Jump to content


- - - - -

Mood: various avenues to philosophizing

philosophy Heidegger Existentialism Scheler

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
58 replies to this topic

#26 Big Blooming Blighter

Big Blooming Blighter

    Galilean

  • Members
  • 1,989 posts
  • LocationUK
  • Real name:Rob

Posted 07 March 2012 - 04:38 PM

Did you seriously link me to a wiki page on Abstraction?!

You clearly have an uncommon view of identity, which seems to make the very notion of identity, and all logical relations, utterly worthless. I'm not sure if you actually believe what you're expounding, or if you're just peddling it to keep the 'not everything has self-identity' shtick.

Would you care to go into some detail on what it is you actually hold to be the case regarding identity (through time)? Why, in particular, can an object not undergo any change without losing its identity, and what do we actually mean when we equate the identity of P at tn with the identity of P at t(n+x)?

Anyways, you've still not provided any argument against the reflexive relation malarkey, since, even if identity is immutable, and a rock at one particular moment in time is not identical with the same rock at a different particular moment in time, the rock at one particular moment in time certainly is identical to that same rock at that same particular moment in time.

DaveT is more civilised than I am, usually.

As long as you feed him.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince of a Thousand enemies. And when they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you; digger, listener, runner, Prince with the swift warning. Be cunning, and full of tricks, and your people will never be destroyed.

#27 DaveT

DaveT

    Galilean

  • Members
  • 1,685 posts
  • Real name:Dave Taylor

Posted 07 March 2012 - 04:50 PM

:hungry: :sneaky:
Hola. Mi nombre es Iñigo Montoya. Usted mató a mi padre, prepárate a morir.

#28 Inzababa

Inzababa

    TGL Student

  • Members
  • 91 posts
  • LocationLyon, France
  • Real name:Mark

Posted 07 March 2012 - 05:45 PM

View PostDaveT, on 07 March 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:

In that case, shouldn't you be changing your SN every second?

No, because my SN covers anything that is relevant to what I am.


Quote

It's just that if something isn't the same as itself a second later, because it's in a different position and has aged a wee bit, etc. then if you were Inzababa when I started this post, you won't be Inzababa when I've finished it.

lol how does that work?

a) of course I'm not the same from one second to another, my blood flows, my moods change, my thoughts evolve, my cells move

B) none of this is relevant to what the name "Inzababa" covers is it?






Quote

You are the being-who-is-similar-to-but-is-not-Inzababa, unless you want to argue that whilst nothing relates to itself, and nothing is itself a second later, the identity of a person remains the same throughout their lifetime, though I'm not sure how you would do that.


I have a "self" :


Quote

For anything that "has" a self, yes.


.
.
.

Quote

Also, I'm a bit confused. You said that anything which exists concretely does not have a reflexive relation with itself.

Correction, I said that's what I thought but wasn't sure (then in another post showed why I thought this).

EDIT --> anything which exists "objectively" does not have a reflexive relation.

(in my view) reflexive relation requires the existence of subjectivity in the first place


Quote

I am going to use the same pedantry that I've seen used elsewhere, and ask how can a rock at t1 not have a reflexive relation with itself?

Did I not explain why?

It depends on whether you're talking about "the objective concrete and real rock" which you see in front of you, or if you mean "a rock" in the abstract way in which the name "rock" covers the rock you are referring to.

Objectively, the same rock at t1 and t2 are not the same rock. (that's why).


Quote

Maybe (though I have yet to be given a good reason as to why) a rock at t1 might not have a reflexive relation with (what I would call) the same rock at t2, but what stops an object having a reflexive relation with the exact same object in the exact same spatial-temporal location?

The very fact that it exists through time and space.

If a rock is in front of you, it's location in space is always moving, you're just not aware of it.

If a rock is in front of you, it's location in time is always moving as well, you're aware of that, but you (and I) are not aware of what that means.

The thing is, since most of these "changes" are irrelevant to us, (insignificant) would be a better word, it doesn't matter to us, and when we abstractly call it a rock, we do not take into account everything that a rock is objectively : ie it's a simplification which disregards a lot of things that would be required to show whether it is reflexive or not, and if we take those things into account (for example, its location in time and space, but also the properties of what a rock is made of and how these effect the "state" of what a rock is objectively, it can not be said that it is the same rock at two different points in time.

Rephrasing exactly the same point from another perspective which you might find more usefull since it's from another angle :

A reflexive rock would be 100% identical at t1 and t2.

My point : it isn't.

Edited by Inzababa, 07 March 2012 - 06:21 PM.

Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.

