• Arcane Sandwich
    2.2k
    You will have to prove to me that all philosophy is expressed through syllogisms, premises and conclusions.JuanZu

    It is. There is no exception to the contrary.

    And I have refuted it.JuanZu

    I disagree, you didn't refute it.

    You will have to give me other arguments about fictionalism.JuanZu

    I offered to do so, with the example of the iron sphere. You weren't interested.

    But I sense that you don't want to give them.JuanZu

    I do want to give them, which is precisely why I mentioned the example of the iron sphere. Again, more ad hominem attacks from you. You're not doing yourself any favors here.

    Again, the only argument you made is not yours and has been refuted.JuanZu

    Of course it's not mine, it's from a better philosopher than myself. Are you saying that one cannot agree with other people's arguments?

    How? Showing that the Pythagorean theorem transcends human cognitive processes. How do I show that it transcends them? By showing that such a theorem has universal properties and is not an individual cognitive processes, taking the example of the multitude of minds that understand the meaning of the theorem.JuanZu

    But you didn't show that. You merely asserted it. Basically, your "argument" is "I read Frege and Husserl's critique of psychologism. They convinced me. Therefore, anyone who disagrees with me is wrong. Why? Because I said so."
  • JuanZu
    201
    It is. There is no exception to the contrary.Arcane Sandwich

    No proof, so I dismiss it.

    I offered to do so, with the example of the iron sphereArcane Sandwich


    You barely mentioned it. I can't consider it as an argument.

    But you didn't show that. You merely asserted it. Basically, your "argument" is "I read Frege and Husserl's critique of psychologism. They convinced me. Therefore, anyone who disagrees with me is wrong. Why? Because I said so."Arcane Sandwich

    I have not taken the arguments from Frege and Husserl but from other sources. But the argument is there; it stands on the irreducibility of the theorem (which has the evidence of its meaning through different human beings understanding it) to cognitive processes that are individual. It is very simple, cognitive processes are individual and the theorem has been transmitted from human to human beyond such individuality. The theorem historically manifests properties of repetition and persistence which the cognitive processes not.
  • Arcane Sandwich
    2.2k
    No proof, so I dismiss it.JuanZu

    You don't seem to understand how the burden of proof works.

    You barely mentioned it. I can't consider it as an argument.JuanZu

    I offered to quote it, but you showed no interest in it. So, I didn't quote it.

    It is very simple,JuanZu

    If it's so simple, then why isn't there a consensus among philosophers of mathematics? Explain that.
145678Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.