Here is the thing about you saying there is something wrong with the statement "You cannot be certain about anything", is not a lot of people word it that way. Most people talk about absolute truth when making this argument. This is also coupled with the argument that there are mistakes made in human perception. We cannot see anything as absolute truth, because our senses have limits. For example, color. People see color in many different ways. I can say that Orange is Tan, you say it is Orange.
@DavidH373 You say "We cannot see anything as absolute truth, because our senses have limits. For example, color. People see color in many different ways. I can say that Orange is Tan, you say it is Orange."
I would advise you to watch Stefan's Intro to Philosophy #2 where he covers this.
The fact remains, Stefan's Wall has a measured wavelength of light, or as we subjectively call it a color. Is it red, orange or rust? Neither, it has a specific wavelength.
@PostITnoteGUY, The key question is not whether we can trust our senses at all, but whether they are an adequate place on which to stand; e.g. axiom or presupposition for knowledge in general. Unfortunately, the argument against empiricism (the doctrine that all knowledge comes from sense perception) often gets mistaken as if it were an argument that we can't rely on our senses at all about anything.
@PostITnoteGUY , Bachelor and unmarried are *not* the same thing. There is a common element between the two terms, but it does not follow that the two terms are univocal. For example, is an unmarried woman a bachelor? No, she is a bachelorette. To give another argument along the same lines, how do you know that all squared have four sides? Is it possible that we might find a square some day without four sides? No. The only reason that one can know that all squares have four sides is because...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Rebuttal? He appreciates correction, this is nothing more than a call for others to jump on the Band Wagon, he is inviting all to disprove that there is a reality outside of our experience, which of course we cant. So his initial claims to be not of a Platonist camp, well appearance reality distinction is exactly the platonic, oops I mean Platonic,,, exactally the Platonists beliefs about reality. Similar to the Kantian distinction of categories.
[part 3....string them together ] Some feeling can even be considered primitive right? We all have a desire for sex ,reproduction and happiness. But my question is how, can one be sure that love is an actual truth. Love is not external matter, nor is it 2+2. Then another question arises... Is Actual, True love part of the divine realm because it can't be proved truthful? I'm taken aback here.
I'm in a situation here which rises this question... Now, I may say I love this particular woman, correct? I could mean it, I could not, Neither you nor her can truly grasp that as a factual truth. Similar to idea of when she says she loves me. I can neither prove or disprove that by any tangible, means. Now emotional output, or small actions and gifts possibly, maybe even sex. but emotions are only out put by feelings, and feeling can at times be controlled.
I do have a proposed question though, I just turned 18, so bare with me here.
Now you say within the realm of senses, or tangible truths such as that orange in your hand: can be validated as an actual fruit of the Earth. (which is obviously apparent) Where as on the other hand we have intangible, un positive truths such as "I dreamed about launching into space last night." what about the in between senses such as love, and that wedding band on your finger.
pristine origins before all the dogmas were in place, and i'm not talking religious dogmas, well it can be considered one, but im also talking the monetary system ect. I believe we all have full access to everything known if your mind is pure enough, your thoughts are... perfect to say the least. Anyone ever hear of the ringing cedar series?
Since proofs require acceptance of axioms, then no matter how irrational (or not), simple nonacceptance of the particular proof's required axioms as ABSOLUTE truth retains the initial statement's ABSOLUTE truth (and acceptance of axioms only represent conditional 'proof'.)
Not to say many things aren't quite likely, or fit the evidence very well; I just remain eternally open to surprise. :)
I am certain that nothing is *provably and unconditionally* certain.
[There remains a chance of bickering about 'ah, but what about the conditions necessary to create that statement itself', which is countered with embedding an exception for those conditions in the statement itself, and voila we're on our way to something similar to Godel's proof (in any system which is complete & self-describable, there are elements which are inherently unprovable).]
Also, I notice that you subscribe to the correspondence theory of truth as opposed to the coherence theory of truth. Correpondence theory of truth necessarily involves a posteriori propositions. A posteriori propositions necessarily rely upon sense perception. Sense perception is fallible. True propositions are infallible. Analytic truths are infallible. So, it seems that the correspondence theory can never give truth, but it can give usefulness and high/low probability.
So you are communicating using typing and my visual senses to tell me that sense perception is fallible? I don't think that you can rely on the consistency of a medium to argue against its consistency...