#29 Inzababa

Inzababa

    TGL Student

  • Members
  • 91 posts
  • LocationLyon, France
  • Real name:Mark

Posted 07 March 2012 - 06:02 PM

View PostBig Blooming Blighter, on 07 March 2012 - 04:38 PM, said:

Did you seriously link me to a wiki page on Abstraction?!

You clearly have an uncommon view of identity, which seems to make the very notion of identity, and all logical relations, utterly worthless. I'm not sure if you actually believe what you're expounding, or if you're just peddling it to keep the 'not everything has self-identity' shtick.

Would you care to go into some detail on what it is you actually hold to be the case regarding identity (through time)? Why, in particular, can an object not undergo any change without losing its identity, and what do we actually mean when we equate the identity of P at tn with the identity of P at t(n+x)?

Anyways, you've still not provided any argument against the reflexive relation malarkey, since, even if identity is immutable, and a rock at one particular moment in time is not identical with the same rock at a different particular moment in time, the rock at one particular moment in time certainly is identical to that same rock at that same particular moment in time.

DaveT is more civilised than I am, usually.

As long as you feed him.



I hope you'll understand why I dis-regard comments that are off topic or personal;

Quote

Why, in particular, can an object not undergo any change without losing its identity, and what do we actually mean when we equate the identity of P at tn with the identity of P at t(n+x)?


Any identity which we assign to anything is "defined" by us in the first place

Identity, in its abstract meaning, is defined by "us", and "we" do not know, in fact can not know, (but that's irrelevant because it's enough (and have partially demonstrated) to say that we do not take into account) everything that defines that identity, so we "simplify" it.

In such a way that whether you know about atoms and energy and where they are, what they do, whether you know about the relativity of time, whether you know about tiny changes in temperature and how that changes the state of an object, is irrelevant.

So Stephen Hawkins can use the word "rock" when talking to a 10 year old, and they will both be able to communicate effectively.

When Stephen Hawkins or the 10 year old boy use the word rock (indeed when anyone uses that word) they never mean "everything that the rock is objectively and concretely", that would be hugely unpractical if only because no one is measuring all of those properties each second during a conversation.

So whether rock at t1 is 0.0001 degrees warmer or colder (which changes what it is as well) is irrelevant and not taken into account.

However, a rock at 21.0001 degrees is not the same rock at 21.0002 degrees Celsius.

If I take the same example but use a different scale and another object, maybe that will help :

A glass of water at 21 degrees Celsius or a class of water at 0 degrees Celcius is not the same glass of water.

Or, even more extreme, a glass of water here in front of me, is not the same as that same "glass of water on top of mount Everest".

A rock at 19h (for a huge number of reasons) is not the same rock at 19h01.

For a start, it's not even in the same objective location.

Within "our" framework, of course it is, it's in front of us, but because we are moving on Earth with that rock, it's irrelevant to us.



Quote

Anyways, you've still not provided any argument against the reflexive relation malarkey, since, even if identity is immutable, and a rock at one particular moment in time is not identical with the same rock at a different particular moment in time, the rock at one particular moment in time certainly is identical to that same rock at that same particular moment in time.

That's true.

But when does that ever happen? That one rock is two times at the same time?
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.

#30 DaveT

DaveT

    Galilean

  • Members
  • 1,685 posts
  • Real name:Dave Taylor

Posted 07 March 2012 - 06:24 PM

But if you have "a self" then all concrete objects have a sense, which is why we have names that we use to identify them across a range of times and positions. You're using special pleading to argue a case that you're expecting us to accept without your given us any sound reason to do so. For example, this part of your last post:

Quote


You are the being-who-is-similar-to-but-is-not-Inzababa, unless you want to argue that whilst nothing relates to itself, and nothing is itself a second later, the identity of a person remains the same throughout their lifetime, though I'm not sure how you would do that.

I have a self

For anything that "has" a self, yes.


You haven't answered my objection with that; you have merely made an assertion without backing it up. Why do you have a self, but other concrete objects do not? Or are you saying that the "abstract you" has a self? Is it your thoughts that determine your self, in which case why does that self remain you when your thoughts change, or when you sleep? When you die, will we not be able to point at your corpse, and say, "This is Inzababa"? If the changing of your thoughts, ideals, personality, etc. allows you to maintain your reflexive relation with yourself, why then can a rock not maintain it's RR with itself as it moves and alters (though we won't perceive it) through time and space?

Furthermore, when I say "Inzababa" I don't just mean the name. I mean you, yourself, your whole being, who you are, etc. Therefore, while you might like to think that reflexive relations, concrete identities, rocks not being rocks, etc. are irrelevant to the name "Inzababa" itself, they are entirely relevant to the being (or poster, whatever) that calls itself "Inzababa."

