do we know we have reached scientific truth about physics? When enough physicists in a position of institutional authority say that there is. This is the very definition of truth through social consensus, and it supports Rorty, not undermines him.
Truth in physics is not a matter of social consensus - such assertions are word play by those who lack the cognitive structures to understand physics, or those who have hidden agendas and biases which cause a sort of pleasurable feeling when making such assertions. A physicist can make a discovery in his private lab, by way of Baconian methods, and then act on that discovery to make a product and gain from that product without ever publishing the discovery. That's known as a trade secret.
...continued/ the recipe for Coca Cola, for instance, is a trade secret. Also, for instance, the recipe for Oil of Olay. Certainly Rorty agreed with many of my perspectives, such as the uselessness of Logical Positivism, and the non-existence of Truth with a capital T. I think it important to address the way that situations like a sour neurotransmitter profile can actually direct thoughts in a certain way, and Rorty certainly had a sour n. profile. The man never Lived with a capital L.
That physicist, once he makes his discovery-- does it magically leap into textbooks? Will other scientists merely take his word for it that he has made this discovery? When does his discovery become known as scientific truth?
Scientists know they have achieved truth when the community of their peers confirms it. That is the definition of social consensus. If it didn't come from consensus, no one would ever have to publish to a journal, etc. There could be no disagreements about science.
Freddie - clearly you're not a scientist. "peer review" is not for the sake of consensus, but is part of the Baconian process the intention of which is to weed out error due to unclean or wrong processes or psychological factors. A machine could perform the peer review, and that is largely how it is done today. A discovery is scientific proof when it produces the the predicted result. You are hung up on word play, likely for psychological reasons or due to weak brain structures.
...if you are like most people you may interpret "psychological reasons or weak brain structures" to be an insult, as insults are common on You Tube. But I do not mean that in that way, rather, I am reminding you and others that the brain is an organ and it is better developed in some than others, as is the kidney, and many simply can't understand the physical world as well as others. Then the is the matter of vanity and flattery, & similar trash that the brain produces that aids poor thinking.
And yet you can't dispute my fundamental point-- that what the scientific community takes as the truth is a matter of consensus, of the scientific community agreeing. Someone discovering something doesn't immediately change everyone's minds. What changes their minds is social agreement.
If getting to scientific truth meant just using some flawless process, there would be no disagreements between scientists. And that is clearly not the case. You just aren't thinking deeply enough.
Nonsense - Your game is this: first, you arbitrarily (thus without foundation) define "scientific truth" in a way convenient for your "argument", and then you pretend to argue towards that definition, but the whole game was a setup (con job) in advance. It may be that you can't understand that due to various cognitive setups in your mind/brain. I am suggesting that you may actually lack some brain structures that I have. Certainly we run at different speeds.
If you were a scientist instead of one of the impoverished ones from the Humanities department, you would know that consensus never establishes the truth of physics, rather, consensus is consensus. Using words correctly and accurately, as we do, eliminates a lot of confusion. If you were a historian of science, instead of an English major, then you would know that consensus has lead to all batteries being marked backwards - the + is actually the -. And consensus has maintained this falsehood.
Emprically proven truths by way of Baconian method et al are the most certain truths currently known, and prove themselves so by being reliable with regards future predictions. All of engineering relies on these kinds of truths. Truths about Ganesh can't be relied upon for, for instance, aircraft design. Hume is past. When scientific method is followed, the third confirmation is usually enough to bet money on. You are not a serious person. You are likely an English or Philosophy major.
Just because you can bet money on it doesn't mean it is certain. Certain truths have never been arrived at and we would not know what they would be like if we found them for that very reason.
Something can happen again and again, but you can never be certainly sure the future will resemble the past.
That's Hume's problem of induction. If you were a philosophy student you'd know that, but no, you're a science student or math student, so you talk out of your ass.
I like Rorty and love his writing, his brilliance as a writer and communicator of profound philosophical ideas, but I don't know about his view of truth..
S2Cents 2 months ago
I love everything about Rorty. Especially the way he stifles his smiles.
BenNCM 7 months ago
I thought only we brazilians had this horrible habit: to coment before to read something about the issue comented. There are idiots in every place.
1vitorlima 9 months ago
You americans, are awsome! Greate comedians! Rorty an idiot...? That's the best I've ever heard. Go to read more books, you "acéfalos".
1vitorlima 9 months ago
The thruth is: Rorty is an idiot.
MMDC2001 1 year ago
@MMDC2001 can you prove this with absolute certainty?
wildhias 11 months ago
@MMDC2001 If Rorty was an idiot, then you and I my friend, and the other 5.999999999999999 billion people out there are complete f**kin retards.
DBIceWolf 10 months ago
Is he telling the truth when he says there is nothing to be said about truth?
And when he says there's nothing to be said about truth isn't he saying something about it?
How he can be sure if what he is saying is right if he cannot ascertain whether or not he is telling the truth?
MMDC2001 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MMDC2001 How can you tell what you claim to be true is true?
randyhelzerman 1 year ago
@MMDC2001
What you've said doesn't negate what Rorty says, this is more a problem of our language then anything else. The things you've pointed out arise because of the way we have created the concept of truth. I believe what he meant is not that we shouldn't hold anything as true, but just to realize that our truths are as he put it "justified beliefs".
kenseavert 1 year ago
@kenseavert
"What you've said doesn't negate what Rorty says, this is more a problem of our language then anything else."
How can you ascertain that? It also applies to your reasoning. Are you telling the thruth or not?
And if Rorty is only changing the name "thruth" for "justified beliefs" what is the big deal? It would be strange if thruth was an unjustified belief. So I prefer the old, traditional and much more economic word: thruth.
MMDC2001 1 year ago
@MMDC2001 Well i guess i would say that most people do not think of what they call truth as a justified belief, they "know" it as "the way things actually are" . So the difference is more than the words, IMO truth is a created concept or framework that you can impose on anything if you so choose, like mathematics. Don't misunderstand me though, for I know little of the philosophy of Rorty and so would not defend it and even less of yours to attack you.
kenseavert 1 year ago
@kenseavert
Well, I'm not a philosopher and I don't have "a" philosophy. But the truth is: I DO NOT PRETEND to be a philosopher as Rorty does.
MMDC2001 1 year ago
@MMDC2001 You're right. You pretend that you're not a moron, and fail miserably in the process.
BenNCM 7 months ago
@BenNCM
I'm in tears.
MMDC2001 7 months ago
marleyman14: I don't think he said that he denies reality, only that he denies Truth (with a capital 'T'). He likened Truth to God, where it is nearly impossible for us to know whether it exists, and if it does, what is it like. It seems to me -- and I'm not completely sure about this -- that Rorty is not concerned with Truth because of our epistemic limitations. Anyone know for sure whether this is in fact Rorty's stance?
pmzavala 1 year ago
This guy is an idiot, he denies reality!! This anti realist cannot talk about anything because anything refers to and independent reality. Do not listen to this stupid anti-realist.
marleyman14 1 year ago
"Marleyman14" thinks Richard Rorty is an idiot, everyone. Pay attention.
0dxpx 1 year ago 2
@0dxpx Thankyou so much for attention, I just want to say how your little understanding of philosophy may actually be useful to monkeys, perhaps you can think about this?
marleyman14 1 year ago
@marleyman14 That's why I'm talking to you.