I am not arguing that sense perception is neither useful nor highly probable. The issue is with epistemic certainty. You are not arguing that sense perception is always consistent, are you? One cannot get a universal from a particular. Do you know that all bachelors are unmarried men. If you do, is it because sense perception or something else?
I don't think 100 percent accuracy is always possible with sense perception. I'll accept the pressuposition that the senses are basically reliable, but I cannot stretch it to infallible. There are too many counter examples to this. Sense perception is merely stimulus apart from the mind. I wish my senses were always 100 percent accurate! BTW, your videos are awesome!
So, how do you distinguish which sense perceptions to accept and which to reject? One cannot appeal to sense perception to decide the question, for that is the very method that needs to be confirmed.
I'm surprised I've never heard you talk about meaning (and language, only briefly). I'm referring to this video as well as others, such as the debate with the determinists, which might have gone a lot quicker if meaning had been addressed more directly. What do you think of Hilary Putnam's argument against skepticism? As an aside, I wish I had found your podcasts *before* I had become an anarchist. It would have made the philosophical transition a bit easier. Keep up the good work.
Yes, that series is good, but I wasn't talking about meaning of life. I was talking about meaning as representation. For instance, when I say "this is an orange" and the skeptic says "maybe it's not a real orange because you could be a brain in a vat," he's using a different language (a "real" orange) and therefore his assertion runs orthogonal to mine (his is incoherent) and we are talking past each other. It's not really that important, I was just curious why you hadn't brought that up.
First off, I am told that your videos yeild to an unbiased perspective of the basics of philosophy.Personally I find you lectures well put and coherent.
Thankyou.
Secondly, I need a reference for a book of a contemporary guide to epistemology, for personal interest and introduction to its avenues.
Do you have any suggestions for someone who has a lack of extensive knowledge in epistemology?
...person who holds this belief and comparing this state to the unique brain state that corresponds to the mental event of having a dream of a sparrow. If the brain state of the holder of the belief corresponded with that of the unique state present upon having a dream of a sparrow, then the proposition expressed by 'i had a dream of a sparrow' would be true', and if otherwise, false.
That certainly could be true in the future, in which case some future philosopher will have to invent another statement, but it certainly is not true now. :)
hi stefbot, something you said about first person ascriptions of belief seemed a bit off to me. You say that the truth value of the proposition expressed by the sentence 'I had a dream about a sparrow' cannot be determined. It seems to me that a materialist with a correspondence theory of truth could argue that every mental event has a corresponding unique physical brain state and thus the truth value of 'i had a dream about a sparrow' could be determined by examing the brain state of the...
I'd just like to say that only people need validation of truth and not truth itself. For if something that was true needed validation then it would not be true. So just because a statement made cannot be validated, it doesnt mean that it is untrue or true. It only means that to logic it's a waste of time.
I just wanted to say, there is some scientific evidence that gravity has dual properties, attraction and repulsion. Both very weak (attraction being much stronger of course) and is only easily detectable in larger quantities of mass.
And as we know, distance reduces the attraction aspect of gravity, further away the less its 'felt' etc.
The possible repulsion aspect of gravity is thought to either not be reduced by distance, or at least reduces at a slower rate the attraction aspect. (Cont..)
So at some point the repulsion aspect becomes a greater force then the attraction.
This theory is used to explain why the universe is expanding at a greater rate (speeding up away from mass) as opposed to slowing down and eventually contracting into itself again.
-pointless and has nothing to do with the essence of what you are saying, just thought I would add. :) -
ALSO, your videos are very education and entertaining, thank you.
what if the reason the universe is expanding at an exponential rate is that it is drawn outward by a greater gravitational force acting from the {possible} outside of the cosmos as {farther away but stronger.} if the cosmos has an 'outside' then the mass of the interior of space is acting from without?
9:00-10:00 "Nothing is Certian" - you call this a paradox, which linguistically speaking, is something that seem false but is actually true. Like somebody could be 20 years old on their 5th birthday - if they were born on leap year. Don't you really mean to say the statement "Nothing is Certain" is actually a contradiction? Meaning, it is self negating?
thanks a lot for the video, this is the first one of yours i've watched... from 20:00-22:00 (About truth and dreams). Firstly, i believe that truth is more certain than what seems logical. I that for something to be true it has to be certain. What do you think towards dreams and reality just being a circular argument (e.g. you have to assume being awake to provide a logical answer)?
