I am a huge lover of philosophy, especially in Epistemology, or studying how we know things. I wanted to start a topic all about philosophical debates, because I didn't see one here. The first thing I want to talk about is how we know things, and the view that I most agree with is pragmatism. Before modern philosophy, Pluto's philosophy of the theory of forms, where everything on Earth was an example of a universal concept of that idea. For example, every chair on Earth is an example of a pure "chairness" that was in a second universe of universals. Plato also argued that knowledge is justified true belief, which take a long time to explain, so I will save that one for later. But then comes Richard Rorty. In an essay, he writes about seventeen. Seventeen, in Plato's theory must have some kind of seventeenness, but what is seventeenness? he writes. The truth is that you can't have seventeen without sixteen and eighteen. Just like everything on Earth. We know things because of their relationships with other things, and it's all interconnected in this web of knowledge. This is pragmatism. For example, we know what water is because it's clear, liquid, made of Oxygen and Hydrogen, and we drink it. There was not a description in there that didn't involve something other than water. What does AG think?
nothing exists in a vaccuum. Take that any way you want
I'll then take it this way, WHAT ABOUT THE LINT IN MY VACCUUM!? It sounds like a probable theory but then plato could argue that no other object has that same exact relationship and therefore that certain web would be the "chairness" or "waterness"
It sounds like a probable theory but then plato could argue that no other object has that same exact relationship and therefore that certain web would be the "chairness" or "waterness"
Not possible, because there is no universal. The chair wouldn't be a chair unless we can sit in it, it stands on legs... etc. There is no universal because we also can sit on couches, bikes, truck beds, etc. Thus, there is no chairness
I am a huge lover of philosophy, especially in Epistemology, or studying how we know things. I wanted to start a topic all about philosophical debates, because I didn't see one here. The first thing I want to talk about is how we know things, and the view that I most agree with is pragmatism. Before modern philosophy, Pluto's philosophy of the theory of forms, where everything on Earth was an example of a universal concept of that idea. For example, every chair on Earth is an example of a pure "chairness" that was in a second universe of universals. Plato also argued that knowledge is justified true belief, which take a long time to explain, so I will save that one for later. But then comes Richard Rorty. In an essay, he writes about seventeen. Seventeen, in Plato's theory must have some kind of seventeenness, but what is seventeenness? he writes. The truth is that you can't have seventeen without sixteen and eighteen. Just like everything on Earth. We know things because of their relationships with other things, and it's all interconnected in this web of knowledge. This is pragmatism. For example, we know what water is because it's clear, liquid, made of Oxygen and Hydrogen, and we drink it. There was not a description in there that didn't involve something other than water. What does AG think?
If you watch, thank you, keep this in mind when debating on philosophies etc and we'll have a nice smooth ride
Hate to be a noob but atm I don't have the time to post on the proper topic, although I will sometime soon That site's website address is this by the way:
Mage, I meant that in the philosophical view. Nothing exists in a vaccuum. Nothing exists by itself. Isolating a variable makes it invariable. If you take one piece out of the puzzle, niether is complete. Nothing can be defined without using words that have their own definitions which in turn are defined by other words which in turn........
The truth is that you can't have seventeen without sixteen and eighteen. Just like everything on Earth.
What about ... the idea that if p is true, and that p implies q, then q is true? What is that with respect to? How does this also exemplify pragmatism.
Pragmatism makes a general statement, that you only back up inductively, not deductively. Thus, if I show an instance where pragmatism does not apply, I have disproven it entirely.
Mage, I meant that in the philosophical view. Nothing exists in a vaccuum.
If that's the philosophical view then it's wrong.
If you take one piece out of the puzzle, niether is complete.
If we view the piece as a whole in and of itself then we have a complete piece and an incomplete puzzle.
Nothing exists by itself.
How about we speed this thread up and get right to saying we might as well be brains in jars and everything other then ourselves may not exist. If the self is truly the only thing that exists then it's existing on it's own.
Felt like I should chip in to a thread titled 'Philosophy'
You bring up a lot of different points, are you wanting to discuss all of these, or just giving us something to run with? Personally, I think it'd be fun to talk about the JTB theory of knowledge. But I thought I'd address a few things and see what happens. Although I usually tend to kill threads, so I apologize if that happens.
Pluto's philosophy of the theory of forms, where everything on Earth was an example of a universal concept of that idea.
Plato's theory of forms has a pretty famous objection, known as the Third Man Argument. The basic idea is that, according to Plato, I am a man because I participate in the form of man (or man-ness, if you prefer). The problem is that form, is itself, a man. This was a necessary commitment for Plato's theory - the form of man must have the property of being a man for it to confer that property on the set of things that are men. Still with me? But if the form of a man is itself a man, then it, too, must participate in the form of man. Thus we have a 'third man' that is needed. And this man, too, will need another form of man and so on ad infinitum. It's a pretty devastating argument against the theory of forms.
But, I say, why focus on ancient philosophy when there's so much fantastic contemporary philosophy being done?
Although I usually tend to kill threads, so I apologize if that happens.
Don't be cocky. :P
The problem is that form, is itself, a man. This was a necessary commitment for Plato's theory - the form of man must have the property of being a man for it to confer that property on the set of things that are men.
Why can't the "Third Man" be self-referencing? Why can't it be its own ideal form?
How does Plato's theory of forms account for intermediate objects, which can't be classified into "men" or "chimpanzees," for instance?
Objects are only judged by what they have in common - not "against" some ideal form.
@Highfire I watched about 20 minutes of that video before being bored to death, but that was more psychological rather than philosophical. What I got was basically we should not look at ourselves as people but machines, but then we have to get into the debate of there being a soul, etc... This is solely on how we know things.
What about ... the idea that if p is true, and that p implies q, then q is true? What is that with respect to? How does this also exemplify pragmatism.
How does pragmatism apply to logic? We can only know logic, it seems, for what it is, rather than its relationship to other things. It is absolute, not relative to other things, no?
Do he's talking about something that technically doesn't exist?
Mage, when he means "taking something in a vacuum" he means "taking something only by itself" rather than (I guess implied here) looking at its relationship to other things.
Logic, to me, is how one thinks. Pragmatism would be my logic, I also found a little more simpler of a definition... It doesn't matter whether something is completely true or valid, but something is true if it is necessary for it to be true. With logic versus epistemology, you're kinda comparing apples to oragnes
Definitely not! Logic exists independent of the mind that thinks it. It exists whether or not it is thought. There is no "my" or "your" logic. (well, that's my logic here :P) There is only one "correct" logic, and that is THE logic, and the only logic. There are different viewpoints, but this is quite distinct from logic itself.
With logic versus epistemology, you're kinda comparing apples to oragnes
Your claim was "ragmatism" which you defined as "you compare things with respect to other things, like 16 as being defined as being between 15 and 17.
I gave the counterexample of logic - logic is not in relation to other things. It is not subjective, and it does not vary. It is completely absolute.
Unless you can show how logic fits the definition, you will have to alter that definition or renounce pragmatism altogether to remain rational.