0dxpx 1 year ago
Comment removed
0dxpx 1 year ago
I like Rorty because of his style. He wrote wonderful essays that anybody with an interest could follow and which gave one a great sense of the historical development of philosophy and western intellectual life up to present and Rorty's own radical "take" on it.
But I still don't "buy" his dismissal of epistemology and his absurd disregard for truth. And truth must somehow "correspond" to the world.
S2Cents 1 year ago
all knowledge comes through the sense organs. Concerning math. A few years ago I attended a lecture on the Philosophy of Math at Harvard. I was surprised to learn that a triangle is merely an idea. A triangle is like "God", you'll never find one in the actual world. Science tells us that there's is no such thing as a perfectly straight object (or line). Hence, we have man-made crude approximations of triangles which are common place. But they ARE NOT TRIANGLES.
funny world eh?!! cheers1
ZIROLAND 2 years ago
Harvard is the last place I would go to learn something. And we must consider that philosophers may have a cognitive disorder leading to a personality disorder (the "offness" of most philosophers) which causes them to obsess over what are puzzles for them but not others. "Science" has never proven there is no such thing as a straight line - figure this out for yourself and stop parroting others wrong claims.
rh001YT 2 years ago
Niether is it the goal of science to prove that matter, unless such has a practical, financially beneficial result. Triangles can be seen in snow flakes and many crystals. The triangle is interesting because it is the enlosure with the fewest sides. Neither a line nor two lines joined can create an enclosure, except in the case of the circle, which is undefinable with any math, thus pi is a transcendental (magic) number. Despite oddities, the math does work because it accurately describes...
rh001YT 2 years ago
...something about the physical forces that act on matter. Imperfections in naturally found crystals do not refute the math, rather the imperfections are explained by the math describing other, distorting forces acting at the time the crystal formed. Under controlled lab conditions crystals can be created with extreme accuracy. Of course accuracy will always have to be defined by some standard, but that does not make math "human", rather it suggests that we are clumsy primates.
rh001YT 2 years ago
the "oddities" or imperfections offer some evidence of my whole point. give me ONE example of a triangle in the world we live in... just one. you cannot... can you? space is curved... light itself bends.... nothing is straight...
and I'm speaking of the classical idea of straight (meaning... perfectly straight... no wiggles... haha)
peace man
ZIROLAND 2 years ago
you were unable to give me ONE example. that pretty much says it all. :) i mean, one sufficient example.
so perhaps i was right.... triangles (
ZIROLAND 2 years ago
another point is that however sophisticated your microscope is.... IT MUST BE INTERPRETED BY YOUR SENSES>.... you can have the most amazing microscope in the world... but in the end.... you are limited by you eyes..... your senses can be easily fooled.... so..????
ZIROLAND 2 years ago
concerning freewill. so do you think you are responsible for you actions. do you choose between options? i'm just curious to know what you yourself believe about your own actions. are you an active agent with volition... a gear in a machine... or ?????? what do you believe is true about your own actions??
ZIROLAND 2 years ago
Ziroland: you really don't like my aswers to this question. Look at the worlld "repsonsible". It actually means "able to take and carry out commands". My car is responsible. Yes, I am an active agent with volition, but so is a protozoa. All human "actions" are directed at obtaining food and water, comfort and security. If there is anything beyond that it is not provable - one can only guess. (ps: I like meditation but reject Karma and the Hindu fabrications)
rh001YT 2 years ago
If it is true that science has never proven the non-existence or existence of triangles.. then..belief in such things in the "real world" is simply a belief. A true triangle in the classical sense has no defects... it is perfect. it is an idea, a very useful idea, a great idea, but to my experience just an idea.
I've never seen one. No scienctist, philosopher, or person that I've ever read about or known has ever seen a perfect triangle..why? because the material is imperfect.
ZIROLAND 2 years ago
it may be that like so many in the humanities, your vanities interfere with simple clear thinking. I suggest you research "Bucky tubes", "carbon tubes" and you will see that some "perfect shapes" have been acheived. I have seen the photo of 14 carbon atoms stacked in a perfect pyramind - thus a "perfect" triangle on one side. Of course various (silly and non-serious) objections can be raised, like "how can the accuracy of the photo be validated", or .....
rh001YT 2 years ago
..."atoms are not infinitely small points. Only infinitely small points and infinitely thin lines can form "perfect" shapes." What about lasers forming a triangle shape? Is that accurate enough for you? But one can always demand greater precision. Non-engineers and non-scientists don't fully appreciate the practical matters, which we strive to overcome, and have in some cases. Yet there may always be a crank who claims to be unsatisfied. Let the crank sadly sit in the corner while we party.
rh001YT 2 years ago
Ziroland: like bahramf, you suffer from like of word play, with a special taste for certain vague words like "belief" and "perfect" that do not have real world referents or none that are easily tangible. Drop the word play and things clear up. All "beliefs" are not equally "beliefs" - in claiming they are you are playing the game of overlooking matters of scale. But in reality you would not accept 2 donuts when you had paid for a dozen, so scale really does matter to you, so why pretend ?
rh001YT 2 years ago
your argument is irrelevant. i am and have been speaking about TRIANGLES. :D stick to the topic.
the fact that you saw one in a picture is the poorest example or proof I can think of. lol. Once again, triangles exist as vague ideas in reality... they are approximations... you are even conceding the fact that they are not perfect. As an idea they are perfect. in reality not perfect. very simple. :)
ZIROLAND 2 years ago
As I do trust some scientific sources, I do accept that perfect triangels have been created in carbon nano structures. Again, how perfect does perfect have to be? If no one can invent a device for detecting irregularities in the carbon nano structure triangles, would that satisfy you? Or are you saying that even when something is apparently perfect, you will still demand that it is not? Why? What is the real motive behind that? How do you know your idea of a triangle is perfect?
rh001YT 2 years ago
this idea of perfection in mathematics/geometry is NOT MY INVENTION. look it up. I was just trying to make a point. of course, lines can be relatively straight.... but not really straight. this is obvious. and as an engineer you should know this.
ZIROLAND 2 years ago
lasers? light BENDS! lol.... one of the results of Mr. Einstien's findings. can't we have a discussion an argument (in the best sense of that word) without PUT DOWNS. lol... this is not the sign of true inquiry.
are you angry at me? i have no anger toward you.... i simply disagree with you..... :)
the problem of language aside, a triangle in the strictest sense DOES NOT exist, in my opinion. No one has ever proven that one does exist. An approximation of a triangle... IS NOT A TRIANGLE i
ZIROLAND 2 years ago
first of all, light does not always bend - that has not been proven. In fact the theory is that in the absence of gravity light will not bend. Again, you play word games apparently without realizing it. You have established a demand on the word "perfect" that can't be satisfied, since you will never accept the accuracy spec of any instruments. And why don't you look into Bucky balls and other carbon nano structures instead of stoking your ego. How perfect does perfect have to be?
