Meno's paradox

[Wyman]

reason why what? Why is it fanciful?

Yes? That should be very apparent what I mean.

It is fanciful because it is wishful thinking. It is presented in the Phaedo, more so than the Meno, as an old belief of some sect or other (the fable part) that believed in reincarnation. The seeming similarity between recollection and knowledge presented some evidence, they believed, in favor of our souls having been around before our birth (but not necessarily after). Socrates doesn't appear to believe that it is a proof for such, but only one possible explanation. It is wishful thinking for those who want to believe in an after life. Socrates imagined (again fancifully) that perhaps he would hang out in Hades with Thales and Homer and engage in 'cozy chat' as you would call it.

I notice that you did not answer my question.

[Wyman]

Mathematics cannot be "truth" because it already is a method of representation of reality (and not of the truth). Besides through mathematics we can represent the "reality" outside, beyond the conditions that took its first use. It is a tool that can give a description, although approximate, quite faithful to the "observable" that is, all those natural phenomena that added together would represent an objective external reality. But since we were not able to have a unification of mathematics, I would not say that it is able to represent reality in toto, to the maximum of operating engines and electronic equipment, but does not give such a sense of unity to the objective reality, always absolutely not admitted but given that there is an external objective reality, since the only reality that we can trust is the one represented by our conscience, which is not external to us. The reality is that we can afford in our thinking, that is still subjective, our thinking has invented mathematics to study it, is not just a coincidence that we succeed, since it uses the same engine as "projection of repeatable" that is our brain: maths and "reality" reside in the same object (the brain) and use the same function (consciousness).

This is pure nonsense.

Ones has to be naïve to believe that math can represent truth, it often misrepresent truth, as most things in life are subjective and relative, often riddled with misunderstandings and lies.

Can you reveal if your wife has been unfaithful by math? No? ..ofc not!

Can we replace all judges in the justice system with computers that can calculate guilt? No! ..ofc not.

Math is good for calculating Chess, because it's linear logic, there's no subjective or relative values.

You have absolutely no idea what consciousness, truth and reality are, you just speak like a little child out of your ass.

How can you not like mathematics!!!! It is what allows engineers to build bridges and buildings that don't fall down - your sine qua non of truth and virtue! If it is not true, then why don't the bridges fall down? The engineer says 'If we do a,b,c and d then we will have a good bridge that doesn't fall down.' That statement is true or false - it's true if the bridge stays up and false if it falls down. The only way he knows its truth before the bridge is built is through mathematics.

[HexHammer]

but I wrote Not admitted but given that there is an external objective reality, since the only reality that we can trust is the one represented by our conscience, and also The reality is that we can afford in our thinking, that is still subjective, is this that I wrote pure nonsense?

Mad ramblings! There are no external objective reality, if you say that it is proof that you are kuku.
We can't trust the reality represented specially by our consciousness, because we have faulty memory, we often mistake colors, and which side things are placed.

You have absolutely no idea bout intelligences, go read up on it and neurology.

[HexHammer]

reason why what? Why is it fanciful?

Yes? That should be very apparent what I mean.

It is fanciful because it is wishful thinking. It is presented in the Phaedo, more so than the Meno, as an old belief of some sect or other (the fable part) that believed in reincarnation. The seeming similarity between recollection and knowledge presented some evidence, they believed, in favor of our souls having been around before our birth (but not necessarily after). Socrates doesn't appear to believe that it is a proof for such, but only one possible explanation. It is wishful thinking for those who want to believe in an after life. Socrates imagined (again fancifully) that perhaps he would hang out in Hades with Thales and Homer and engage in 'cozy chat' as you would call it.

I notice that you did not answer my question.

I don't answer your silly questions, nor any ones silly questions if they're totally irrelevant.

I don't like running a fool's errand, but ofc you do, because you don't know better.

[David Handeye]

but I wrote Not admitted but given that there is an external objective reality, since the only reality that we can trust is the one represented by our conscience, and also The reality is that we can afford in our thinking, that is still subjective, is this that I wrote pure nonsense?

Mad ramblings! There are no external objective reality, if you say that it is proof that you are kuku.
We can't trust the reality represented specially by our consciousness, because we have faulty memory, we often mistake colors, and which side things are placed.

You have absolutely no idea bout intelligences, go read up on it and neurology.

But could you explain to me? I would just like to understand, as... there are no external objective reality, and... we can't trust the reality represented by our consciousness,... so? What's there then?

[Wyman]

his is pure nonsense.

Ones has to be naïve to believe that math can represent truth, it often misrepresent truth, as most things in life are subjective and relative, often riddled with misunderstandings and lies.

Can you reveal if your wife has been unfaithful by math? No? ..ofc not!

Can we replace all judges in the justice system with computers that can calculate guilt? No! ..ofc not.

Math is good for calculating Chess, because it's linear logic, there's no subjective or relative values.

You have absolutely no idea what consciousness, truth and reality are, you just speak like a little child out of your ass.