When one says" nothing is certain" he also says that " even it is not certain whether anything is certain, because nothing is certain" .. Who says when one says "nothing is certain" he claims that he is certain about that?
"Nothing is certain, even this statment itself is not certain" what would you say??
if that is coz of my english, then i understand you. but if it is not then i would say, it is not nonsence. why shoud it be? saying that' nothing is certain even this statement itselve' is not logicaly false. could you show me that it is logically false?
i am not arguing whether there is anything certain or not. for example i am sure that i do excist. What i am arguing is that, unlike you i do not see logical fallacy in saying 'no thing is certain'. this statement does not contradict with itself. it would be contradictory if it is said like 'i am certain that nothing is certain'.
it's not contradictory, but it's just pointless to make a Proposition (P) about certainty (C), when the P itself can't be C, or else the P is completely F. If that makes sense.
that is contradictory to say:"I am certain that nothing is certain"; and you don't agree with this? What you say, turkishinfidel is: "I am not certain, that I am certain, that nothing is certain" in your opinion, can be can be a valid statement, right?
I know, it sounds like Stef is playing with the words here, for ex. when he is saying "nothing is certain" is refering to nothing as the whole? How does he define it in "nothingness"?
And for my final post, what's your take on the (supposed) problem of induction? External reality has consistently revealed the Sun to humankind for thousands of years, but is it logical to claim that the Sun will rise tomorrow? The answer appears to be no, or at least that's how Hume answered it. What's your take on the problem of induction as it relates to your commentary of the relationship between the logical and the nomological?
I would hope that, for the moment, you could ignore the dynamics of language and just answer the question I posed with whatever inherent and learned meaning you grasp from it (though hopefully not too learned, or otherwise you'd keep on questioning me if I expect you to answer "logically and in English").
I would also note that, just going by your "system" in this video, statements of opinion would have to qualify as logical instruments because they reveal something about ontological reality. If a logical statement was one that was consistent with behavior in the external world, then presumably someone liking the same music over and over and communicating that through language would have to be logical.
Very interesting though controversial connection between the laws of physics and the laws of logic. Philosophers traditionally delineate the two, arguing that simply logical statements exist on their own, independent of physical reality, but fundamentally I agree with you: logic would be meaningless without an external world.
I appreciate your way of expressing yourself on the correspondence theory of truth, as it has added to the descriptive toolbox for the classes that I teach.
Anything a school or college regards me as sufficiently qualified to teach, in fact. What I most frequently teach is Introduction to Philosophy, Ethics, Critical Thinking, and Logic. I have also been known to teach History (of Philosophy), Mythology, Film Studies, database management, and Microsoft Windows/Office. Basically, I love the whole process of being able to share what I have learned as a way of validating that I have learned it.
Well done stefbot, this shall prove to be a gRand year.I am the mAynd that has built Her Motor/Generator of the Philosophy for Living on Earth. Keep up the noble fight but I should 'show' you that there is a "next-ledge" that you have to get to -N-52ii
I would have expected more on the "what is a concept" question in an epistemology introduction. Agreeing that something is an orange is not an easy thing to do. We have to share the concept of orange. How did we get that concept? By being told by others what is and isn't an orange but those people may be mistaken and we may not be aware of what the full range of "orangeness" implies such that I might say something is an orange while you don't.
From my understanding, percepts are derived from sensual evidence. Concepts, on the other hand, do not depend upon anything a posteriori, but can be formed from the more basic categories of thought. For instance, enDOTwikipediaDOTorg/wiki/Category_(Kant)
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 5 months ago
Here is the thing about you saying there is something wrong with the statement "You cannot be certain about anything", is not a lot of people word it that way. Most people talk about absolute truth when making this argument. This is also coupled with the argument that there are mistakes made in human perception. We cannot see anything as absolute truth, because our senses have limits. For example, color. People see color in many different ways. I can say that Orange is Tan, you say it is Orange.
DavidH373 9 months ago
@DavidH373 You say "We cannot see anything as absolute truth, because our senses have limits. For example, color. People see color in many different ways. I can say that Orange is Tan, you say it is Orange."
I would advise you to watch Stefan's Intro to Philosophy #2 where he covers this.
The fact remains, Stefan's Wall has a measured wavelength of light, or as we subjectively call it a color. Is it red, orange or rust? Neither, it has a specific wavelength.