rh001YT 2 years ago
can you give me a REAL EXAMPLE of when light does not bend? a real world example? I am speaking of perfect as in the geometric classical sense!!!! this is not my invention... do some research! i realize that there are straight lines that approximate straightness... even to a high degree... but its all relative.... being very very close to being and orange might be practical, functional, but still NOT AN ORANGE :D
ZIROLAND 2 years ago
Ziroland: your basic game strategy is to focus on some of the oddities of physics and math when expressed in language, and then ask another to prove something which can't be proved according to the impossible, fantasy based definitions you apply to some of the words. Your game is a set up and likely you find it clever but I assure you some ancient Hindu was playing this game with glee 5000 years ago. .....
rh001YT 2 years ago
...to establish curvature requires at least three measurement points, and then if the three points form a triangle, then the line is a curve. These would be real world measurments with instruments. Now, note that you have already rejected any instrument as being sufficient to establish anything. But if an instrument established a curvature, would you accept the readings of the same instrument in a case where it did not? Or in the latter case would you blame the instrument's shortcomings?....
rh001YT 2 years ago
...By the way, according to your hopelessly skeptical system, how do you explain the advance in instrument accuracy? What instrument is used to make a milling machine more accurate by 0.0005" , assuming the milling machine that made the instrument had an accuracy of only 0.001? By your system, we could not know that we had made the machine more accurate, and worse, no accuracy will satisfy you since we assume that decimal points can extent to the right for infinity......
rh001YT 2 years ago
....I think you have an infinity hang up. You demand of me that I show proof of a straight line. You are using infinity (perfect) as your ground for why there can't be a straight line. Yet you could never respond to a demand to produce evidence of infinity. This highlights again that you are playing word games and are not concerned with things real and tangible - are you a rich kid? As I have said a million times now, the key to avoiding confusion is to avoid words without real referents....
rh001YT 2 years ago
...lastly: You use the word "perfect" and have not yet acknowledged that it is a word without a real world referent according to your fantasy based definition. In the real world, "perfect" always has stated or implicit limits or constraints. For instance, "a perfect ten"( a hottie), "perfect straight"(poker), "perfect score" (4.0), "perfect fit"(it makes me look good). "Perfect" does not mean perfect as in the way a god would be perfect....
rh001YT 2 years ago
....Also note that when we imagine a triangle in our minds, we can't actually tell if it is perfect - we can't examine it up close, and even if we try, it would only be our imaginations, under our direction, that showed it to be glass-smooth and straight or bumpy. And yet even if one imagined it glass smooth, still one could not test it with an instrument. Then, the next odd step is that we tell ourselves with words that it is "perfectly triangular"......
rh001YT 2 years ago
....so there are at least three different realms that you overlap to produce your confusion, but there is not way to tell if the realms can or should be overlapped. Realm 1: real world measurment. 2) mental visualizaion which is not real - not testable. 3) words spoken with the head voice to assign attributes to the image.
The above three realms and their odd feeling interelation was what fascinated Kant. I agree it's all very odd, but certainly only the first realm is real......
rh001YT 2 years ago
....however the conundrums posed by arbitrarily mixing the realms do not necessarily present real world conundrums. They may, they may not, there is uncertainty . Thus a straight ray of light is likely possible - it is not ruled out at all. Even if being bent by a gravitational field, an opposite field could be applied to cancel the first (inversion). Such practice is common in engineering. Dolby noise reduction used an inversion trick to get rid of tape hiss.
rh001YT 2 years ago
your right on! that's why i referred to the ambiguous nature of language way way back in the conversation.
As soon as we speak or write about something.... we are essentially removed from the "reality" of it. signifier and the signified..a word is a sound in the mouth. a signifier.. that points to something else,. but the word is not the thing itself..even at the level of a one to one correspondence in its simplest form... we have division... the word is not the thing, obviously, right?
ZIROLAND 2 years ago
so... because language is ambiguous... the word "perfect".may not refer to anything that is real..there goes math out the window! .... in a strict sense..
. my overriding comment is that anything worth saying.... cannot be communicated. unless its extremely simple and practical like.... hey! your hair is on fire!
this is the best use of language I know... it's what language is for..practical and as the tool that it is... its' a tool for animals like us... to say..HEY!!! TIGER coming!! RUN!!
ZIROLAND 2 years ago
infinity is a mathematical term.... not a real world term.
i did not invent the concept of infinity... although i used the idea in calculus. calculus... i loved that class! real world... NOPE.
ZIROLAND 2 years ago
you don't understand what i'm getting at. of course .... i know.... things can (for all practical purposes) functional.... and "relatively" accurate .... i'm speaking about IDEA vs. REALITY. And how we often mistake the idea for reality. that's all....
ZIROLAND 2 years ago
i am not the person who invented the idea of perfect triangles, geometry, math..... i'm too dumb for that... lol.
... i just think it's very interesting that the idea is nowhere to be found in nature. it's interesting because i always thought triangles existed. and when i did a bit of research i found lots of evidence to the contrary. equally interesting is that... the idea of a triangle (even if imaginary) is VERY POWERFUL in reality. it's just interesting to me... that's all... :)
ZIROLAND 2 years ago
lol.. of course the Hindus probably knew all of this long ago....
I never said anything that hadnt been extensively written about... you're in the same boat my friend. of course....
i can tell you are very intelligent... and i enjoy philosophical debates although it's always usually just a dead end... hot air... but it's a fun exercise.
ZIROLAND 2 years ago
and you are right... i am playing with words!!! but YOU TOO are playing with words. I'll say this again... and could you possibly disagree? the only thing "i" can KNOW FOR SURE WITHOUT DOUBT is THAT "I" EXIST. or that something exists... which means that there is the observer and the observed..that's all anyone can truly know.
It is the only fact..the findings of science HAVE ALWAYS CHANGED... they are in flux.... any scientist knows they are theories! the world was once thought to be flat.
ZIROLAND 2 years ago
Ziroland: So, now you know I am an engineer - please reveal your area of specialty. I am pretty sure that if you have a degree it is from the Humanities Dept. You make silly statements. Science does not change wildy without direction, the diriection has always been the same, but rate of progress has varied. Karl Popper wrote much on this and called the steady, focused, directional increasing accuracy of science "versimiltude". It was not a scientific theory that the world was flat.....
rh001YT 2 years ago
...and I am surprised that you feel you can know anything without doubt. But actually you can't be sure you exist without external confirmation, and even that is questionable. You could be dreaming, or what you call your consciousness could be the after affects of something so weird that you could not believe it. These are hang ups for you - none of that stuff matters. What matters is what you do - the alterations you make in the supposedly real world.
rh001YT 2 years ago
so the real thing here is.... no system can adequately describe itself. and language... at its very height (practically speaking) = Tiger RUN!!! Once you get away from a one to one correspondence of word to thing...that's where the trouble begins.... the more abstract the language the more danger of imaginary triangles... things that don't exist... and do not refer to anything real,
ZIROLAND 2 years ago
i dont work in the humanities..... i just love philosophy..and such.... even tho... it often leads nowhere.
fun game. I'm an adjunct professor at a couple of college in the field of digital imaging and technology. :) i also have degrees in classical guitar.