You don't understand simple logic. Just because math can express some truths, doesn't mean it can express all truths. Just because math can sometimes misrepresent truth doesn't mean it always misrepresents truth. Just because math doesn't deal with the subjective and relative doesn't mean that it cannot express truths that are not subjective and relevant. Really, this is simple logic HH, just 'all' does not equal 'some' and vice versa, necessary condition does not equal sufficient condition.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Hi,
Was just wondering if anyone could shed some light on Aristotle's solution to Meno's paradox for me? i am failing to see how it solves either the problem of how to know what to look for when you dont know what youre inquiring into or how you will know when you have found the object of inquiry since you dont know what it is. he seems to claim that there is not a distinction between knowing a universal and knowing every particular instance which falls under that universal; this makes sense however surely the paradox still applies to knowing the universal in the first place?
Thanks

I'm not sure how Aristotle solves it, but with most paradoxes, they are nothing of the sort.
This one is a problem because it is stated synchronically, whilst reality is diachronic. A static problem solved by a dynamic reality.
Buridan's Ass is solved with the same thought.

For Meno, you can know about a thing, without knowing much about it. Time, as always is the answer. Hermeneutic circles get you no where. Knowledge is gained as result of a spiral, which ascends.

Buridan's ass considers food source A then B, then A the B, But time increases his hunger which forces his decision. The hunger impulse gets more important than making a choice; when it reaches a critical point he moves towards the food.

[Ginkgo]

Before going into Aristotle's solution it is might be useful to understand the background to the argument. Socrates position in relation to knowledge is to always claim we can never know anything with certainty. Plato disagrees and tells us that we do have certain knowledge because understanding is not a process of discovery it is something we already know and it is just a matter of recollection. I would argue that Plato has set the groundwork for the modern distinction between apriori and aposteriori knowledge.

I have always been fascinated with the notion of knowledge as recollection. Most people today, I think, believe in some sort of 'innate' knowledge or, as you say, a priori knowledge. With mathematics we often ask whether mathematical 'truths' are discovered or created by the mathematician. Knowledge as recollection is a sort of mixture of these two. The modern conception is not much more satisfactory - we think that certain notions or ideas or abilities are 'programmed' into us via evolution or something of that sort. The source of knowledge remains a mystery. The theory of knowledge as recollection is a fable giving a fanciful, though somewhat plausible, scenario in which the soul survives death. I don't know of any other (though there may be) arguments for immortality that don't rely on appeal to the existence of God.

Wy and Gin
This is pure nonsense and babble as usual.

My assertion is correct, yours are merely medieval superstition.

Hex,

Plato's Meno was written in about 400 B.C., not in medieval times,

[Ginkgo]

I'm not sure how Aristotle solves it, but with most paradoxes, they are nothing of the sort.
This one is a problem because it is stated synchronically, whilst reality is diachronic. A static problem solved by a dynamic reality.
Buridan's Ass is solved with the same thought.

For Meno, you can know about a thing, without knowing much about it. Time, as always is the answer. Hermeneutic circles get you no where. Knowledge is gained as result of a spiral, which ascends.

Buridan's ass considers food source A then B, then A the B, But time increases his hunger which forces his decision. The hunger impulse gets more important than making a choice; when it reaches a critical point he moves towards the food.

Aristotle attempts to solve the problem by showing there is more than one way of "knowing".

[HexHammer]

But could you explain to me? I would just like to understand, as... there are no external objective reality, and... we can't trust the reality represented by our consciousness,... so? What's there then?

Seems like only a shrink could do that.

[HexHammer]

Hex,

Plato's Meno was written in about 400 B.C., not in medieval times,

I know, metaphor ..u know?

[Ginkgo]

But could you explain to me? I would just like to understand, as... there are no external objective reality, and... we can't trust the reality represented by our consciousness,... so? What's there then?

A good starting point would be the following;

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_an ... ct_realism

[Ginkgo]

Before going into Aristotle's solution it is might be useful to understand the background to the argument. Socrates position in relation to knowledge is to always claim we can never know anything with certainty. Plato disagrees and tells us that we do have certain knowledge because understanding is not a process of discovery it is something we already know and it is just a matter of recollection. I would argue that Plato has set the groundwork for the modern distinction between apriori and aposteriori knowledge.

Let me say, there is a huge difference: for Platone we can recollect knowledge of reality as it actually is; while for apriorism not the reality in its entirety we have, but only thanks to functions and cathegories we already have since our birth we may elaborate concepts of the data we experience from our sensations.

Yes, there are different way of "knowing".

[David Handeye]

Yes, there are different way of "knowing".

Ciao Ginkgo, thanks for the link.
But do you believe we have such innate way of "knowing" since our birth? Or do you think our mind is like tabula rasa since we were born?

[Hobbes' Choice]

I'm not sure how Aristotle solves it, but with most paradoxes, they are nothing of the sort.
This one is a problem because it is stated synchronically, whilst reality is diachronic. A static problem solved by a dynamic reality.
Buridan's Ass is solved with the same thought.

For Meno, you can know about a thing, without knowing much about it. Time, as always is the answer. Hermeneutic circles get you no where. Knowledge is gained as result of a spiral, which ascends.

Buridan's ass considers food source A then B, then A the B, But time increases his hunger which forces his decision. The hunger impulse gets more important than making a choice; when it reaches a critical point he moves towards the food.

Aristotle attempts to solve the problem by showing there is more than one way of "knowing".

How?