About that rock:

Quote

Did I not explain why?

No. You just gave us a paradigm about identity, and expected us to accept it without question, it would seem.

Quote

Objectively, the same rock at t1 and t2 are not the same rock. (that's why).

And you still haven't said why. It's not the same rock, because it's not the same rock. I say it is the same rock, and I say it is the same rock, because the rock at t1 and t2 are the same rock. Do you accept that? Of course you don't, so why do you think I'll accept the same kind of argument from you?

Quote

lol how does that work?

a) of course I'm not the same from one second to another, my blood flows, my moods change, my thoughts evolve, my cells move

Please don't LOL me, it's very rude. Parts of you may have moved, your thoughts may have changed, but we can still identify you as the same person you were a second ago. Over a considerable period of time who you are might change enough for us to say that who you are at T+10 years is not the same person you were at T, but outside of the internet schools of cod philosophy, nobody will say you're not the same person from one second to the next, unless something incredibly drastic can happen in that second, such as a witch turning you into some kind of kung-fu earthworm with a desire to destroy teh internetz.
Hola. Mi nombre es Iñigo Montoya. Usted mató a mi padre, prepárate a morir.

#31 DaveT

DaveT

    Galilean

  • Members
  • 1,685 posts
  • Real name:Dave Taylor

Posted 07 March 2012 - 06:28 PM

Just so we're clear, you're saying that there are things that do not have a "self." Can you give some basic examples?

Secondly, you asserted earlier that nothing concrete has a reflexive relation. From this, we can say that a rock at t1 does not have a reflexive relation with itself at t1. IOW, Xeno's arrow is never really Xeno's arrow, because wherever you stop it, it doesn't have a reflexive relation with itself, because it is a concrete object. Is all this correct, or do you require time to backtrack somewhat before you continue?
Hola. Mi nombre es Iñigo Montoya. Usted mató a mi padre, prepárate a morir.

#32 Big Blooming Blighter

Big Blooming Blighter

    Galilean

  • Members
  • 1,989 posts
  • LocationUK
  • Real name:Rob

Posted 07 March 2012 - 06:40 PM

I'm going to apply an acronym to this.

In a similar vein to tl;dr, I'm going to go for

ob;dr

Obtuse bullshit; didn't read
All the world will be your enemy, Prince of a Thousand enemies. And when they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you; digger, listener, runner, Prince with the swift warning. Be cunning, and full of tricks, and your people will never be destroyed.

#33 Inzababa

Inzababa

    TGL Student

  • Members
  • 91 posts
  • LocationLyon, France
  • Real name:Mark

Posted 07 March 2012 - 07:06 PM

Quote

But if you have "a self" then all concrete objects have a sense, which is why we have names that we use to identify them across a range of times and positions. You're using special pleading to argue a case that you're expecting us to accept without your given us any sound reason to do so.

Sorry, I thought I did in 3 posts or so.

How about I ask you questions now instead?

For example, can you think of anything that is not related to subjectivity, which is reflexive?


Quote

You haven't answered my objection with that; you have merely made an assertion without backing it up. Why do you have a self, but other concrete objects do not?

Sorry, I guess I did skip that.

I have a self but concrete objects do not, because the self I'm talking about (in this context) is me in the first place.

Concrete objects are not alive, are not conscious and more importantly, are not self conscious, so there is nothing for them to "reflex" about (so to speak) in the first place.

The reflexive relation you see in anything is assigned by you in the first place, if you didn't do that, would there be any? I don't think so.

Animals might assign a reflexive relationship to certain things. For example "danger" would all mean the same thing to them, so they run. (ie danger = danger).

In this example, "danger" covers anything that could be a threat, which could be an enemy predator or a loud noise. At any rate, as far as they are concerned, they run.

Other example ; "food" = "food", whatever the component of that food, they wouldn't care, they'd just eat it.

In the same way, how anything that exists is used by us is the only thing that makes up the function of its identity. Because the location of the atoms, the degree of energy (and mass) of an object, unless it is significant, is irrelevant to whatever we want to do with it. We only make the "abstract, identity" distinction when it's convenient for us, NOT when it is actually concrectly the case "objectively".


Quote

Or are you saying that the "abstract you" has a self?

Yes. Exactly, even I don't know exactly what I am, when I speak of myself, that's an abstraction which covers only the relevant attributes of what I am. So, to a blind person, whether you are pretty or uggly will be irrelevant, to him, this attribute (in the way it is assigned to people who can see) simply does not exist. (not to say there may not be other things about you he may find beautyful or ugly, but I'm hoping this inperfect illustration's point will get across.)