ARenofHeavens 6 days ago
Part three of a great lecture on philosophy, and what do I find? Multiple spam-marked posts and an interminable argument! T-t-t-triple thumbs up!
thinkdamnit 11 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY, The key question is not whether we can trust our senses at all, but whether they are an adequate place on which to stand; e.g. axiom or presupposition for knowledge in general. Unfortunately, the argument against empiricism (the doctrine that all knowledge comes from sense perception) often gets mistaken as if it were an argument that we can't rely on our senses at all about anything.
adriansrfr 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY , it is not dependent upon fallible sense perception.
adriansrfr 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY , Bachelor and unmarried are *not* the same thing. There is a common element between the two terms, but it does not follow that the two terms are univocal. For example, is an unmarried woman a bachelor? No, she is a bachelorette. To give another argument along the same lines, how do you know that all squared have four sides? Is it possible that we might find a square some day without four sides? No. The only reason that one can know that all squares have four sides is because...
adriansrfr 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
GOOD LUCK TO ALL THOSE WHO WOULD TRY AND GRASP OR MAKE SENSE OF THIS PLATONISTIC KANTIAN ANTIPRAGMATIC DUNG.
Bye now ;)
MJRockX 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
OK I could spend the next 6 months. pulling the flaws out of this, but I do have better things to do with my time.
MJRockX 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Rebuttal? He appreciates correction, this is nothing more than a call for others to jump on the Band Wagon, he is inviting all to disprove that there is a reality outside of our experience, which of course we cant. So his initial claims to be not of a Platonist camp, well appearance reality distinction is exactly the platonic, oops I mean Platonic,,, exactally the Platonists beliefs about reality. Similar to the Kantian distinction of categories.
MJRockX 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It is beginning to lok as though he is using the same flawed logic over and over again to put forth an ajenda of some sort.
MJRockX 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
See how confused some people like JBenfante become, once there core self identity has been voluntarily subjected to and subverted by invalid logic.
I wish I could help you dear.
MJRockX 2 years ago
[part 3....string them together ] Some feeling can even be considered primitive right? We all have a desire for sex ,reproduction and happiness. But my question is how, can one be sure that love is an actual truth. Love is not external matter, nor is it 2+2. Then another question arises... Is Actual, True love part of the divine realm because it can't be proved truthful? I'm taken aback here.
JBenfante 2 years ago
Dont listen to this idiot mjrockx but instead look on stefans website and you will see he has several books writtin covering this topics.
nevankeys01 2 years ago
PART 2
I'm in a situation here which rises this question... Now, I may say I love this particular woman, correct? I could mean it, I could not, Neither you nor her can truly grasp that as a factual truth. Similar to idea of when she says she loves me. I can neither prove or disprove that by any tangible, means. Now emotional output, or small actions and gifts possibly, maybe even sex. but emotions are only out put by feelings, and feeling can at times be controlled.
JBenfante 2 years ago
PART 1
I do have a proposed question though, I just turned 18, so bare with me here.
Now you say within the realm of senses, or tangible truths such as that orange in your hand: can be validated as an actual fruit of the Earth. (which is obviously apparent) Where as on the other hand we have intangible, un positive truths such as "I dreamed about launching into space last night." what about the in between senses such as love, and that wedding band on your finger.
JBenfante 2 years ago
pristine origins before all the dogmas were in place, and i'm not talking religious dogmas, well it can be considered one, but im also talking the monetary system ect. I believe we all have full access to everything known if your mind is pure enough, your thoughts are... perfect to say the least. Anyone ever hear of the ringing cedar series?
JBenfante 2 years ago
Here:
I am certain that nothing is *provably* certain.
This statement remains true iff it is unprovable.
Since proofs require acceptance of axioms, then no matter how irrational (or not), simple nonacceptance of the particular proof's required axioms as ABSOLUTE truth retains the initial statement's ABSOLUTE truth (and acceptance of axioms only represent conditional 'proof'.)
Not to say many things aren't quite likely, or fit the evidence very well; I just remain eternally open to surprise. :)
contriver 2 years ago
That might sound muddled:
I am saying that I am certain of a truth, as it is the only truth that does not require ANY assumptions.
This truth is of course unprovable, as the act of proving itself requires assumptions.
The statement is true despite (or really, because of) this fact about 'proof.'
contriver 2 years ago
a correction: to rule out pure mathematics:
I am certain that nothing is *provably and unconditionally* certain.
