Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:46 am

Age wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:32 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:41 am
Age wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:55 am


The words "Give an example of something that is not assumed" are in front of these eyes when these words are written.

I am assuming my senses are correct.

Another example is:

There are thoughts existing.

Assumption as to what constitutes a thought. Is it something in the head? Or is it physical? Is thought and illusion and all is "void"? Or does only matter exist and thought is just a state of matter and as such is matter curbing?

How can we say thought exists when thought is undefined?


Another one is:

There is something.

Assumption of context. Something where? Everywhere? When? Was there always something?[

Also no definition as to what something is./color]

Another one:

There is awareness.

Awareness is assumed as awareness is undefined.

Another one:

'I' control 'you' through ...

"I" is a subjective statement, and as such is potential to change and ismundefined in the course of time. Same with you.



In very simple terms are your statements lack further definition and as such are assumed.

To say "this sentence exists" is still an assumption as it is composed of assumptions.




Why can you not quote correctly?

And why can you now not even color code correctly?

Are you purposely trying to make it harder for the readers to follow and keep up?

What you have said here is obviously only based on your own strongly held beliefs and assumptions.

Duh...I have been saying my argument is assumed. However this does not negate that it is a variation of the Munchauseen trillemma and as such is a variation of it.

Assuming those words have not been defined is clearly an assumption. ALL of these words have obviously already been defined. To assume otherwise is bordering on insanity.

Good the for the sake of argument, I will skip to the last point: what are "I" and "you"?

Basing my terms are assumed because they lack further definition means that by you not asking for further definition, then you are supporting your own assumptions and beliefs.

Actually they are assumed because they are not defined.



The brain is very tricky like that. The brain will not do anything that goes against its own assumptions and beliefs. The more a belief is believed to be true, then the stronger that belief will be held onto, and thus the more the brain is fooled into doing only those things that will support its own beliefs, and assumptions.

Proof please, and please define what proof is while you are at it otherwise both are assumptions.



What has and is still happening here readers with this test subject is a prime example of how the human brain can absolutely fool itself into believing that, which is obviously absurd and ridiculous. The brain tricks its own self by only doing that, which will back up and support its own already held beliefs, even though what it is doing is so obvious and completely stupid and ridiculous. By doing only that what supports its own already held beliefs, then it reinforcing those beliefs more and more, no matter how ludicrous and stupid the beliefs are.

So you are assuming your brain is not tricking you when you state such things?

For a brain to be here FIGHTING its hardest to prove that it KNOWS what is Right and True, but to also be insisting that that "Truth" is just an assumption, which obviously could be completely Wrong and False also, just shows how the human brain can be and IS. The brain will 'try' absolutely anything to back up and support its own already obtained beliefs and assumptions. The belief-system within the brain really did have far more power over those human beings, in the days of when this written, then they could ever have of imagined.

So I am wrong for assuming all is assumptions and stating this is an assumption in itself?

For the record...I did not make up the Munchausseen trillema...so younare assuming it is strictly my own beliefs.



Those brains back then just would not allow them to imagine any thing that went against what they believed and/or assumed was already true. The brain will not imagine anything other than what it believes is true.

The Mind however works completely different. The Mind can imagine any thing.

So what you are stating is that you believe your position to be true?



Also, just how easily and simply the Mind can see and KNOW ALL of this, even back when this was written, can also be easily observed here.

Thanks to these subjects, and these subjective brains, which work so predictively and accurately.



I know assumptions exist recursively and isomorphically...assumptions are predictable...assuming we know what predictability really is.

Age
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Age » Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:41 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:46 am
Age wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:32 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:41 am


In very simple terms are your statements lack further definition and as such are assumed.

To say "this sentence exists" is still an assumption as it is composed of assumptions.

Why can you not quote correctly?

And why can you now not even color code correctly?

Are you purposely trying to make it harder for the readers to follow and keep up?

What you have said here is obviously only based on your own strongly held beliefs and assumptions.

Duh...I have been saying my argument is assumed. However this does not negate that it is a variation of the Munchauseen trillemma and as such is a variation of it.