ZIROLAND 2 years ago
a word about belief. we all have our own and collective belief systems. there's nothing wrong with belief. let me ask you this: do you think i'm wrong and you are right in this debate/argument? i personally believe that we are acting from opposing belief systems... both of which ARE NOT TRUE.... we just believe different things... haha...at least i can laugh at myself.... don't take your logic too seriously.. logic is a game like monopoly. fun to play.... that's why i've been arguing. :)
ZIROLAND 2 years ago
triangle in snow flakes are not perfect. no straight lines there.... but they LOOK like triangles. lots of things may seem to be straight... but if you put them under an electron microscope you will see that they are not STRAIGHT and therefore.... NOT true triangles :D
notice... i'm not attacking you personally.... i simply disagree... both of our claims our faith based.... and we are both "parroting" other sources to back up our belief... just as scientists do. :D
ZIROLAND 2 years ago
the description "perfect" triangle does not necessarily refer to anything other than a categorization scheme for the shape called triangle. by defining the "perfect" case we can evaluate real world triangles and thus we have a useful measuring tool. Obviously a triangle does not have to have straight lines - "straight" is only part of the categorization definition. A triangle does exist even if the lines are not straight, and with carbon atom shaping we can now make perfect triangles.
rh001YT 2 years ago
"perfect" is a variable metaphor/qualifier and as it does not have a real world non-human easily tangible referent it is ripe for confusion. Philosophy professors waste the student's time (for purpose of their own rent-seeking) by confusing them with what are for the most part variable metaphor/aualifier words. by exposing how this game is played I hope to dethrone a lot of profs and give students back some of their valuable time, thereby increasing societal productivity.
rh001YT 2 years ago
now you are conceding my initial point! haha. mathematically perfect triangles do not exist in the "real" world. but their approximations are very helpful as tools! this is all i was ever saying. you've never seen (in the strict sense) a triangle... and neither has anyone else... if so, please off proof, concrete documentation. ??
if light curves, nothing in the world can be straight (in the strict sense).
ZIROLAND 2 years ago
Proof: see carbon nano structures.
You are wrong about the light issue. Light is only curved, so they say, by gravity. otherwise it travels in a straight line. Astro physics is full of puzzles and often requires contexting. Only a defined context of a straight line between two points can be used to prove something else is curving. I think you are confusing matters of relative measurement with absolute measurment - the context is assumed with absolute measurement.
rh001YT 2 years ago
i asked you about FreeWill? freewill as defined in any philosophical text or dictionary.... even if it's a game...
do you believe you have volition? there are determinists, soft determinists, people who believe in freewill, and people who believe in random events....etc....
just curious.... what do you believe?
the topic has fascinated me since childhood.
ZIROLAND 2 years ago
Ziroland: I did answer this question but will answer it again. "Free" is not a word that has a real world referant, at best it is a valuation word. As I think you can tell by now, I just reject out of hand words that do not have real referants. Any thought initiated on non-real words can never reach a logical conclusion. So I neither "believe" nor "disbelieve". A determinist is a believer in denial. The determinst argument can easily be popped. Try using that one as a defense in court.
rh001YT 2 years ago
i'm curious, what to you do for a living? philosophy, science, engineering? any engineer would understand the non-existence of straight lines. lol
but seriously... both you and i have written all of these words. but language is ambiguous at best, isnt it?
the word tree is not a tree! in fact the word tree is a generalization that points to a million things. but each tree is completely unique. so as here, even where there is a one to one correspondence between word/thing we are off the mark!
ZIROLAND 2 years ago
Your motives are very suspect - for instance, you lol too much. It may be that you have a personality disorder - that would be consistent with your obsession with "perfect" and "belief" and other words that do not specify real world referents.
I am an engineer and we actually do work with straight lines and curved ones, and did you know that two parts machined to a tolerance of 0.00005 will slide on each other like ice on a frying pan? But even that will not be straight enough for you.
rh001YT 2 years ago
Language is ambiguous for you, because such fits your biases and motives. But it is not ambiguous for scientists and engineers, and when there is uncertaintly, clarification is asked for and received, and the definitions of all the words used by the group are known and published. Our verbiage is very closely tied to real world referants. And when someone with poor cognitive faculties wants something deciphered or built, they come to us. Changing words does not change reality.
rh001YT 2 years ago
rh001yt, of course i have hang ups.... and i sincerely hope you realize that you do too! :) or are you superhuman? i'm human... we all have hang ups... no argument there. any more put downs?
ZIROLAND 2 years ago
about the Harvard reference.... we are all parrots! lol.... we live in a system influenced by others... taking ideas that suit our BELIEFS about the world and reconstructing then into our own BELIEF systems. But there is just as much BELIEF in science as there is in Religion, or Philosophy. Philosophy has a BELIEF in LOGIC and REASON. these are beliefs.
You seem to take the high road in your comments, this is at least how it seems? Why the personal attacks?
ZIROLAND 2 years ago
As with others, you play with words and seem not to understand them, especially the more complex ones. "Belief" is a vague, spongy variable metaphor that has no single real world referant. Most folk use this word to mean different brain states: 1) I know it's true, but I don't want to be pushy about it 2) I'm pretty sure it's true because that's what I learned in school 3) I saw it with my own eyes 4) I proved it in the lab 4) I have a sense about a Creator but can't offer empirical proof.
rh001YT 2 years ago
5) I suspect it to be true, as with circumstancial evidence 6) I know it's true with enough certainty to wager on it. and others. As I have mentioned on this YouTube page, a lot of confusion clears up when words are carefully defined and the group is using the same definition for the word (public as opposed to private definition). So we can us instead of 'belief" the more accurate word for the circumstance, such as hunch, suspicion, I'd bet money on it, and so on.
rh001YT 2 years ago
When word use is accurate, then more and better communication can take place, which can lead to more prosperity. Also we can begin to see that 'religious" "belief" is far different than emirical "belief", and in fact the word "believe" is almost totally inappropriate for an empirically established fact. "Belief" in logic and reason, which are ill-defined terms, is hardly a belief either, rather it is the stuff of which beliefs and observations are made.
rh001YT 2 years ago
What you think of as personal attacks are nothing more than me reminding you of what you are likely already aware, namely, that one's cogntive faculties may not be that impressive. Also, that one's motivations and biases can be buried by the ego in childhood, and thus one can "believe" one's search for truth or something noble is pure and unconditioned. Yet a sense of the masking usually remains. Most people are offended when it is suggested their motives are suspect. All motives are suspect.
rh001YT 2 years ago
Even my motives are suspect, even to me. No one is who they appear to be, not even the philosophy professor. For the most part I do suspect that an over-interest in philosophy is a compensation for a disappointment in childhood. We are all that petty, we would have to be, else we would have to believe that something unconditioned has made us "good", or that "goodness" can happen by chance. But "chance" can't really be defined...... Quest for TRUTH? ....an overly dramatic sham & scam.
rh001YT 2 years ago
However is disbelief in TRUTH or human goodness does not lead to relativism in those with well functioning cognitive faculties, rather we observe that relativism is most popular in humanities departments, primarily in English and philosophy. And those who hold relativisim dear often also share a similar place in social ordering. This suggests a genetic predispostion to relativism that is likely tied to a cognitive shortcoming of some kind.
rh001YT 2 years ago
Thus you may have noticed that those from the Humanities department make far less contribution to the the GDP than those from Science or Applied Science or Business departments. From the Humanities we get little more than decoration and confusion, and some developement in the expertise of lying. Unclear thinking, which can be cleared up to some degree, actually has a negative impact on prosperity. I am cheering the cutbacks in Humanities at California public college and Universities.
rh001YT 2 years ago
my guess is that all "i" can know without doubt, is that "I" exist. At the very least "some thing" is perceiving "some thing". that is all "I" can be sure of 100%!!!! Anything else is just a bunch of words... whether reasoned out with logic or not. There is only one unwavering fact in life... that of existence. if you want proof go slam your head against the wall. in order to feel that pain, something must exist! cheers bud.
nice playing the game of words and logic with you.