[There remains a chance of bickering about 'ah, but what about the conditions necessary to create that statement itself', which is countered with embedding an exception for those conditions in the statement itself, and voila we're on our way to something similar to Godel's proof (in any system which is complete & self-describable, there are elements which are inherently unprovable).]
contriver 2 years ago
Any time we delve into a posteriori propositions, we run into the problem of induction. Induction can never give truth.
adriansrfr 2 years ago
Also, I notice that you subscribe to the correspondence theory of truth as opposed to the coherence theory of truth. Correpondence theory of truth necessarily involves a posteriori propositions. A posteriori propositions necessarily rely upon sense perception. Sense perception is fallible. True propositions are infallible. Analytic truths are infallible. So, it seems that the correspondence theory can never give truth, but it can give usefulness and high/low probability.
adriansrfr 2 years ago
So you are communicating using typing and my visual senses to tell me that sense perception is fallible? I don't think that you can rely on the consistency of a medium to argue against its consistency...
stefbot 2 years ago
I am not arguing that sense perception is neither useful nor highly probable. The issue is with epistemic certainty. You are not arguing that sense perception is always consistent, are you? One cannot get a universal from a particular. Do you know that all bachelors are unmarried men. If you do, is it because sense perception or something else?
adriansrfr 2 years ago
Again, you are relying on 100 percent accuracy in the transmission of information through my senses in order to debate...
stefbot 2 years ago
I don't think 100 percent accuracy is always possible with sense perception. I'll accept the pressuposition that the senses are basically reliable, but I cannot stretch it to infallible. There are too many counter examples to this. Sense perception is merely stimulus apart from the mind. I wish my senses were always 100 percent accurate! BTW, your videos are awesome!
adriansrfr 2 years ago
Thanks - but any discrepancy in the senses, we validate with reference to our other senses.
stefbot 2 years ago
So, how do you distinguish which sense perceptions to accept and which to reject? One cannot appeal to sense perception to decide the question, for that is the very method that needs to be confirmed.
adriansrfr 2 years ago
Sure you can, you just use your other senses, like trying to actually drink a mirage... :)
stefbot 2 years ago
I'm surprised I've never heard you talk about meaning (and language, only briefly). I'm referring to this video as well as others, such as the debate with the determinists, which might have gone a lot quicker if meaning had been addressed more directly. What do you think of Hilary Putnam's argument against skepticism? As an aside, I wish I had found your podcasts *before* I had become an anarchist. It would have made the philosophical transition a bit easier. Keep up the good work.
atgraham 3 years ago
Thanks, I did a three parter on meaning recently, you might want to check it out... :)
stefbot 3 years ago
Yes, that series is good, but I wasn't talking about meaning of life. I was talking about meaning as representation. For instance, when I say "this is an orange" and the skeptic says "maybe it's not a real orange because you could be a brain in a vat," he's using a different language (a "real" orange) and therefore his assertion runs orthogonal to mine (his is incoherent) and we are talking past each other. It's not really that important, I was just curious why you hadn't brought that up.
atgraham 3 years ago
First off, I am told that your videos yeild to an unbiased perspective of the basics of philosophy.Personally I find you lectures well put and coherent.
Thankyou.
Secondly, I need a reference for a book of a contemporary guide to epistemology, for personal interest and introduction to its avenues.
Do you have any suggestions for someone who has a lack of extensive knowledge in epistemology?
ayeforaneye 3 years ago
thank you!
duongxuannghi 3 years ago
You are very welcome, thanks for watching ! :)
stefbot 3 years ago
Sir, I'm very curious how a pure social science graduate like you turn into a software engineer. Can you tell me more about your admirable journey?
duongxuannghi 3 years ago
I have been programming computers since I was about 11 years old, and I became an entrepreneur, so I didn't need a computer science degree...
stefbot 3 years ago
was there computer at time? so why did you spend 6 years studying something irrelevant, then?
duongxuannghi 3 years ago
an arts degree was a lot more fun than a computer science degree, and I've never been very proficient at mathematics...
stefbot 3 years ago
...person who holds this belief and comparing this state to the unique brain state that corresponds to the mental event of having a dream of a sparrow. If the brain state of the holder of the belief corresponded with that of the unique state present upon having a dream of a sparrow, then the proposition expressed by 'i had a dream of a sparrow' would be true', and if otherwise, false.