Assuming those words have not been defined is clearly an assumption. ALL of these words have obviously already been defined. To assume otherwise is bordering on insanity.

Good the for the sake of argument, I will skip to the last point: what are "I" and "you"?

Basing my terms are assumed because they lack further definition means that by you not asking for further definition, then you are supporting your own assumptions and beliefs.

Actually they are assumed because they are not defined.



The brain is very tricky like that. The brain will not do anything that goes against its own assumptions and beliefs. The more a belief is believed to be true, then the stronger that belief will be held onto, and thus the more the brain is fooled into doing only those things that will support its own beliefs, and assumptions.

Proof please, and please define what proof is while you are at it otherwise both are assumptions.



What has and is still happening here readers with this test subject is a prime example of how the human brain can absolutely fool itself into believing that, which is obviously absurd and ridiculous. The brain tricks its own self by only doing that, which will back up and support its own already held beliefs, even though what it is doing is so obvious and completely stupid and ridiculous. By doing only that what supports its own already held beliefs, then it reinforcing those beliefs more and more, no matter how ludicrous and stupid the beliefs are.

So you are assuming your brain is not tricking you when you state such things?

For a brain to be here FIGHTING its hardest to prove that it KNOWS what is Right and True, but to also be insisting that that "Truth" is just an assumption, which obviously could be completely Wrong and False also, just shows how the human brain can be and IS. The brain will 'try' absolutely anything to back up and support its own already obtained beliefs and assumptions. The belief-system within the brain really did have far more power over those human beings, in the days of when this written, then they could ever have of imagined.

So I am wrong for assuming all is assumptions and stating this is an assumption in itself?

For the record...I did not make up the Munchausseen trillema...so younare assuming it is strictly my own beliefs.



Those brains back then just would not allow them to imagine any thing that went against what they believed and/or assumed was already true. The brain will not imagine anything other than what it believes is true.

The Mind however works completely different. The Mind can imagine any thing.

So what you are stating is that you believe your position to be true?



Also, just how easily and simply the Mind can see and KNOW ALL of this, even back when this was written, can also be easily observed here.

Thanks to these subjects, and these subjective brains, which work so predictively and accurately.
I know assumptions exist recursively and isomorphically...assumptions are predictable...assuming we know what predictability really is.
This appears to be a very funny way to finish off.

"Assuming we know what predictability really is". To you, EVERY thing is assumed, so why question 'what predictability really is' now?

Of course, to you, 'what predictability really is' IS just another assumption. You could NEVER know what any thing really is, including 'predictability'. This is because you can not go against your own beliefs and assumptions. To do so would be to prove yourself WRONG. Therefore, you will start fighting harder and harder, believing more and more that you are Right. Taking a firm stance and NEVER shifting at all. Closing yourself off completely to being able to see any thing else other than what you BELIEVE wholeheartedly is true.

Now, I have already provided you with an example of 'what is not assumed'. That brain could have missed it, purposely, or unintentionally, and so disregarded that example and instead moved onto some thing else.

If that brain missed the example I gave of 'what is not assumed', then that is just another great example of how the brain blinds itself to what is actually true and real. When thee 'Truth' is not what the belief system says is true, then the brain is completely stopped from seeing the actual and real Truth of things.

If, however, that brain is smarter than what I am saying here and did not miss the example I gave of 'what is not assumed', then that brain would be able to prove this.

Age
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Age » Tue Aug 13, 2019 6:46 am

To me, your whole argument that the trillema sets the foundation for philosophy is based off of, and on, the one premise;

IF we use "assumption" as foundation, then, by default philosophy is grounded in triadic code.

To me, you are the ONLY human being that I know of that only uses "assumptions", which when you do it, in your argument, in true absurdity fashion the argument only circles back on to its own self. The belief, premise, and argument is so absurdly stupid that it is based on its own self, which is only an "assumption", which, by definition, could be completely WRONG and FALSE.

The actual logic, which is used in the so called "argument", is as faulty as the premise and conclusion is itself.