ZIROLAND 2 years ago
There is little liklihood of the post to which I am now replying being very true at all. You have and will live your life almost entirely based on a ranking you perform, using empirical analysis, of empirical claims. You and virtually all people (aside from the very superstitious) live by empiricism and induction. The same has produced the sciences and engineering. All else is fantasy and whimsy. But you lie!! You conceal your motives, and even pretend not to have any, and that you are just!
rh001YT 2 years ago
At least I have partially de-masked you. I have you "lol"ing a lot, as a kind of snort, and now I have you suggesting I slam my head against the wall, and using discardance phrasology like "cheers bud". I have exposed elements of your rat ancestry, which is still in your genes. If only you would tell about your biases and motives and how they lead you to staking it all on a definition of perfect that is unattainable? How is it that you think that validates you as you are?
rh001YT 2 years ago
talk about parroting! Have YOU every directly observed a perfect triangle in the "real World"? I'm guessing the answer is no, so you are basing your assumptions on other peoples assumptions and hypotheses. A triangle is like GOD, but it's purely a matter of belief. Surely they exist as ideas - I cannot say I've ever seen one, nor has anyone else to my knowledge... i could be wrong,
Is there empirical knowledge that does not come from the senses? If so, give me a concrete example. :D
ZIROLAND 2 years ago
lastly, no system can adequately describe itself.... and since we are in the system we cannot understand the true nature of the system. it's like frogs trying to understand the truth about their world.... they cannot (as an analogy) because they are blinded by the system they are in. such is the case with you and I.... lots of words, logicetc..but it's all hot air... we will never arrive at the "truth" one problem is LANGUAGE itself..
language can never touch reality, never, never...peace.
ZIROLAND 2 years ago
just curious.... do you believe in freedom of the will?
I've been interested in this subject for quite a while. i wonder what your thoughts on the subject are.
ZIROLAND 2 years ago
"freedom of the will" is a set of words without real world referents, thus it is a perennial subject of debate and confusion. The game here is that "free" is not anything that is provable. "Free" is an adjective in which it is always implicit that there is a range of the quality - but never absolute. Also, free has other meanings that are in fact very closely related, such as free=no charge. What would we mean by a "no-charge will?" That suggests no price to pay to do what you want.....
rh001YT 2 years ago
Rorty was largely a big dummy, and only out-dummied by those who fawned over him. His games - his slight of hand - were little different than those played by sly foxes since forever. He should be placed in the category with snake charmers. Puzzles can be interesting but why spend a lot of time on them, especially if they are designed to be unsolvable. The unsolvability of the puzzles does not mean you should adopt a pious mask of claiming not to know anything for sure. Piety=dishonesty.
rh001YT 2 years ago
of course i know i don't own the word "knowledge"... no one owns any word.. the thing is i can define knowledge as i please... and you can define it as you please.. but... that 's the nature of language. by the way this whole thing about perfection in math... was invented by mathematicians. by chance i was speaking with a mathematician today about triangles. in math they are considered perfect.. ideas.. he said that it's understood that they are not found out in the world..his words not mine
ZIROLAND 2 years ago
Comment removed
rh001YT 2 years ago
Actually some words are owned, such as trademarks. I was re-emphasizing the issue of word definition to point out, again, that speaker and listener can communicate best when the definitions of words are established, else discussions break down into debates over word definition. You want to define knowledge as completely "a posteriori". I would prefer it includes "a priori" as well as "synthetic apriori". But we could simply use those three sub-deninitions.
rh001YT 2 years ago
Math was invented by engineers and accountants to serve Kings and merchants. The entire foundation of math is shoddy, in that it began with whole numbers, which were arbitrary value judgements. No math can prove that a "perfect" triangle does or does not exist, and no known technology can either. Of all the snowflakes that have every fallen, do you really believe not one was "perfect". Likely you don't, but you could never provide a proof.This highlights a previous point that thinking can't...
rh001YT 2 years ago
All knowledge does not come through the sense organs, but anyone can make that declaration and if you have power then you can sway others with such an arbitrary claim, but all of that will only describe your power and the weakness of others and nothing else. The blind can visualize geometric shapes - of course they have to touch them first. This was Kant's very point: that somehow the essences of shapes and their mathmatical relations are already in the brain. The brain/mind can conjure a ....
rh001YT 2 years ago
new idea - some of us would call that new knowledge - and then put it out into the world in some tangible or communicative form, thus basically reversing the flow direction of senses to brain/mind. This act can be seen in mammals other than human, giving support to the idea that brains form structures according to the physical laws - which does not strike me as all that outrageous a claim. The opposite is more outrageous: that brains from wholly independent of physical laws.
rh001YT 2 years ago
i'm guessing, using history as a starting point... that in 4 thousand years.... (if humans are still around)... scientists will LAUGH like crazy at what scientists today believe to be true. I'm guessing future scientists will see us like believers of a flat earth. :) nothing i can prove... just projecting... from what history has consistently shown us.
ZIROLAND 2 years ago
Ziroland: I will answer all recent comments briefly here: I have not demeaned you, but you feel demeaned - that is a neurochemical reaction based on your aculturation. What you may be "getting" is that a persons posture in philosophy is not really about anything except their own personality. My research suggests the those with depression, manic depression and all the various disorders have a common take on philosophical matters realitive to their condition.....
rh001YT 2 years ago
...For instance, most bipolars are atheist hedonists with a marked lack of mindfulness. Cutting to the chase, even relative levels of neurotransmitters will alter a person's take on philosophical matters. Problem is that as a person goes in a certain philo direction, changes in the brain/mind tend to reinforce and send him/her further in that direction, while all the while one has the illusion of thinking for oneself. Mind controllers know all about this.....
rh001YT 2 years ago
....So my slight sympathy for humanity leads me to try to show people that they have little if any control of their own mind but they have the illusion that they do. This stuff that Rorty and other "philosphers" deal with is baby talk. this baby talk is dangerous and leads to increased taxes for me as it actually creates cognitive impairment in the population as the ideas sift out to the folk and they get stupid - they get "ennui" which is a symptom, not a piety.....
rh001YT 2 years ago
...The philosophy profs are, as I mentioned, snake charmers and rent-seekers. They think they are so smart, but are quite limited. Real genius can be found in the likes of the late Prabakaran Velupillai or the Rajapaksa brothers, who did him in. I would sit at the feet of the Rajapaksa brothers, but the phil profs are only suitable for washing my car. I hope I can continue to encourage people to think clearly and concretely, and to question every thought they have as to why they have it.
rh001YT 2 years ago
if the blind need to touch in order to "visualize" then the knowledge comes through the sense organs... and i'm not sure that this refers to people who were blind from birth or not? the sense organs are necessary for all "knowledge". as far as I can tell anyway... ??