stethoscanomaly 3 years ago
That certainly could be true in the future, in which case some future philosopher will have to invent another statement, but it certainly is not true now. :)
stefbot 3 years ago
hi stefbot, something you said about first person ascriptions of belief seemed a bit off to me. You say that the truth value of the proposition expressed by the sentence 'I had a dream about a sparrow' cannot be determined. It seems to me that a materialist with a correspondence theory of truth could argue that every mental event has a corresponding unique physical brain state and thus the truth value of 'i had a dream about a sparrow' could be determined by examing the brain state of the...
stethoscanomaly 3 years ago
I'd just like to say that only people need validation of truth and not truth itself. For if something that was true needed validation then it would not be true. So just because a statement made cannot be validated, it doesnt mean that it is untrue or true. It only means that to logic it's a waste of time.
Cougar604 3 years ago
I just wanted to say, there is some scientific evidence that gravity has dual properties, attraction and repulsion. Both very weak (attraction being much stronger of course) and is only easily detectable in larger quantities of mass.
And as we know, distance reduces the attraction aspect of gravity, further away the less its 'felt' etc.
The possible repulsion aspect of gravity is thought to either not be reduced by distance, or at least reduces at a slower rate the attraction aspect. (Cont..)
TuesdaysThursdays 3 years ago
So at some point the repulsion aspect becomes a greater force then the attraction.
This theory is used to explain why the universe is expanding at a greater rate (speeding up away from mass) as opposed to slowing down and eventually contracting into itself again.
-pointless and has nothing to do with the essence of what you are saying, just thought I would add. :) -
ALSO, your videos are very education and entertaining, thank you.
TuesdaysThursdays 3 years ago
what if the reason the universe is expanding at an exponential rate is that it is drawn outward by a greater gravitational force acting from the {possible} outside of the cosmos as {farther away but stronger.} if the cosmos has an 'outside' then the mass of the interior of space is acting from without?
JUNKYARDOGvideos 3 years ago
That is theory of knowledge.Epistemology is concerning about the frontiers of knowledge.
bucles2000 3 years ago
9:00-10:00 "Nothing is Certian" - you call this a paradox, which linguistically speaking, is something that seem false but is actually true. Like somebody could be 20 years old on their 5th birthday - if they were born on leap year. Don't you really mean to say the statement "Nothing is Certain" is actually a contradiction? Meaning, it is self negating?
gr8g0blin 3 years ago
Indeed, turkishinfidel, regarding my previous message, this sounds similar with the question "why is there something rather than nothing"?
Can someone follow up with this?
Thanks
adorianvlad 3 years ago
it's purely subjective. Something and nothing are the same. Everything can be classed in either. You decide.
carniekatie 3 years ago
Haha in a Ninja costume! :)
stefbot 4 years ago
thanks a lot for the video, this is the first one of yours i've watched... from 20:00-22:00 (About truth and dreams). Firstly, i believe that truth is more certain than what seems logical. I that for something to be true it has to be certain. What do you think towards dreams and reality just being a circular argument (e.g. you have to assume being awake to provide a logical answer)?
ddageesta 4 years ago
Keep watching, I do get to that... :)
stefbot 4 years ago
When one says" nothing is certain" he also says that " even it is not certain whether anything is certain, because nothing is certain" .. Who says when one says "nothing is certain" he claims that he is certain about that?
"Nothing is certain, even this statment itself is not certain" what would you say??
turkishinfidel 4 years ago
I'd say that is pure nonsense! :)
stefbot 4 years ago
if that is coz of my english, then i understand you. but if it is not then i would say, it is not nonsence. why shoud it be? saying that' nothing is certain even this statement itselve' is not logicaly false. could you show me that it is logically false?
turkishinfidel 4 years ago
If nothing is certain, why would you need anything to be disproven, since logic itself would be uncertain? :)
Saying "nothing is certain even this" means that some things must be certain.
stefbot 4 years ago
i am not arguing whether there is anything certain or not. for example i am sure that i do excist. What i am arguing is that, unlike you i do not see logical fallacy in saying 'no thing is certain'. this statement does not contradict with itself. it would be contradictory if it is said like 'i am certain that nothing is certain'.
turkishinfidel 4 years ago
it's not contradictory, but it's just pointless to make a Proposition (P) about certainty (C), when the P itself can't be C, or else the P is completely F. If that makes sense.
ddageesta 4 years ago 2
turkishinfidel,
that is exactly what Stef is saying,
that is contradictory to say:"I am certain that nothing is certain"; and you don't agree with this? What you say, turkishinfidel is: "I am not certain, that I am certain, that nothing is certain" in your opinion, can be can be a valid statement, right?
