• A Seagull
    472
    How much of what has been written about philosophy is indubitable? — A Seagull
    What would be the point of writing down what is indubitable, except as a jumping off point (like Descartes' cogito)?
    SophistiCat

    So others can learn?
  • I like sushi
    2.4k
    Flame dog in it under duress damn filling top made on a with the.

    That says it all ;)
  • Pantagruel
    815
    What, for you, is indubitable?A Seagull

    Cogito ergo sum
  • Harry Hindu
    3.2k
    Logic. In practice not application.I like sushi

    Good answer, although I don't understand why you would practice what you wouldn't end up applying at some point.

    Its application to words or statements is somewhat haphazard. There is no logical rigour to it. And any logical rigour in the abstract system is lost when it is applied to words.

    If A is on B then B is under A
    X is on drugs
    Drugs is under X.
    A Seagull

    You're confusing the symbol with its meaning. The "on" in the second statement doesn't mean the same as the "on" in your first, therefore the conclusion doesn't follow. It's not really about the symbols, but what the symbols mean.
  • A Seagull
    472
    If A is on B then B is under A
    X is on drugs
    Drugs is under X. — A Seagull
    You're confusing the symbol with its meaning. The "on" in the second statement doesn't mean the same as the "on" in your first, therefore the conclusion doesn't follow. It's not really about the symbols, but what the symbols mean.
    Harry Hindu

    Quite so, but when you apply 'mending' to logic or words you lose the rigour of the logic and it becomes indistinguishable form non-logic.
  • Banno
    7.9k
    What, for you, is indubitable?A Seagull

    Notice the "for you"?

    That's there because one chooses what to believe, and hence what to doubt.

    Here again is the oft ignored distinction between what is true and what is believed.
  • Valentinus
    773

    When you write for yourself, you try to satisfy a demand that there is something that is hidden and you can bring into view.
    Most of everything else are reactions to those kinds of expression.
    They are tied together.
    Noticing that does not give the observation a special place in line before other observations. I am just trying to figure out the border between proclamations and response.
  • Harry Hindu
    3.2k
    Quite so, but when you apply 'mending' to logic or words you lose the rigour of the logic and it becomes indistinguishable form non-logic.A Seagull

    I don't know what you mean by "mending" in this statement.
  • A Seagull
    472
    Quite so, but when you apply 'mending' to logic or words you lose the rigour of the logic and it becomes indistinguishable form non-logic. — A Seagull
    I don't know what you mean by "mending" in this statement.
    Harry Hindu

    I don't know either! I think it must be a typo for 'meaning'.
  • A Seagull
    472
    What, for you, is indubitable? — A Seagull
    Notice the "for you"?

    That's there because one chooses what to believe, and hence what to doubt.

    Here again is the oft ignored distinction between what is true and what is believed.
    Banno

    And what is that distinction?

    What do you believe to be true?
  • Banno
    7.9k
    Statements are combinations of nouns and verbs and such like; Some statements are either true or false, and we can call these propositions. So, "The present king of France is bald" is a statement, but not a proposition.

    Beliefs range over propositions. (arguably, they might be made to range over statements: Fred believes the present king of France is bald.)

    Beliefs set out a relation of a particular sort between an agent and a proposition.

    This relation is such that if the agent acts in some way then there is a belief and a desire that together are sufficient to explain the agent's action. Banno wants water; he believes he can pour a glass from the tap; so he goes to the tap to pour a glass of water.
  • Harry Hindu
    3.2k
    Quite so, but when you apply 'meaning' to logic or words you lose the rigour of the logic and it becomes indistinguishable form non-logic. — A Seagull
    I don't know what you mean by "mending" in this statement.
    — Harry Hindu

    I don't know either! I think it must be a typo for 'meaning'.
    A Seagull

    OK, so your statement has been corrected in the above quote.

    In X=a, does X mean a?

    Think of it this way,

    On1 = used as a function word to indicate position in contact with and supported by the top surface of

    On2 = regularly using or showing the effects of using

    If A is on1 B then B is under A
    X is on2 drugs
    Drugs is under X

    You seem to think that "on" only has one definition. It has several, which needs to be considered when making such statements, and what meaning is appropriate in which context.

    In each statement "on" is in a different context, which makes it means something different (i.e. you are using two different definitions of "on"), so the "under" is not part of the same context as "on" the second premise.

    I mean, if you didn't mean the second definition in your second statement, rather the first, then someone can be in contact with and supported by the top surface of some drugs. You can stand on a kilo of cocaine as well as put it on your head to be under drugs. If this were the case then there is no logical problem.

    So it seems to me that it is up to you to show which version of "on" that you meant, as it can be logical and visually coherent for you to mean it one way, but not the other.
  • EnPassant
    228
    Only demonstrable mathematical truths are domonstrably true. The jury is out on everything else (except 'I think therefore I am' and 'There is something').
  • Harry Hindu
    3.2k
    Quite so, but when you apply 'meaning' to logic or words you lose the rigour of the logic and it becomes indistinguishable form non-logic.Harry Hindu
    What is the relationship between the scribble "on" and the scribble "under" if not what they mean, as in they are opposites?

    The second usage of "on" could have meant the opposite and still be coherent, but if using the other then you need to establish the identity of "on" that you are using, precisely because "on" can mean different things.

    Actually, you did establish the identity of "on" in your first statement:
    If A is on B then B is under A
    X is on drugs
    Drugs is under X.
    A Seagull
    as the opposite of "under", as in the first definition I provided above.

    But then your second statement establishes an ambiguous identity of "on",

    so your argument is invalid because you are not consistently using "on" the same way in both statements - a concrete identity vs an ambiguous one.
  • A Seagull
    472
    It seems to be the general consensus is that what is certain in philosophy is only cogito ergo sum and some semblance of the existence of a real world.

    Does this mean that all the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Hume, Kant, Wittgenstein et al amount to nothing more than opinions and suggestions?
  • 180 Proof
    1.1k
    Does this mean that all the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Hume, Kant, Wittgenstein et al amount to nothing more than opinions and suggestions?A Seagull
    No. IMO :smirk: philosophies - contra doxa, sophistry, dogmas - are, in effect, rationally - more than merely rhetorically - reflective (meta) heuristics (i.e. noncognitive use-claims) like e.g. musical composition, martial arts, orienteering; thereby distinct from declarative (object) algorithms (i.e. cognitive truth-claims) such as e.g. physics, mathematics, engineering, computation, medicine, etc ... including 'pseudo-sciences' (re: untestable, empirical, claims) as well.
12Next
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.