Quote

Is it your thoughts that determine your self, in which case why does that self remain you when your thoughts change, or when you sleep?

I think (not sure) that this question is covered by defining "what you are" according to things that also cover when your thoughts change.

For example, an angry me isn't exactly the same as a happy me. On the other hand : a me that can be angry or happy "covers" "me".

As long as it is taken into account, it works. But the problem remains as well, we don't even know what an "angry" or "happy" me actually is unless we've studied biology, psychology and maybe even neuroscience.

For example, in developmental psychology, the "you" is composed of "different levels of consciousness" which itself is composed of lots of other abstract definitions in which meaning is assigned.

From that perspective, "consciousness" covers all of them.

Which is why, to someone not familiar with this branch of psychology, "consciousness" may mean something totally different, simply because, even though both are speaking of the same thing, the meaning of the abstract word used to describe and/or define what it refers to does not "point" to exactly the same attributes of that thing.

Since neither actually covers it "absolutely and objectively", it doesn't matter, what matters is that the two know what it is they are referring to, which is why in maths and in philosophy, people often start by "defining" the words they use and specifying what those definitions refer to. So that everyone participating in the discussion may communicate in the same framework.

That framework is never (this is a hypothesis) identical to what anything it "covers" is objectively though, because of that subjective perspective in the first place.


Quote

When you die, will we not be able to point at your corpse, and say, "This is Inzababa"?

Hmm not me, I'll be dead :p Someone who knows "Inzababa" would though, however, if you, (for example) were to meet my brother, chances are how you perceive me and how he perceives me would be hugely different. Not only that but many of my friends don't even know me as "Inzababa" (the name itself contributes to the subjective meaning (I think)).

What you would agree on, when pointing, is that that is a dead human being, male, "called" Inzababa (or Mark).

For you X might = X for my brother as well, but when you meet, you would realise it's not "true".

Objectively, neither you or my brother would be right.




Quote

If the changing of your thoughts, ideals, personality, etc. allows you to maintain your reflexive relation with yourself, why then can a rock not maintain it's RR with itself as it moves and alters (though we won't perceive it) through time and space?

Actually, (this is why it (I think)) it only works subjectively. Whatever I am thinking, whether now or in 2 seconds, I'm reflexivly me to me.

That's a "self relation".

However, a rock has no "self" to begin with does it? It's not even alive ....

So I may describe my existence because I can describe my self relation (I think so I am) which "proves" that I must exist because I have a relation.

However "objectively" and "absolutely" (I would suggest) it's not a "self" relation which is required to exist, it's any kind of relation whatsoever.

As long as something is related in one way or another to something else or anything else, (including components of what it is) then it exists, specifying "self" is (in my view) unnecessary since it only applies where subjectivity exists in the first place.



Quote

Furthermore, when I say "Inzababa" I don't just mean the name. I mean you, yourself, your whole being, who you are, etc

That's fine with me, in which case two things :

a) it means that you are including potential things that I am which you don't know about but you do take into account as potentially describing part of what I am (for example, having a human body, that's something you're assuming).

Objectively, that's not necessarily true, if you "meet" me in "real life" as opposed to on a forum, you might find that "I am not at all what you thought I was".

I could also not even be a human being, but one of those artificial chat bots used by marketing and public relation companies (that's not the case :p) but you see what I mean?

B) it can be reflexive, since "you" define what Inzababa refers to

that's "subjectively".

Objectively, what you think and how you imagine me is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is that "Inzababa" is not reflexive "objectively".

Which is true, Inzababa, when he was 2 years old, was not the same as Inzababa when he was 14 or even 30.

From my point of view though, it was all me anyway.

Quote

Therefore, while you might like to think that reflexive relations, concrete identities, rocks not being rocks, etc. are irrelevant to the name "Inzababa" itself, they are entirely relevant to the being (or poster, whatever) that calls itself "Inzababa."

That's true, and anyone to who that is relevant too is necessarily someone subjective, which works according to laws that only exist in subjective "selves".

Objectively, the only thing that matters is how what I am evolves according to the laws in which whatever is real evolves.

I apologies, but I don't have time to finish my post, I must go, will be back later.
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.

#34 DaveT

DaveT

    Galilean

  • Members
  • 1,685 posts
  • Real name:Dave Taylor

Posted 07 March 2012 - 07:56 PM

Quote

Sorry, I thought I did in 3 posts or so.

How about I ask you questions now instead?

For example, can you think of anything that is not related to subjectivity, which is reflexive?