I know, it sounds like Stef is playing with the words here, for ex. when he is saying "nothing is certain" is refering to nothing as the whole? How does he define it in "nothingness"?
adorianvlad 3 years ago
It would seem like an analytic proposition to say that the existent round square exists. But it doesn't exist.
kershawwma 4 years ago
But that would be a paradox, right? Like saying that 2+2=4 and 2+2=5...
stefbot 4 years ago
a paradox like that can only be used if the terms are certain, e.g nothing could = everything... and like ur example 4 =5.
ddageesta 4 years ago
BTW do you think (and this is kind of a oxymoron) that the state of mind exist as a real matter or is it abstract?
Supremissus 4 years ago
Well if you did dream about Sparrow , isn't it true in your mind?
Supremissus 4 years ago
And for my final post, what's your take on the (supposed) problem of induction? External reality has consistently revealed the Sun to humankind for thousands of years, but is it logical to claim that the Sun will rise tomorrow? The answer appears to be no, or at least that's how Hume answered it. What's your take on the problem of induction as it relates to your commentary of the relationship between the logical and the nomological?
UberCryxic 4 years ago
So you're asking me a question about rational expectations - tell me, are you expecting me to answer it logically, and in English?
stefbot 4 years ago
I would hope that, for the moment, you could ignore the dynamics of language and just answer the question I posed with whatever inherent and learned meaning you grasp from it (though hopefully not too learned, or otherwise you'd keep on questioning me if I expect you to answer "logically and in English").
UberCryxic 4 years ago
I would also note that, just going by your "system" in this video, statements of opinion would have to qualify as logical instruments because they reveal something about ontological reality. If a logical statement was one that was consistent with behavior in the external world, then presumably someone liking the same music over and over and communicating that through language would have to be logical.
UberCryxic 4 years ago
Very interesting though controversial connection between the laws of physics and the laws of logic. Philosophers traditionally delineate the two, arguing that simply logical statements exist on their own, independent of physical reality, but fundamentally I agree with you: logic would be meaningless without an external world.
UberCryxic 4 years ago
2+2=keano reeves. iff i believe that keano reeves is co-referential with the natural number of 4. recognize.
blkzen 4 years ago
I appreciate your way of expressing yourself on the correspondence theory of truth, as it has added to the descriptive toolbox for the classes that I teach.
trentamj 5 years ago
Thanks!
stefbot 5 years ago
BTW, what do you teach?
stefbot 5 years ago
Anything a school or college regards me as sufficiently qualified to teach, in fact. What I most frequently teach is Introduction to Philosophy, Ethics, Critical Thinking, and Logic. I have also been known to teach History (of Philosophy), Mythology, Film Studies, database management, and Microsoft Windows/Office. Basically, I love the whole process of being able to share what I have learned as a way of validating that I have learned it.
trentamj 5 years ago
2 + 2 = 4? huh?
trigger1979 5 years ago
Well done stefbot, this shall prove to be a gRand year.I am the mAynd that has built Her Motor/Generator of the Philosophy for Living on Earth. Keep up the noble fight but I should 'show' you that there is a "next-ledge" that you have to get to -N-52ii
AynRandMotor 5 years ago
stefan is the motherfuckin shit!
mrmusler 5 years ago
i think it lacks flow
skunksaver 5 years ago
Can you tell me a little more about what you mean? Are there logical inconsistencies in the argument?
Thanks!
stefbot 5 years ago
I would have expected more on the "what is a concept" question in an epistemology introduction. Agreeing that something is an orange is not an easy thing to do. We have to share the concept of orange. How did we get that concept? By being told by others what is and isn't an orange but those people may be mistaken and we may not be aware of what the full range of "orangeness" implies such that I might say something is an orange while you don't.
DrTodd13 5 years ago
True, but that is language, not matter - "a rose by any other name" etc. The concept is derived from sensual evidence...
stefbot 5 years ago
From my understanding, percepts are derived from sensual evidence. Concepts, on the other hand, do not depend upon anything a posteriori, but can be formed from the more basic categories of thought. For instance, enDOTwikipediaDOTorg/wiki/Category_(Kant)
adriansrfr 2 years ago