ZIROLAND 2 years ago
If you want to define "knowledge" that way, fine, but certainly you know that you don't own that word. Kant's point was that all the forms and also the process of induction are already in the brain from birth, and all we do with our senses if collect data which is filed according to the forms and induction. This is why the blind can learn math and so on. So the question becomes, is the "knowledge" the data, or the forms and relations pre established in the brain? .....
rh001YT 2 years ago
....well, we are free to define "knowledge" any way we want. It is interesting that the debates over Kant turn out to be little more than personality profiling expositions. N. Chomsky, they say, proved that all the linguistic forms are in the brain from birth. Note: Chomsky thinks he's really smart, but he's not. He, like Rorty, have made the mistake of brain abuse - thinking too much about puzzles - which problably caused their depression and poor health. Chomsky looks terrible.....
rh001YT 2 years ago
....people who don't commit brain abuse and either are simple minded, or smart but see past the BS, usually look kindly and happy in their old age, even while dying. Buddhist scholars simply laugh at the Western Philosophical traditons - they think it's silly. Non-thought (silence meditation) is a surprising experience few westerners ever have - you can actually not have a thought in your head, and still be alive and alert. I think real philosophizing has to start there......
rh001YT 2 years ago
....Once one experiences non-thought, then all thinking seems very suspicious, and it is easier to see that it is driven mostly not be "you", which would be the "you" that is still alert without thoughts.
So good luck to you. I hope some things I have said will one day contribute to your wisdom and prosperity. Avoid people from the Humanities as they tend to have what I call infected minds. They will usually cause you loss if you get involved with them.
rh001YT 2 years ago
concerning science... my "the world is flat" statement simply meant that scientists know that they dealing with working theories... hypotheses.... until a better one comes round.... and it is the experience of all history that
theories WILL CHANGE and be replaced.. the great thing about science is the METHOD.... it's a great method.. for creating transitory theories about the world
ZIROLAND 2 years ago
i'm quite surprised to read some of the over childish malicious comments brought up in the differing opinions below. please use logic and not personal insults for you are bringing down Philosophy to mere name calling. lol.
ZIROLAND 2 years ago
Rorty's skill is simply a kind of sly word gaming. As bias and motive are behind all thought and speech, I wonder what his are? Sometimes homely people become very cynical and relativistic or "interpretive" , and since he is homely I have to consider that. People worldwide do agree (not counting nuts and mentally ill) on a lot of matters, and virtually all agree that "chocolate tastes good" is a true statement. There is much more agreement than disagreement in the world.
rh001YT 2 years ago
Rorty is not saying that people don't like chocolate, what he's saying that the mutual exchange of these beliefs, and the philosophical concept of 'warrant' that arises from it is an ethnocentric concept.
Try to understand people's arguments before disagreeing.
manwaring 2 years ago
I did understand his argument, which is why I used the chocolate example, since chocolate is universally liked and therefor not ethnocentric. Somethings that a Chenchu of India might try to communicate to me would seem strange to me, but I would still understand. Most human thinking about the world is essentially similar because it is a response to the world. The terrain of India is not that different than California or Guatamala. Street kids in both India and Guatamala sniff glue.
rh001YT 2 years ago
continuation...apparently, aboriginal men in Papua N.G think women are nuts. Virtually all "ethnocentric" claims regarding right/wrong, good/bad are essentially the same, just as two choclate bars from different confectioners are essentially the same, even though they have different markings. Rorty is either untraveled, unread, or just plain dishonest - I suspect the latter. He is hiding something about himself of which he is ashamed. Many people are trolls.
rh001YT 2 years ago
You're still not engaging with the argument, he's not arguing that chocolate is not 'highly liked' or enjoyed by a lot of people. But the way in which you justify the belief 'chocolate tastes good' is dependent upon extrinsic normative values not upon some internal state.
Seriously, ad-hominems like "He is hiding something about himself of which he is ashamed. are pathetic.. But I'm not going to respond to you any more because you're a poo poo brain.
manwaring 2 years ago
You like rorty, thus you can't like me because I don't like him. Only those that flatter can be liked, by definition. Chocolate is intrinsically good and does not depend on any normative values. Chocolate is good due to various chemical processes that affect the brain's assignment of good. I think we must psychologically deconstruct everyone, including philosophers, because then we often get closer to knowing their motives which they conceal. Everyone is wearing a mask.
rh001YT 2 years ago
...continued... We only wear the mask to conceal and deceive for advantage, or just to survive. All claims to truth do have a neurobiological basis based on the brain's interaciton with the evironment, which included the body carrying the brain. Brains differ, but only slightly. Bodies differ more than brains. But survival on the planet is about the same for all people - there is a range - and is the cause of all perspectives. "Survival" is truth. Variations in truth do not refute truth.
rh001YT 2 years ago
"Chocolate is intrinsically good and does not depend on any normative values."
Then why don't I like it?
manwaring 2 years ago
Let's engage in a deconstruction of rh001YT.
51 years of age. So either a child of around sixteen to fifteen who put their age higher to watch 18+ videos or you're actually that old.
Given you're methods of arguing I'm going to assume 51, as you seem to have been out of educational establishments for many years.
Believes evolution disproves all philosophical problems, probably a sign of low intellect or being easy frustrated with argument.
Most likely unmarried, and probably mentally ill.
manwaring 2 years ago
May I point out that I have driven you to the point of making ad hominem attacks on me, though I have not made such on you. I have triggered you. You are triggerable. What has provoked you to loose your cool? I suggest you are not too mature and don't really take matters seriously, and can't imagine a universe in which your thoughts are not at the center. I sense you are not very well read, and have motives for your beliefs for which the beliefs serve as flattery. Perhaps in time you will see
rh001YT 2 years ago
Agreement gives a point of departure for dialogue and inquiry, but it says little about the truth of the concepts that there is agreement upon.
LikeAGlassAsterisk 2 years ago
I don't mean to be disagreeable, but that's a lot of word play. In physics, "truth" is defined via experimentation to discover the behavior of , for instance, atoms and molecules, and then the proof that a claim is true is based upon the predictive value of the claim. In physics there are virtually no exceptions (not talking about quantum physics). "truth" has to be defined in order to use the word. It is word play to suggest that it is always out of reach - a refusal to define it.
rh001YT 2 years ago
It is not word play, it is recasting of the paradox of meno, and simply defining truth empirically does not give us an answer as it simply presupposes the truth of empiricism.
LikeAGlassAsterisk 2 years ago
No, you are engaged in word play, which for some is a sport, but for others it is a symptom of something..... "Truth" is a word like "love" that lends itself to vagueness, and so serious persons have to first agree on a localized defination in order to move forwards with a serious discuss that has an actual benefical outcome as its goal. Serious persons don't play with words as they don't find it amusing, and they are free of issues that would have word play as a symptom.
rh001YT 2 years ago
truth in science and Truth with a capital T are not the same things.
TheMannimal76 2 years ago
"Science" is also a somewhat vague word, "physics" is better. There is not such thing as "truth with a capital T". The search for such is like the search for the Fountain of Youth. Such a search will lead one all over the place, and you will listen to any huckster that can convince you he knows where the fountain is. See Ponce de Leon. Time spent in such discussions is time wasted, and will be a cause of great regret on your death bed, as it was for Rorty.
rh001YT 2 years ago
One of my philosophy profs said that, "as the examined life is not worth living, so is the merely examined life not worth living."