1) No, you didn't.

2) You've been asking lots of questions already across the boards, most of them being irrelevant and pedantic attempts at sophistry.

3) If you want me to name anything that has a self, as in a reflexive relation, then list everything in existence, and pick one. That's my example. Otherwise, I'm not going to get sucked into your little game of defining terms in a way that only you agree with for the sake of your own agenda.

See, most people (any philosophers worth listening to included) don't define or identify objects as O(bject) 1 at t1 and P(osition)1; they use other methods of identification, such as the fact that it (for living creatures) might have blood that flows, or that it can move, or it has atoms arranged in a particular way that can vibrate and whizz around. So, rock A is rock A, because it is a rock, looks like a rock, smells like a rock, violently mistreats electrical instruments like a rock, etc. Oh, and it also has a molecular arrangement like a rock, and those molecules are made up of smaller things (atoms, etc) that move just like the atoms, etc. in a rock of rock A's type might move.

At one second, those atoms are moving. The next second, those atoms are still moving, so we can say that rock A has a reflexive relation, because the atoms that were moving at t1 are still moving at t2. Same with living creatures. We can identify them by (among other things) their flowing blood. Therefore, a creature's blood is flowing at t1, and at t2, so it shares that property at both times, and it is itself.

BTW, still waiting for you to drop the special pleading as regards the identity or self of concrete objects vs. that of abstract things. If, by the logic and arguments you are using, my finger is not my finger (and if that is not what you are arguing, you had best rewrite everything you have written), then I cannot claim to be me.
Hola. Mi nombre es Iñigo Montoya. Usted mató a mi padre, prepárate a morir.

#35 Inzababa

Inzababa

    TGL Student

  • Members
  • 91 posts
  • LocationLyon, France
  • Real name:Mark

Posted 07 March 2012 - 09:04 PM

I was going to sincerely develop and explain and demonstrate every point and reply to every counter argument and reply to every question as well.

but

a) that takes time, fills up posts with long text that most people don't even read

and

B) only works when people are clear headed (without personal influences)

that said, I'm still going to reply to one or two things though.

View PostInzababa, on 07 March 2012 - 08:50 AM, said:

you only think X = X because you are using X as an abstract word

So I'll keep it very simple.

this is my claim and explanation.

Claim :
you only "think" X = X.

Explanation :
It does not because as soon as any amount of time passes, X is not = to X

Period.
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.

#36 Inzababa

Inzababa

    TGL Student

  • Members
  • 91 posts
  • LocationLyon, France
  • Real name:Mark

Posted 07 March 2012 - 09:08 PM

PS I'm talking about concrete objects, ie; the objective reality of things, not what you think they are or call them, describe them, use them or whatever.
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.

#37 DaveT

DaveT

    Galilean

  • Members
  • 1,685 posts
  • Real name:Dave Taylor

Posted 07 March 2012 - 09:57 PM

View PostInzababa, on 07 March 2012 - 09:04 PM, said:

I was going to sincerely develop and explain and demonstrate every point and reply to every counter argument and reply to every question as well.

but

a) that takes time, fills up posts with long text that most people don't even read

and

B) only works when people are clear headed (without personal influences)

that said, I'm still going to reply to one or two things though.

View PostInzababa, on 07 March 2012 - 08:50 AM, said:

you only think X = X because you are using X as an abstract word

So I'll keep it very simple.

this is my claim and explanation.

Claim :
you only "think" X = X.

Explanation :
It does not because as soon as any amount of time passes, X is not = to X

Period.

:banghead:

I've given examples and arguments to demonstrate why you're wrong, and all you can do is give me a rather patronising reply that ends with (once again) asserting your claim with no argument to back it up.

X = X. As soon as any time passes, X can still be X, because X at t2 can still have the same properties as X at t1. Properties of X are not Xs spacial-temporal location, nor the exact position of its electrons at a set time. Therefore, X at t1 can be (and, in this case, is) the same object as X at t2.

Your explanation explains nothing. You might as well have just said, "I disagree for no decent reason whatsoever" for all the worth it was. :bonk:

Also, even if X is not X after time is passed, so at t1 we have X, but X is not X at t2, X is still X at t1, so X at t1 does have a reflexive relation (IOW, X at t1 relates to X at t1). There is no denying this, but I notice that instead you use the tactic of ignoring it, and acting as if it hasn't been said.

Therefore, whether or not you make the silly claim that the properties of an object necessarily include its spacial temporal location, X = X. Anyway, it's a logical fallacy, a contradiction, an impossibility, to claim that X is not equal to X, so your entire paradigm is ridiculous on that basis alone.
Hola. Mi nombre es Iñigo Montoya. Usted mató a mi padre, prepárate a morir.

