We need better, more modern axioms.

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Ginkgo
Posts: 2657
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: We need better, more modern axioms.

Post by Ginkgo »

Banno wrote:Again, clarity and curtesy mark a conversation; but, given my objection to the first sentence of the OP, I want to know what makes such a conversation specifically philosophical.

Philosophy is specific to a large number of discourses. What determines if a particular discourse is a quality philosophical discussion would be determined by the level of discourse being conducted. Philosophy exists on a continuum. Where the discussion is on a continuum determines how the content is treated, not whether it is philosophical or not.

On a non-profession philosophical forum the quality can range from the very ordinary to the very good. Professional forums are of a higher standard.
Banno
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 10:23 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: We need better, more modern axioms.

Post by Banno »

Ginkgo wrote:
Banno wrote:Again, clarity and curtesy mark a conversation; but, given my objection to the first sentence of the OP, I want to know what makes such a conversation specifically philosophical.

Philosophy is specific to a large number of discourses. What determines if a particular discourse is a quality philosophical discussion would be determined by the level of discourse being conducted. Philosophy exists on a continuum. Where the discussion is on a continuum determines how the content is treated, not whether it is philosophical or not.

On a non-profession philosophical forum the quality can range from the very ordinary to the very good. Professional forums are of a higher standard.
Again, the point is that your op is already doing philosophy, in choosing the axioms.
Ginkgo
Posts: 2657
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: We need better, more modern axioms.

Post by Ginkgo »

Banno wrote:
Ginkgo wrote:
Banno wrote:Again, clarity and curtesy mark a conversation; but, given my objection to the first sentence of the OP, I want to know what makes such a conversation specifically philosophical.

Philosophy is specific to a large number of discourses. What determines if a particular discourse is a quality philosophical discussion would be determined by the level of discourse being conducted. Philosophy exists on a continuum. Where the discussion is on a continuum determines how the content is treated, not whether it is philosophical or not.

On a non-profession philosophical forum the quality can range from the very ordinary to the very good. Professional forums are of a higher standard.
Again, the point is that your op is already doing philosophy, in choosing the axioms.
Not sure what you mean by "your op"
Banno
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 10:23 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: We need better, more modern axioms.

Post by Banno »

Ginkgo wrote: Not sure what you mean by "your op"
Opening post. My error - mistook you for Kuznetzova.

The point I am question ing is: In order to have a philosophical discussion or debate we have to agree to at least some reasonable ground rules.

Now I agree that in order to have a discussion or debate (philosophical or not) we would do well to agree to at least some reasonable ground rules - civility, non-contradiction.

But the OP wants to go beyond that, and my point is that in doing so she is already engaging in philosophical discussion. The very act of setting out philosophical ground rules - especial of the sort listed in the OP - is already to adopt a philosophical position.

So we have:
To engage in a philosophical discussion we need to adopt ground rules;
and
to adopt ground rules is to engage in a philosophical discussion.

I hope the circularity is apparent.
Impenitent
Posts: 4330
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: We need better, more modern axioms.

Post by Impenitent »

I hope the circularity of language itself is as apparent...

thus spake Ludwig...

-Imp
User avatar
hammock
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 5:21 pm
Location: Heckville, Dorado; Republic of Lostanglia

Re: We need better, more modern axioms.

Post by hammock »

Kuznetzova wrote:There is an objective world called the universe, and it is composed of stable atoms.
This axiom assumes Kant is incorrect in that it claims knowledge of the noumenon.
Right except we designed something called an "Atom Bomb" on a chalkboard and then went out in the desert in Nevada and it actually worked. Emmanuel Kant did not live in the 1940s. He may have been correct in the time he lived and published. Unfortunately we now know at least something about the noumenon.

Physics studies Kant's interpersonal, phenomenal world (which is the natural world). It has nothing to do with transcendent metaphysics, noumena, Plato's intelligible world, the supersensible, etc. By its very dealing in a spatiotemporal organization of interdependent entities described across multiple levels, science most certainly is not researching things in themselves.

Kant predicted continual new developments and discoveries in mathematics and natural science
. The material world product exhibited in outer sense was not an eternal, immutable realm offering revision-resistant knowledge and unalterable theories about itself. Such unassailable dogma would also be going against the very grain of science. Kant did attribute metaphysical aspirations to the physicists of his day, but this was in the context of an "internal metaphysics" now properly directed at nature rather than the extra-psychological type of existence that speculative philosophy had formerly wasted centuries on. Today the metaphysics tag would be dropped altogether in theoretical physics, in favor of methodological expressions like models, abstract description, etc.

Kant confined hypotheses about the Greeks' intelligible "world" to his practical philosophy, which did not pretend the "proofs" that older traditions had claimed. It was now simply a salvaged territory for argued necessities that could not fit into the scheme which outer experience or the sensible / natural world conformed to.

"The enlarging of our views in mathematics, and the possibility of new discoveries, are endless; and the same is the case with the discovery of new properties of nature, of new powers and laws, by continued experience and its rational combination. ... Natural science will never reveal to us the internal constitution of things [this does not refer to the components of material phenomena], which though not appearance, yet can serve as the ultimate ground of explaining appearance. Nor does that science require this for its physical explanations. Nay even if such grounds should be offered from other sources (for instance, the influence of immaterial beings), they must be rejected and not used in the progress of its explanations. For these explanations must only be grounded upon that which as an object of sense can belong to experience, and be brought into connection with our actual perceptions and empirical laws [that is, discovery of new phenomena indirectly via perceivable instruments is allowed]." [Prolegomena To Any Future Metaphysics]
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3354
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: We need better, more modern axioms.

Post by HexHammer »

OP and 2nd post consists of nothing but inocoherent circular logic.
Post Reply