Rorty would agree. That's why he was a pragmatist.
bahramf 2 years ago
I don't think it is accurate to call rorty a pragmatist, since he did not maintain his health and vigor. He was in fact a dissimulator. And for one who poo-pooed the "examined life" he certainly was a bookish grandma who spent too much time reading and lost in thought. Which brings me to an important point: Virtually all those who reject simple empiricism or an honest idealism, with steam shooting from their nostrils and ears, are in fact reacting to something they don't like about ...
rh001YT 2 years ago
..themselves. As a child ages, he/she comes to know where they have been slotted into the socio-political hierarchy. Some are slotted into undesirable niches, and some of those draw upon "theory" to try to change or deny the age old meanings of words, thinking that they can then ascend in rank if the words that describe what is undesirable about them are upended. That's all an illusion of the ego. A toad is a toad is a toad, even if it is called a prince. Also, as most of the people...
rh001YT 2 years ago
..who have ever lived have been assiduous and somewhat anhedonic, those who are lazy and/or hedonic are often demonized by majority, and no one likes to be demonized. Some try to use "theory" to upend the hedonic/anhedonic word spectrum, hoping that they can escape demonization. This does work to some degree when the economy is robust enough to allow for a lot of foam on the beer. Unfortunately, a lot of health problems, pain and loss often beset the hedonist. Normals win on average over time.
rh001YT 2 years ago
In the final analysis, Rorty's perspectives are something he should have only shared with his therapist, since it tells about him, but nothing about "the world". Of course as there are only about 16 personality types, many will identify with Rorty. But still, the individual tells about him/herself when speaking. So, for instance, most of the depressed/bipolar in the West are relativists. The individual's mental state / world view can be constructed from their statements.
rh001YT 2 years ago
But note that when depressed/bipolar persons recover, they often move away from relativism (see AA or NA ). Mindfullness then requires us to accept that our world view is conditioned by our brain chemistry, which can be conditioned by our world view - the matter is slef sustaining, but in the depressed direction there is positive feedback to make the matter worse, while in the happy direction negative feedback brings correction but also requires constant additional effort.
rh001YT 2 years ago
Explaining away a persons philosophy with psychological analysis rather than analyzing their arguments is exactly what analytic philosophers hate.
You might be right. Does it really say anything bad about his position?
That his perspective tells nothing of "the world" is the point of his philosophy. You're begging the question (see, logical fallacy).
What we know, we have constructed and therefore it can be changed and reconstructed.
What a depressed, nihilistic worldview.
bahramf 2 years ago
Unfortunately for the analytic philosphers and others, new info generated (more or less empiricaly) over the past 50 years has to be figured into the pie. Data suggests that world view is conditioned by brain chemistry profile. For instance, the vast majority of those diagnosed with a mental illness register and vote the Democratic ticket. (study easy to find on internet) . Strong, effective and independant personalities are usually Republican or Libertarian. This holds true in other ....
rh001YT 2 years ago
...cultures, for instance India (what culture could be more different than the West?) (Ther political parties do not map one to one to ours, but the math can be worked out (CPI & CPM = LEFT, Congress=CENTER, BJP=RIGHT)). So in fact it may be the philosophizing is a personality trait or perhaps a symptom of a personality disorder.
"Perspective" is the problem. Empiricism is not a perspective, it is a tool for doing things. Empiricism is a universal language. I can show a simple...
rh001YT 2 years ago
...empirical experiment to a tribal in Orissa and he will be able to confirm with his own senses that the claim I made at the outset is true. Empiricism requires honesty, while perspective does not. Empiricism does "tell about the world", perspective does not. It is simply a word game to say that empiricism does not tell us anything about reality. The game hinges on holding hostage some kind of rarified, perfect reality that could be so different from what our senses and empiricism+math ...
rh001YT 2 years ago
..reveal that we simply have to accept that we could be way off the mark. Then of course the next step follows, that we have constructed it all from faulty data. Now, abandond the game on the word reality and then the "constructed it all" goes away. Reality is just that which we discover with empiricism and the supporting math. Then we can ask about the psychological reasons why one would want there to be some other reality. Of course studies of the ego show us why.
rh001YT 2 years ago
Regarding "what we know we have constructed and therefore it can be reconstructed" . The second half of the sentence does not axiomaticly follow from the first - yet another word game. Concrete can be molded any way at all, but once set, that's it. You can pulverize it and add water, but it is no longer concrete and will not set. That we have "constructed" what we "know" simply describes the piece meal process of knowledge history, which began well before we were apes. ....
rh001YT 2 years ago
the forces of nature that affect atoms and molecules also affect cells and minds and millions of years of evolution have shaped the mind to be a record of those forces, which is all the "a priori" stuff that lets us comprehend physics and math. Humans have no ultrasonic sensors, bu tthe math suggested there would be ultrasound and we figured out how to detect it if it was there and sure enough it was. We have been rather accurately shaped by the laws of physics! (you would expect other?)
rh001YT 2 years ago
Empiricists don't believe in a priori stuff like that.
Also, your point about ultrasound doesn't mean much as a defense of scientism against post-analytic philosophy.
Those laws are useful, but they can't be said to be certain. It could be that the next time I drop a ball it falls up to the sky. We just can't know otherwise because all we have is induction.
Also, there may be infinitely other physical laws we don't care to look at at all. Those laws could just as well account for...
bahramf 2 years ago
ultra sound.
We're on a small patch of a larger painting. If all we can see is green and yellow, that doesn't mean that all there is is green and yellow.
Also, "Reality is just that which we discover with empiricism and the supporting math" How do you know that? How does a mathematic understanding of the world trump all others? You lack understanding of the other side. We don't deny math is useful, it's just not our God. It doesn't define reality. Everyone since pythagoras agrees.
bahramf 2 years ago
You continue to project standard philosophical stereotypes on me. Math is not my god, it is only a means to an end, the end being more power for me and those I hold close. We are on a small patch, but since our minds were shaped by evolutionary processes it is fortunate and amazing that we can figure out so much about the operation of the physical world, including the body and brain. You do want a brain tumor skillfully removed if you get one, don't you?
rh001YT 2 years ago
Of course. Do you think Rorty and me are against scientific process?
Note that Rorty cites one of the greatest American psychologists of all time in James and never mind Dewey.
He cites no oncologists, but believe me, he is for cancer research.
bahramf 2 years ago
interesting..yes, science can describe what "water" is. it knows that it boils at such and such a temp. and freezes. and hydrogen Oxygen...etc..but no scientist on the history of the planet could tell you WHAT water is.
Scientists know how to use things.... they do not know WHAT they are. Science cannot penetrate the "essence" of matter. the more they pursue it the further it recedes. the question what is water... is like asking what is existence.. we cannot know!! we are tool makers at best!
ZIROLAND 2 years ago
Ziroland - you have a lot of hang ups. I suspect you will become depressed if you are not already. If you are depressed ( alot of those in philosophy/humanities are) then I suggest silence meditation, like that in Shambala Warrior. Water is a combination of 2 atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen. There is no other question to be answered, and no answer would satisfy you. There likely are no essences, rather what we call essences are the rules for inclusion in a category.
rh001YT 2 years ago
I have not defended scientism - you are projecting on me. The discovery of ultra-sound and the entire electromagnetic spectrum beyond light proved the incredible predictive nature of empirical investigation. The "truth" of the coincidence of the math and the directly observable electromagnetic was born out as a truth and not a mere measurement. We do care to look at all physical laws - all that we can find have been found, the remaining mysteries seem to be in quantum physics. ...
rh001YT 2 years ago
..and youi don't really beleive that a dropped ball will ever fall up to the sky. Why do you say such things...that is the real mystery here. I don't mean to pry, but your perspectives suggest issues with your father.
rh001YT 2 years ago
Issues with my father? Who are you. All I'm advocating is the belief in human fallibility. That's why I say such things.