#38 Inzababa

Inzababa

    TGL Student

  • Members
  • 91 posts
  • LocationLyon, France
  • Real name:Mark

Posted 07 March 2012 - 10:14 PM

Quote

X = X. As soon as any time passes, X can still be X, because X at t2 can still have the same properties as X at t1.

No.

That's my point. (which you have NOT provided arguments against...

if X at t1 and X at t2 were reflexive, they (tautologically) must be identical at both points in time.

Illustration :
A glass of water in front of me is NOT identical to that same glass of water sitting on top of Mount Everest

2 cases

1. Objective reality
2. Subjective reality

1. --> That is not the case with most things I can think of (but may not be the case of everything)
2. ---> That is often the case but only because the relationship is built by the subject in the first place.


Quote

even if X is not X after time is passed, so at t1 we have X, but X is not X at t2, X is still X at t1, so X at t1 does have a reflexive relation (IOW, X at t1 relates to X at t1). There is no denying this, but I notice that instead you use the tactic of ignoring it, and acting as if it hasn't been said.

The only reason there is no denying this (and the only way it is possible) is in abstract form.

NOT when X refers to a concrete objective object.

"time passing by" is irrelevant in the world of abstract

"time passing by" is a mandatory attribute of (concrete) objective reality (not something which has ever been reasonably questioned by anyone I heard of at any rate)

Time always passes by objectively, or, since we can't really use absolutes about reality, time always passes by in the reality that we know of. (black holes, the big bang and so on is something I don't know about)

2 PS

PS 1 I did not ignore that argument, I responded to it here ;



Quote

Quote


Anyways, you've still not provided any argument against the reflexive relation malarkey, since, even if identity is immutable, and a rock at one particular moment in time is not identical with the same rock at a different particular moment in time, the rock at one particular moment in time certainly is identical to that same rock at that same particular moment in time.



That's true.

But when does that ever happen? That one rock is two times at the same time?

When is one rock "present" more than once?

When is one rock at t1 and t2 when t1 = t2??????

PS 2
I apologies if I sounded patronising, it was not intended
Also the "lol" was not directed at you but what you said and apologies if it was interpreted as being rude. Couldn't help it but found it funny ;:

It's just that if something isn't the same as itself a second later, because it's in a different position and has aged a wee bit, etc. then if you were Inzababa when I started this post, you won't be Inzababa when I've finished it

edit ---> precision, what I found funny was "if I was Inzababa when you started the post, I won't be Inzababa when you finished it
ie : that phrase, not the seriousness and validity of the argument

Edited by Inzababa, 07 March 2012 - 10:24 PM.

Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.

#39 Inzababa

Inzababa

    TGL Student

  • Members
  • 91 posts
  • LocationLyon, France
  • Real name:Mark

Posted 07 March 2012 - 10:21 PM

Quote

Anyway, it's a logical fallacy, a contradiction, an impossibility, to claim that X is not equal to X, so your entire paradigm is ridiculous on that basis alone.

This illustrates my point too...

if X does not = X

it's because that's not a correct way of expressing it.

Here is a correct "logically acceptable" way of expressing it.

"What we call X at t1" does not = "What we call X at t2"

Since we call "X", whether at t1 or t2 : "X",

this creates logical fallacies and the illusion that "what we call X at any time" is reflexive

In reality, objectively, it isn't.
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.

#40 DaveT

DaveT

    Galilean

  • Members
  • 1,685 posts
  • Real name:Dave Taylor

Posted 07 March 2012 - 10:23 PM

Nobody said that the rock was present more than once. It was said that the rock at t1 is identical to itself. IOW, the rock at t1 is the rock at t1.

For the rest of your post, see my earlier objections, which have not yet been addressed.

I think we're talking past each other at this point, not just because you're having difficulty comprehending what I'm saying, but because you don't really know what you yourself are talking about. :yup:
Hola. Mi nombre es Iñigo Montoya. Usted mató a mi padre, prepárate a morir.

#41 DaveT

DaveT

    Galilean

  • Members
  • 1,685 posts
  • Real name:Dave Taylor

Posted 07 March 2012 - 10:32 PM

See, what you're doing is denying one of the the most basic, fundamental axioms of philosophy and logic, viz. X = X. X = X regardless of its spacial-temporal location. It  doesn't matter what you say, the axiom cannot be sensibly denied.

