Explaining Everything Explains Nothing
Explaining Everything Explains Nothing
What is a philosopher to do when he realizes that explaining everything, doesn't really explain anything? Now this term "philosopher" really is strictly nothing in itself and hence applies quite literally to the human condition.
Discuss
Discuss
-
- Posts: 12242
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: Explaining Everything Explains Nothing
Your views above is an issue of conflation and deception.
Point is there are two senses and perspective here;
- 1. Everything is something-A in perspective A.
2. Everything is something-B in perspective B.
To make sense you have to qualify them in the same perspective.
For example is where people are stuck in the common and conventional sense their explanation of reality will not explain anything to those who are aware that common things are fundamentally atoms, molecules, energy, quarks, etc.
Therefore if we are aware reality must be viewed from various perspectives, then applying the right perspective will enable whatever justifiable and rational explanations to make sense.
I agree, philosophy and reality must be viewed from the perspective of the human conditions as one among the many perspectives.
Re: Explaining Everything Explains Nothing
Then the philosopher realizes the inherent circularity of all things, a disappointing limitation. Not that your ramblings correctly describe the world.
Re: Explaining Everything Explains Nothing
If everything must be viewed from various perspectives, then that is the right perspective and all explanations are simultaneously absolute and relative.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 7:37 amYour views above is an issue of conflation and deception.
Point is there are two senses and perspective here;
If you are stuck in merely perspective-A, obviously everything is not something-B.
- 1. Everything is something-A in perspective A.
2. Everything is something-B in perspective B.
To make sense you have to qualify them in the same perspective.
For example is where people are stuck in the common and conventional sense their explanation of reality will not explain anything to those who are aware that common things are fundamentally atoms, molecules, energy, quarks, etc.
Therefore if we are aware reality must be viewed from various perspectives, then applying the right perspective will enable whatever justifiable and rational explanations to make sense.
I agree, philosophy and reality must be viewed from the perspective of the human conditions as one among the many perspectives.
Absolute in the respect the explanation exists as a constant, relative in the respects they are an approximation of a constant truth but as an approximation are constant nonetheless.
Re: Explaining Everything Explains Nothing
Re: Explaining Everything Explains Nothing
Nope, we cen never be absolutely sure of the inherent circularity either. Even if it's correct, which it probably is (or more like: apparently correct from our perspective), it forms no constant proof system. Your ramblings are based on a logical error. It's simply that when we look at the infinite world, it appears circularly structured to us, plus human cognition is also circular.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 9:02 amThen the circularity is a constant proof system, and my ramblings approximate this truth.
Re: Explaining Everything Explains Nothing
Actually to never be sure of an inherent circularity is to be sure sure of something, and a strict "not sure" approach leads to a form of circularity.Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 9:09 amNope, we cen never be absolutely sure of the inherent circularity either. Even if it's correct, which it probably is (or more like: apparently correct from our perspective), it forms no constant proof system. Your ramblings are based on a logical error. It's simply that when we look at the infinite world, it appears circularly structured to us, plus human cognition is also circular.
I cover circularity as a proof system, due to its self referential nature on a seperate thread elsewhere. As to the rest of the claim it's pure gibberish.
Re: Explaining Everything Explains Nothing
Nope, that's another common logical mistake. We can't say that we are sure and we can't say either that we are never sure. You resolved the infinite regress in a faulty way, which leads you to the illusion of there being an absolute.
Re: Explaining Everything Explains Nothing
So say we can't be sure or unsure, is a right or wrong statement and we are left with a triad.
Infinite regress is a relativistic statement as it is defined through a thetical "progress", thus we are left with linearism as root cause of definition.
Re: Explaining Everything Explains Nothing
Now you made the same error. It's not a right or wrong statement and there's no triad. Such is the nature of the regress.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 10:13 amSo say we can't be sure or unsure, is a right or wrong statement and we are left with a triad.
Infinite regress is a relativistic statement as it is defined through a thetical "progress", thus we are left with linearism as root cause of definition.
Re: Explaining Everything Explains Nothing
Actually it is a right or wrong statement, either "we can't be sure/can't be never sure" is true or false. This truth/false dichotomy is grounded in a triadic synthetic (both true/false) neutrality.Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 10:15 amNow you made the same error. It's not a right or wrong statement and there's no triad. Such is the nature of the regress.
Re: Explaining Everything Explains Nothing
In short: you think that there is absolute certainty, because you think that there is absolute certainty.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 10:23 amActually it is a right or wrong statement, either "we can't be sure/can't be never sure" is true or false. This truth/false dichotomy is grounded in a triadic synthetic (both true/false) neutrality.
Now you see why I told you that you can't tell if something is logical or not.
Re: Explaining Everything Explains Nothing
I thing there is absolute certainty because I think there is absolute certainty is the principle of identity fundamentally.Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 10:33 amIn short: you think that there is absolute certainty, because you think that there is absolute certainty.
Now you see why I told you that you can't tell if something is logical or not.
Re: Explaining Everything Explains Nothing
Facepalm emoji.
Re: Explaining Everything Explains Nothing
What do you mean? If we call something "x", then that something is called "x", but all conceptual overlays are subject to inherent uncertainty.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 10:41 amI thing there is absolute certainty because I think there is absolute certainty is the principle of identity fundamentally.