Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 51 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,197 Year: 5,454/9,624 Month: 479/323 Week: 119/204 Day: 19/16 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   one step at a time
joz
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 64 (23848)
11-22-2002 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by forgiven
11-22-2002 8:59 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
this got bogged down in semantics before, so i think i'll try again, only slower this time... no jumping to the end of the book!!
givens:
1) i exist
2) the universe exists
now that's as far as i'm going till i see how many are gonna argue about it... if there's disagreement on those, i think i'll just hibernate for the winter

Better get your pyjamas on then buddy boy....
While I`ll grant you 1) for now (but only as it applies to me)(The cogito etc) why do you assume that the universe exsists?
It could all be fantasy, the earth, the sun, flowers rain, John and I even LL`s rants.....
I happen to agree that the universe exsists but I don`t think you can just assume it a priori without evaluating the alternatives....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by forgiven, posted 11-22-2002 8:59 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by forgiven, posted 11-23-2002 7:04 AM joz has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 64 (23916)
11-23-2002 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by forgiven
11-23-2002 7:04 AM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
ok, so "I" exist (as it applies to you)... fine... then everytime you see "I" just assume it's talking 'bout you... now then, if i exist and i believe the universe exists, why do i believe that? am i assuming its existence a priori or do i *see* it? nah joz, you can't have it both ways... in another place you said you only accept things you can hear, taste, smell, see... the universe falls into that category eh?
Ah but you see I happen to agree that the universe exsists, in said other place your arguments were from a rationalist perspective (i.e innate ideas) however I think you still have to justify them, the could be deceptions/delusions after all.....
Seriously read some Descartes....
[This message has been edited by joz, 11-23-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by forgiven, posted 11-23-2002 7:04 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by forgiven, posted 11-23-2002 1:28 PM joz has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 64 (23993)
11-23-2002 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by forgiven
11-23-2002 1:28 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
sigh... by saying it could be deceptions/illusions you doubt its factual nature... if you don't want to grant the universe exists and insist on proofs or justifications for its existence, this might not be the thread for you

Bud if you are going to build some rationalist (apologies if you aren`t actually one but your opinions so far sound pretty much akin to their ilk)argument from the basis that the universe exsists you really need to prove that it does first, otherwise however grand the structure you create some bugger like Hume might come along and knock it down....
[This message has been edited by joz, 11-23-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by forgiven, posted 11-23-2002 1:28 PM forgiven has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 64 (24280)
11-25-2002 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by forgiven
11-24-2002 4:25 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
i)since there seems to be no objection, we're here:
ii)
a) nothing exists because all is an illusion
b) something that exists created itself
c) something that exists came from nothing
first, what is "no thing?" no thing, nothing, is a complete state of non-existence, it has no attribute of any kind.. no size or shape, a complete and total absence of all attributes... examining the above, we can rule out a) since we've already agreed that something exists, namely "I" and "the universe"... so if something exists, a) is false

i)But there is an objection, namely that to build from the (putative) exsistence of the universe you have to prove it exsists forst....
ii)I think you are begging the question here, you already know you exsist or you wouldn`t be asking the question, a) should read something like "a)Nothing but me exsists everything else is a figment of my immagination.", lets call that neo a) for now...
So you cant falsify (neo) a) because of your own exsistence and you are back where you started with only the knowledge of self exsistence derived from the cogito.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by forgiven, posted 11-24-2002 4:25 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Chara, posted 11-25-2002 5:24 PM joz has replied
 Message 30 by forgiven, posted 11-25-2002 8:05 PM joz has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 64 (24288)
11-25-2002 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Chara
11-25-2002 5:24 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Chara:
I've been following this thread and recognize that I am not qualified to add anything to it, BUT I do have a question. It seems to me that if we're at "neo" that's where we're going to stay. Moving past that point is an impossibility ... so whats the point of anything? scientific investigation? faith?? magic? what's the diff?
Yep thats pretty much the pickle that Descartes found himself in....
He attempted to use God to pull himself up out of the mire, problem is he had to prove God first and his proof turns out to be circular.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Chara, posted 11-25-2002 5:24 PM Chara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Chara, posted 11-25-2002 7:24 PM joz has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 64 (24319)
11-25-2002 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by forgiven
11-25-2002 8:05 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
i think i already answered you long ago on this... remember? if you want to deny the existence of the universe, i said, then maybe this isn't the thread for you... why not just leave it to those who *don't* deny the universe exists? that way you'll be happy, i'll be happy, and those who want to see where this goes will be happy
Lets put it this way, do you believe the universe exsists or do you know that the universe exsists?
If you know, how?
If you don`t know that the universe exsists don`t you think that that is a weakness in your arguments?
I`m just trying to make sure you build it on a good foundation rather than an assumption....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by forgiven, posted 11-25-2002 8:05 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by forgiven, posted 11-26-2002 9:21 AM joz has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 64 (24575)
11-27-2002 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by forgiven
11-26-2002 9:21 AM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
knowledge *is* belief
... knowledge is the true, warranted belief of a properly functioning mind... can all that passes for knowledge be empirically verified?

John has already addressed a lot of the points I would have however I would like to point out that saying that knowledge is "true warranted belief" merely rolls the question back a stage to become how do you know its a belief that is true and warranted.....
So?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by forgiven, posted 11-26-2002 9:21 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by forgiven, posted 11-27-2002 9:45 AM joz has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 64 (24721)
11-28-2002 12:03 AM


Your definition begs the question by including yourself in the universe....
More than that it is based on an assumption of materialism, after all you might not be part of the universe you might be one of your transcendental entity thingamabobs, the only way you can include self in universe is if that self is material....
Guess whats next....
How do you know that you aren`t one of thos transcendental buggers?
So your definition a)begs the question, and b)fails to account for that transcendental possibility....

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by John, posted 11-28-2002 12:10 AM joz has replied
 Message 49 by forgiven, posted 11-28-2002 8:13 AM joz has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 64 (24727)
11-28-2002 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by John
11-28-2002 12:10 AM


Buddy boys post where he defined the universe as including his self...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by John, posted 11-28-2002 12:10 AM John has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 64 (25109)
12-01-2002 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by forgiven
11-28-2002 8:13 AM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
as for a) you seem to be saying that if the definition of universe is as i stated earlier, "the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated," then including "I" in it begs the question... but is that true? john objected to the definition, but by his failure to offer his own his objection is merely a groundless assertion...
now you say including "I" in the above begs the question but don't show how... so unless you mean to say it begs the question because the definition of universe isn't as i offered, you seem to be equivicating on the terms
as for b), it assumes transcendental entities aren't themselves included in "the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated"... but on what grounds is this assertion made? it appears that for a transcendental entity to fall outside the definition it needs to be defined as "supernatural"... if that's how you want it defined, i'll do that... and in that case, you'd be correct *if* "I" am in fact transcendental

Yes it begs the question because if you didn`t exsist you wouldn`t be asking the question in the first place would you....
Also it only proves the special case where "I = universe" the exsistence of anything else is completely unverified....
quote:
"the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated,"
Seems to me this is a 2 edged sword, afterall I can postulate transcosmic magenta gerbils, they don`t exsist and they are by your definition part of the universe thus the universe (as defined by you) doesn`t either....
So it looks like we have to do away with the postulated part leaving "the whole body of things and phenomena observed" which means that unless we observe these transcendental buggers they are not included in the definition of universe....
Seen any lately?
So now the big question is how do you know that you aren`t one of these supernatural transcendtal buggers?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by forgiven, posted 11-28-2002 8:13 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by forgiven, posted 12-01-2002 8:26 AM joz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024