What you are also doing is denying or ignore certain arguments and claims made against you, and redefining terms, all this to suit your own agenda. If somebody says something that rebuts your claim, and simply repeating the claim won't effectively counter that rebuttal, you act as though that rebuttal was never made.
Hola. Mi nombre es Iñigo Montoya. Usted mató a mi padre, prepárate a morir.

#42 Inzababa

Inzababa

    TGL Student

  • Members
  • 91 posts
  • LocationLyon, France
  • Real name:Mark

Posted 07 March 2012 - 10:39 PM

View PostDaveT, on 07 March 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

Nobody said that the rock was present more than once. It was said that the rock at t1 is identical to itself. IOW, the rock at t1 is the rock at t1.

For the rest of your post, see my earlier objections, which have not yet been addressed.

I think we're talking past each other at this point, not just because you're having difficulty comprehending what I'm saying, but because you don't really know what you yourself are talking about. :yup:

that's fine but "in reality" that never happens.

You can't stop time can you? Even if it's a hundreth of a second, that still passing time, and when time passes, "what we call X at t1" becomes "what we call X at t1 + one hundreth of a second" (ie "what we call X at t2"

PS I'm not repeating the claim, I'm focusing on the core of the claim and trying to rephrase that, rather than elaborate, develop, explain (which takes up space and confuses people, including myself)
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.

#43 Inzababa

Inzababa

    TGL Student

  • Members
  • 91 posts
  • LocationLyon, France
  • Real name:Mark

Posted 07 March 2012 - 10:42 PM

View PostDaveT, on 07 March 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

See, what you're doing is denying one of the the most basic, fundamental axioms of philosophy and logic, viz. X = X. X = X regardless of its spacial-temporal location. It  doesn't matter what you say, the axiom cannot be sensibly denied.

What you are also doing is denying or ignore certain arguments and claims made against you, and redefining terms, all this to suit your own agenda. If somebody says something that rebuts your claim, and simply repeating the claim won't effectively counter that rebuttal, you act as though that rebuttal was never made.

Absolutely.

I am denying that it applies "in the real world". I'm not denying that it can work "in principle" or "in philosophy" or "in mathematics" or "in language" all of which depend on an abstract intepretation of "the real world".

Fact is, in "the real world" that doesn't happen, there is always time passing by and you can not "stop" time and play with the relationships of an item or event.

Quote

What you are also doing is denying or ignore certain arguments and claims made against you, and redefining terms, all this to suit your own agenda

I strongly disagree, but rather than go off on another tangent, I'd rather politely ask you, since this is your claim, to show why you think it is true. One way would be to provide an example.

On the other hand, if you don't care, then we agree to disagree on this point and it's not a problem.

Lastly, about the agenda ...... yeah, I am representative of the illuminati.
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.

#44 DaveT

DaveT

    Galilean

  • Members
  • 1,685 posts
  • Real name:Dave Taylor

Posted 07 March 2012 - 10:53 PM

View PostInzababa, on 07 March 2012 - 10:42 PM, said:

View PostDaveT, on 07 March 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

See, what you're doing is denying one of the the most basic, fundamental axioms of philosophy and logic, viz. X = X. X = X regardless of its spacial-temporal location. It  doesn't matter what you say, the axiom cannot be sensibly denied.

What you are also doing is denying or ignore certain arguments and claims made against you, and redefining terms, all this to suit your own agenda. If somebody says something that rebuts your claim, and simply repeating the claim won't effectively counter that rebuttal, you act as though that rebuttal was never made.

Absolutely.


That'll do me. I see no need to waste any further time on you. :wave:
Hola. Mi nombre es Iñigo Montoya. Usted mató a mi padre, prepárate a morir.

#45 Inzababa

Inzababa

    TGL Student

  • Members
  • 91 posts
  • LocationLyon, France
  • Real name:Mark

Posted 07 March 2012 - 10:54 PM

Quote

But when does that ever happen? That one rock is two times at the same time?

Just thought of something.

It happens when two people are looking at the same rock at the same time.

Problem here though, is that the relationship isn't between the rock at two "same times", it's between the rock as seen by one person and the same rock at the same time "as seen by another.

View PostDaveT, on 07 March 2012 - 10:53 PM, said:

View PostInzababa, on 07 March 2012 - 10:42 PM, said:

View PostDaveT, on 07 March 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

See, what you're doing is denying one of the the most basic, fundamental axioms of philosophy and logic, viz. X = X. X = X regardless of its spacial-temporal location. It  doesn't matter what you say, the axiom cannot be sensibly denied.

What you are also doing is denying or ignore certain arguments and claims made against you, and redefining terms, all this to suit your own agenda. If somebody says something that rebuts your claim, and simply repeating the claim won't effectively counter that rebuttal, you act as though that rebuttal was never made.