My father and I get along quite well actually. He's the one who encouraged me to pursue a philosophy degree and try and become a prof.
bahramf 2 years ago
he is right you need to play catch or something with your father. you and your father ever go to a baseball game ?
mellowtribe 2 years ago
what are you talking (writing) about?
bahramf 2 years ago
I think it does follow. If you accept that truth and knowledge can be constructed (which is a controversial claim in most anglophone philosophical schools) I believe that reconstruction would necessarily follow.
bahramf 2 years ago
The word play never ends with you, even after I have pointed it out to the world. The only "truths" are those of empiricism when backed up by math. All else is guessing or customs. Customs could be looked at as constructed, but then so could the shape of a tree. Hidden behind your perspectival mask is the assertion that bad or misinformed people cunningly constructed a social reality that is far worse than it could be. Where is your proof? I say the real issue is your dislike of self.
rh001YT 2 years ago
And what motive would you assing those cunning mis-constructors? And how would you explain the evolution of those perspectives? Where in the chain do you assign blame? Because you must assign blame at some point in order to highlight the point of departure where things began, according to you, to become mis-constructed. Or was it misconstructed from the beginning, from the appearance of the first life form? Or before that? And by what yardstick will you prove the point of departure?
rh001YT 2 years ago
bahramf - you write as if you recently came to earth from another planet. Many different forms of social reality have been experimented with and all have failed (disappeared or bogged down in intransient poverty) except 2: capitalism/free markets and tribal village existence where there are bountiful huntables and gatherables. Anyway, isn't it interesting that the social reality you dream of requires the imposition of human wills upon other wills? How is that right or new or different?
rh001YT 2 years ago
These truths backed by math don't exist in any sense aside from conceptually. You're saying that killing babies is wrong is not a truth just as much as 1+1=2 is?
bahramf 2 years ago
drivel
mellowtribe 2 years ago
"when backed up by math"... hmmm? have you ever read anything about the philosophy of Math or Science. It is terribly problematic. There's only one thing we can "know" without doubt. "Something" is perceiving "something". haha. that's it. Everything else is up for grabs.
ZIROLAND 2 years ago
rubbish
mellowtribe 2 years ago
i agree with your first sentence. Thats my experience, anyway
watashiwanachodes 2 years ago
Truth in physics, of course, is a matter of social consensus-- how do we know we have reached scientific truth about physics? When enough physicists in a position of institutional authority say that there is. This is the very definition of truth through social consensus, and it supports Rorty, not undermines him.
7freddie7 2 years ago
Truth in physics is not a matter of social consensus - such assertions are word play by those who lack the cognitive structures to understand physics, or those who have hidden agendas and biases which cause a sort of pleasurable feeling when making such assertions. A physicist can make a discovery in his private lab, by way of Baconian methods, and then act on that discovery to make a product and gain from that product without ever publishing the discovery. That's known as a trade secret.
rh001YT 2 years ago
...continued/ the recipe for Coca Cola, for instance, is a trade secret. Also, for instance, the recipe for Oil of Olay. Certainly Rorty agreed with many of my perspectives, such as the uselessness of Logical Positivism, and the non-existence of Truth with a capital T. I think it important to address the way that situations like a sour neurotransmitter profile can actually direct thoughts in a certain way, and Rorty certainly had a sour n. profile. The man never Lived with a capital L.
rh001YT 2 years ago
That physicist, once he makes his discovery-- does it magically leap into textbooks? Will other scientists merely take his word for it that he has made this discovery? When does his discovery become known as scientific truth?
Scientists know they have achieved truth when the community of their peers confirms it. That is the definition of social consensus. If it didn't come from consensus, no one would ever have to publish to a journal, etc. There could be no disagreements about science.
7freddie7 2 years ago
Freddie - clearly you're not a scientist. "peer review" is not for the sake of consensus, but is part of the Baconian process the intention of which is to weed out error due to unclean or wrong processes or psychological factors. A machine could perform the peer review, and that is largely how it is done today. A discovery is scientific proof when it produces the the predicted result. You are hung up on word play, likely for psychological reasons or due to weak brain structures.
rh001YT 2 years ago
...if you are like most people you may interpret "psychological reasons or weak brain structures" to be an insult, as insults are common on You Tube. But I do not mean that in that way, rather, I am reminding you and others that the brain is an organ and it is better developed in some than others, as is the kidney, and many simply can't understand the physical world as well as others. Then the is the matter of vanity and flattery, & similar trash that the brain produces that aids poor thinking.
rh001YT 2 years ago
And yet you can't dispute my fundamental point-- that what the scientific community takes as the truth is a matter of consensus, of the scientific community agreeing. Someone discovering something doesn't immediately change everyone's minds. What changes their minds is social agreement.
If getting to scientific truth meant just using some flawless process, there would be no disagreements between scientists. And that is clearly not the case. You just aren't thinking deeply enough.
7freddie7 2 years ago
Nonsense - Your game is this: first, you arbitrarily (thus without foundation) define "scientific truth" in a way convenient for your "argument", and then you pretend to argue towards that definition, but the whole game was a setup (con job) in advance. It may be that you can't understand that due to various cognitive setups in your mind/brain. I am suggesting that you may actually lack some brain structures that I have. Certainly we run at different speeds.
rh001YT 2 years ago
If you were a scientist instead of one of the impoverished ones from the Humanities department, you would know that consensus never establishes the truth of physics, rather, consensus is consensus. Using words correctly and accurately, as we do, eliminates a lot of confusion. If you were a historian of science, instead of an English major, then you would know that consensus has lead to all batteries being marked backwards - the + is actually the -. And consensus has maintained this falsehood.
rh001YT 2 years ago
So, what is truth in physics a matter of?
Just because scientists can replicate experiments does not mean that their truth is any more certain than any other.
I thought Hume showed how induction doesn't work. You can be no more sure of the truth of an experiment the 1st to the 100th affirmative attempt.
Anyways, if no one agrees with it, it's a pretty useless truth.
bahramf 2 years ago
Emprically proven truths by way of Baconian method et al are the most certain truths currently known, and prove themselves so by being reliable with regards future predictions. All of engineering relies on these kinds of truths. Truths about Ganesh can't be relied upon for, for instance, aircraft design. Hume is past. When scientific method is followed, the third confirmation is usually enough to bet money on. You are not a serious person. You are likely an English or Philosophy major.
rh001YT 2 years ago
Just because you can bet money on it doesn't mean it is certain. Certain truths have never been arrived at and we would not know what they would be like if we found them for that very reason.
Something can happen again and again, but you can never be certainly sure the future will resemble the past.
That's Hume's problem of induction. If you were a philosophy student you'd know that, but no, you're a science student or math student, so you talk out of your ass.
Human fallibility.
bahramf 2 years ago