What happens IF we do NOT use "assumptions" as foundations?

Besides the obvious flaw of using assumptions as premises, which speaks for itself, premising an argument on an assumption is just not a logical, sound, nor valid thing to do. If the premise is false or not correct, then the conclusion could be false and incorrect as well.

It could be argued; IF we use 'truth' as foundation, then, by default 'philosophy' is grounded in Truth. Thus, NO single problem at all, including no dilemma at all, and NO, so called, "trilemma problem" as well.

Therefore, ALL of this can be very easily and very simply resolved, and very quickly. This argument, like your argument, also circles back on to its own self, but, unlike your argument, this time, the argument circles back in a truly logical, reasonable, and appropriate way.

Why do you not try it? Try using 'truth' instead of "assumptions" as premises, and then just see what happens.

Assumptions could be untrue. Truth can not be.

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Skepdick » Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:47 am

Age wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 6:46 am
What happens IF we do NOT use "assumptions" as foundations?
The you have invented a new kind of thinking. One that doesn't rest upon axioms.
Age wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 6:46 am
Why do you not try it? Try using 'truth' instead of "assumptions" as premises, and then just see what happens.
You get axioms. And axioms are subject to the same old question: What makes it true?

Age
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Age » Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:41 am

Skepdick wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:47 am
Age wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 6:46 am
What happens IF we do NOT use "assumptions" as foundations?
The you have invented a new kind of thinking.
Could that 'kind of thinking' be that one that I have been suggesting since the outset of when I came to this forum about; if you really want to discover, learn, and understand the Truth of things, then just remain completely and Truly OPEN always? If you did, then you can SEE the actual and real Truth of things, very simply, very easily, and very quickly. Almost immediately.
Skepdick wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:47 am
One that doesn't rest upon axioms.
What does 'axiom' mean to you?

Are you aware that 'assumptions' could be defined as the exact opposite of 'axioms'?

I even asked; why not try using truth instead of using assumptions as premises? which just about means the exact same as; why not try using axioms instead of using assumptions as premises?

Assumptions, as far as I am aware, can be wrong and false. Whereas, axioms and truth, as far as I am aware, can not be wrong nor false.

But, please correct me if I am wrong.
Skepdick wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:47 am
Age wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 6:46 am
Why do you not try it? Try using 'truth' instead of "assumptions" as premises, and then just see what happens.
You get axioms. And axioms are subject to the same old question: What makes it true?
The same old answer that I have given plenty of times before; AGREEMENT.

That is; the agreement within one's own self, the agreement within one owns group/society, and, the agreement within Everything or ALL. The agreement with the first two is the 'truth', and, the agreement with the last one is thee 'Truth'.

Now, most of us have heard the saying about how ' "everyone" once agreed that the world was flat', and that was NOT true.

Besides the fact that how does anyone KNOW that ' "everyone" once agreed that the world was flat'? So, that saying, itself, may not even be true or thee Truth at all, the fact is NOT everyone would agree on any thing that was 100% KNOWN, for sure. How do I KNOW this for 100% for sure is because I would not agree with any thing unless absolutely EVERY one agreed with it.

Only 'that' what IS true and can not be refuted would be agreed with by ALL.
If ALL are agreeing on some thing, then there is NO one left to disagree.
Therefore, only 'that', what is agreed with by EVERY one [or ALL] IS thee Truth.

What makes some thing the truth is the agreement within you. If there is a conflict or contradiction, then that is not the truth.
What makes some thing the truth is the agreement within a group or society. If there is a conflict or contradiction, then although it may actually be a truth "it" is only accepted as truth by those, obviously, in agreement.
What makes some thing thee Truth is the agreement within ALL If there is no conflict nor contradiction, then there is NO one disputing this Truth. Therefore, this Truth IS thee Truth.

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Skepdick » Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:52 am

Age wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:41 am
What does 'axiom' mean to you?
Unquestioned/assumed/implied/accepted truth.
Age wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:41 am
Assumptions, as far as I am aware, can be wrong and false. Whereas, axioms and truth, as far as I am aware, can not be wrong nor false.
Age wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:41 am
The same old answer that I have given plenty of times before; AGREEMENT.
Assumption, axioms AND agreements can all be wrong and false.