Absolutely.


That'll do me. I see no need to waste any further time on you. :wave:

No problem, by bye.
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.

#46 DaveT

DaveT

    Galilean

  • Members
  • 1,685 posts
  • Real name:Dave Taylor

Posted 07 March 2012 - 10:54 PM

Quote

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by Inzababa. View it anyway?

Nope. :mrgreen:
Hola. Mi nombre es Iñigo Montoya. Usted mató a mi padre, prepárate a morir.

#47 The Heretic

The Heretic

    ironic nihilist & cheerful pessimist

  • Members
  • 3,330 posts
  • LocationEarth
  • Real name:Utter Kunt

Posted 08 March 2012 - 12:30 AM

Let's think of mood as a force-- something that has duration.

Western philosophy in its calcifation has developed a blind spot to this efficacy of time: a productive force that displays in the emergence of the absolutely new.

This is what Heidegger says has been "unthought". Let us push this further. Our static concepts are themselves the problem: they defend against the sheer heterogeneity of the real.

Yes discursive thought itself is a biological adaptation that is superimposed on the real and gives the world in certain ways for pragmatic purposes.

Discursive thought presents an immobile, frozen world for us to control & project our thoughts through a grid of space, like a net to gather and organize the heterogeneous and dynamic real so we can act upon it and take control.

But when we try to intellectually talk about real movement we realize that our thought isn't up to par. To think in time, to think of non spatial aspects of reality will always be problematic with language if not incommensurable, for it flattens duration by virtue of its very iterative structure. We repeat the same word to denote a bunch of things at different times when in reality nothing ever takes place in exactly the same way twice.

The philosophy of intuition is the attempt to grasp what discursive thought and mathematical symbol marginalizes: the productive force of time (e.g., moods) as it happens and the complexity of the real.

#48 Inzababa

Inzababa

    TGL Student

  • Members
  • 91 posts
  • LocationLyon, France
  • Real name:Mark

Posted 08 March 2012 - 12:34 AM

View PostDaveT, on 07 March 2012 - 10:54 PM, said:

Quote

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by Inzababa. View it anyway?

Nope. :mrgreen:

(off topic)

In the words of C. Sagan :


Quote

There are many hypotheses in science that are wrong. That's perfectly alright; it's the aperture to finding out what's right. Science is a self-correcting process. To be accepted, new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny. The worst aspect of the Velikovsky affair is not that many of his ideas were wrong or silly or in gross contradiction to the facts; rather, the worst aspect is that some scientists attempted to suppress Velikovsky's ideas. The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge and there is no place for it in the endeavor of science. We do not know beforehand where fundamental insights will arise from about our mysterious and lovely solar system, and the history of our study of the solar system shows clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources.

This applies also to philosophy.

"the art of making simple things complicated"
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.

#49 The Heretic

The Heretic

    ironic nihilist & cheerful pessimist

  • Members
  • 3,330 posts
  • LocationEarth
  • Real name:Utter Kunt

Posted 08 March 2012 - 02:18 AM

View PostInzababa, on 08 March 2012 - 12:34 AM, said:

This applies also to philosophy. "the art of making simple things complicated"

Ipse dixit,
and false.

Since you have been exposed here, please take your trolling, know-nothing-ism elsewhere.

#50 Inzababa

Inzababa

    TGL Student

  • Members
  • 91 posts
  • LocationLyon, France
  • Real name:Mark

Posted 08 March 2012 - 07:12 AM

View PostThe Heretic, on 08 March 2012 - 02:18 AM, said:

View PostInzababa, on 08 March 2012 - 12:34 AM, said:

This applies also to philosophy. "the art of making simple things complicated"

Ipse dixit, and false.

Since you have been exposed here, please take your trolling, know-nothing-ism elsewhere.

No.

I have not been exposed here.

I am not a troll.

And I will not "take it anywhere else" (in the sense you mean) unless forced too or unless shown why what I say is not true.

a) (forced too) would require killing me or banning me from this forum

B) (showing why what I say is not true) would require addressing my points and arguments rather than ignoring them.

Until either one of these things happen, I ain't moving.

Banning me from forum would require (morally and ethically) justifying that which (in my mind) can only be done by mis interpreting what I write as breaking the rules in some way.

Showing why what I say is not true may require lengthy discussions which might be seen as off topic to this thread. Which I'm happy to drop.

On the other hand, all of this discussion was in the first place in response to something I wrote which was on topic.
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: philosophy, Heidegger, Existentialism, Scheler

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users