Page 2 of 2
Re: POLITICIZATION
Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2014 5:20 pm
by duszek
Who owns "New York Times" ?
Does this person have a strong political orientation ?
::::::::::::::::::::::
When someone dies we traditionally try to see the good points of the dead person because he cannot benefit from criticism by correcting his ways any more.
Writing a funeral speech can be a challenge if the dead was controversial.
An obituary is a funeral speech in a nutshell.
Re: POLITICIZATION
Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2014 11:40 pm
by Arising_uk
tbieter wrote:...
I was trying to be sarcastic.
My apologies
Still, would have laughed either way.
Re: POLITICIZATION
Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 3:31 pm
by tbieter
duszek wrote:That´s an example of the truth that words are not reliable.
I disagree. In 2005 I bought a new Kia Rio with 68 miles on the odometer. The car was manufactured and operates today in accord with scientific laws described in English words and sentences. I drive very little. The other day my odometer read 19,995 miles. In the time that I've had the car, the only problem I have had was a blown fuse. Every time I have tried to start it, it has started. It is a reliable machine that operates in accord with scientific laws that are expressed in words.
If there is a conflict you can murder one of the two conflicting parties and thus make the war stop.
So in that sense a man can be a war criminal and a mass murderer and a man of peace at the same time.
When you say something about someone it is never a whole story, only a partial and biased one.
What was the perlocution behind the words chosen by the "New York Times" ?
(perlocution = what you wish to achieve by an act of speech, in this case flattery towards the right wing in Israel ??? )
Re: POLITICIZATION
Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 11:31 pm
by Impenitent
to claim the future will resemble the past (the car will start) because of the past (the car has always started) is an error in reasoning...
-Imp
Re: POLITICIZATION
Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 12:09 am
by tbieter
Impenitent wrote:to claim the future will resemble the past (the car will start) because of the past (the car has always started) is an error in reasoning...
-Imp
I agree, but I have not made that claim. I have only claimed that up to today it has been a reliable machine. I acknowledge that its reliablity as an operating machine is , like all beings except God, contingent.
All the words and sentences (scientific laws) relating to my Kia used by the Kia people in the manufacturing process have resulted in a car that has been reliable, more or less, up to today.
Contingent being
Philosophy Dictionary Theological and Philosophical Dictionary
Something that does not exist in and of itself but depends for its existence upon some other being.
See also: Ward, James , Tausen, Hans , Bacon, Leonard , Uncertainty , ANALYTIC UNITY OF APPERCEPTION
Re: POLITICIZATION
Posted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 2:35 am
by Arising_uk
Impenitent wrote:to claim the future will resemble the past (the car will start) because of the past (the car has always started) is an error in reasoning...
Not in inductive reasoning its not.
Re: POLITICIZATION
Posted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 2:46 am
by Impenitent
begging the question is begging the question
-Imp
Re: POLITICIZATION
Posted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 6:57 pm
by Arising_uk
Impenitent wrote:begging the question is begging the question
-Imp
Well, strictly I guess so but if there are law-like physical laws(which there does appear to be) then its a fair assumption. So, a well maintained car has always started reliably in the past makes a fair assumption of the induction that I've well maintained my car so it will start reliably in the future.
Re: POLITICIZATION
Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2014 12:05 am
by Impenitent
"assumption is the mother of all f* ups" - Travis Dane
-Imp
Re: POLITICIZATION
Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2014 3:22 am
by Arising_uk
No argument there and, as you know, the arguments about induction in philosophy are legion but you'd be going nowhere in your car if you had to rebuild it every time you wanted to drive.