Depending on what you mean by 'wrong' and 'false'.
Age wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:41 am
That is; the agreement within one's own self, the agreement within one owns group/society, and, the agreement within Everything or ALL. The agreement with the first two is the 'truth', and, the agreement with the last one is thee 'Truth'.
That's called the consensus theory of Truth. There are other theories of Truth.
The pragmatic, correspondence, coherence, constructivist (to name a few).

Which Truth-theory is false?

Age
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Age » Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:04 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:52 am
Age wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:41 am
What does 'axiom' mean to you?
Unquestioned/assumed/implied/accepted truth.
Thus the reasons for your responses here.

To me, a truth, by definition, can not logically be some thing that could be wrong nor false. If some thing is not KNOWN to be true, then it is only, at best, assumed to be true. If some thing is only assumed to be true, then it could in fact not be true at all, or true.

Using assumed truths, which could be false or wrong to start with, in arguments, could be seen as being completely unnecessary, especially when real and actual Truths could be used instead.

To me, there really is no use looking at things that may not be true when just what IS True could be looked at instead.
Skepdick wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:52 am
Age wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:41 am
Assumptions, as far as I am aware, can be wrong and false. Whereas, axioms and truth, as far as I am aware, can not be wrong nor false.
Age wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:41 am
The same old answer that I have given plenty of times before; AGREEMENT.
Assumption, axioms AND agreements can all be wrong and false.
With your interpretation/definition of the word 'axiom', then axioms can be wrong and false, just like assumptions and agreements can also, which I have obviously already agreed with. However, with my interpretation/definition of the word 'axiom' that I was using, that is; a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true, by Me, can not be false nor wrong.

Skepdick wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:52 am
Depending on what you mean by 'wrong' and 'false'.
Skepdick wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:52 am
Age wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:41 am
That is; the agreement within one's own self, the agreement within one owns group/society, and, the agreement within Everything or ALL. The agreement with the first two is the 'truth', and, the agreement with the last one is thee 'Truth'.
That's called the consensus theory of Truth. There are other theories of Truth.
The pragmatic, correspondence, coherence, constructivist (to name a few).
Which Truth-theory is false?
But thee Truth is not a theory. Sure any theory could be false. But thee Truth can not, by definition, be false, nor wrong. Only the Truth is, obviously, True.

By definition ALL truth-theories could be false. So, instead of looking at all of them, and then dismissing them one by one, I found it much better (quicker, simpler, and easier) to just look at what is True instead. That way I found thee Truth of things without an unnecessary waste of time and energy.

I have asked enough times already; Why form or have a theory about the Truth of things, which obviously could be false or wrong anway, especially when thee Truth of things can very easily and very simply, and almost instantly, be seen and understood instead anyway?

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Skepdick » Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:07 pm

Age wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:04 pm
However, with my interpretation/definition of the word 'axiom' that I was using, that is; a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true, by Me, can not be false nor wrong.
You can define a cat as a dog and it doesn't change its nature. What you are describing is an axiom.
Age wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:04 pm
By definition ALL truth-theories could be false.
Indeed. So can yours.
Age wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:04 pm

I have asked enough times already; Why form or have a theory about the Truth of things,
Well, my theory of Truth is quite different. Mine is called the Bullshit theory of Truth and it goes like this.
Truth is bullshit. Like God.
Age wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:04 pm

which obviously could be false or wrong anway, especially when thee Truth of things can very easily and very simply, and almost instantly, be seen and understood instead anyway?
If you think the universe is simple, then you are probably a simple-minded fool...

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:53 pm

Age wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:41 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:46 am
Age wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:32 am


Why can you not quote correctly?

And why can you now not even color code correctly?

Are you purposely trying to make it harder for the readers to follow and keep up?

What you have said here is obviously only based on your own strongly held beliefs and assumptions.

Duh...I have been saying my argument is assumed. However this does not negate that it is a variation of the Munchauseen trillemma and as such is a variation of it.

Assuming those words have not been defined is clearly an assumption. ALL of these words have obviously already been defined. To assume otherwise is bordering on insanity.

Good the for the sake of argument, I will skip to the last point: what are "I" and "you"?

Basing my terms are assumed because they lack further definition means that by you not asking for further definition, then you are supporting your own assumptions and beliefs.

Actually they are assumed because they are not defined.



The brain is very tricky like that. The brain will not do anything that goes against its own assumptions and beliefs. The more a belief is believed to be true, then the stronger that belief will be held onto, and thus the more the brain is fooled into doing only those things that will support its own beliefs, and assumptions.

Proof please, and please define what proof is while you are at it otherwise both are assumptions.



What has and is still happening here readers with this test subject is a prime example of how the human brain can absolutely fool itself into believing that, which is obviously absurd and ridiculous. The brain tricks its own self by only doing that, which will back up and support its own already held beliefs, even though what it is doing is so obvious and completely stupid and ridiculous. By doing only that what supports its own already held beliefs, then it reinforcing those beliefs more and more, no matter how ludicrous and stupid the beliefs are.

So you are assuming your brain is not tricking you when you state such things?

For a brain to be here FIGHTING its hardest to prove that it KNOWS what is Right and True, but to also be insisting that that "Truth" is just an assumption, which obviously could be completely Wrong and False also, just shows how the human brain can be and IS. The brain will 'try' absolutely anything to back up and support its own already obtained beliefs and assumptions. The belief-system within the brain really did have far more power over those human beings, in the days of when this written, then they could ever have of imagined.

So I am wrong for assuming all is assumptions and stating this is an assumption in itself?

For the record...I did not make up the Munchausseen trillema...so younare assuming it is strictly my own beliefs.



Those brains back then just would not allow them to imagine any thing that went against what they believed and/or assumed was already true. The brain will not imagine anything other than what it believes is true.

The Mind however works completely different. The Mind can imagine any thing.

So what you are stating is that you believe your position to be true?



Also, just how easily and simply the Mind can see and KNOW ALL of this, even back when this was written, can also be easily observed here.

Thanks to these subjects, and these subjective brains, which work so predictively and accurately.
I know assumptions exist recursively and isomorphically...assumptions are predictable...assuming we know what predictability really is.
This appears to be a very funny way to finish off.

"Assuming we know what predictability really is". To you, EVERY thing is assumed, so why question 'what predictability really is' now?

Of course, to you, 'what predictability really is' IS just another assumption. You could NEVER know what any thing really is, including 'predictability'. This is because you can not go against your own beliefs and assumptions. To do so would be to prove yourself WRONG. Therefore, you will start fighting harder and harder, believing more and more that you are Right. Taking a firm stance and NEVER shifting at all. Closing yourself off completely to being able to see any thing else other than what you BELIEVE wholeheartedly is true.

Now, I have already provided you with an example of 'what is not assumed'. That brain could have missed it, purposely, or unintentionally, and so disregarded that example and instead moved onto some thing else.

If that brain missed the example I gave of 'what is not assumed', then that is just another great example of how the brain blinds itself to what is actually true and real. When thee 'Truth' is not what the belief system says is true, then the brain is completely stopped from seeing the actual and real Truth of things.

If, however, that brain is smarter than what I am saying here and did not miss the example I gave of 'what is not assumed', then that brain would be able to prove this.

The majority of this was ad hominems.

The examples you gave where assumptions.

I can write the statement: "this statement is not assumed".

1. The statement is already composed of symbols and words which are assumed.
2. The statement as unassumed will only exist as such because of its self refentiality.
3. However this self refentiality is composed of assumptions and as such needs to continue in defintion.
4. All statements are simultaneously assumed and unassumed, with the lack of assumption meaning a disconnect. For example if I never assume something, I always seek further definition.

For example I might never assume my car is always running well, therefore I am always looking to define potential problems by checking it. If I assume something, I take it for what it is...ie the car is running well.

The problem occurs in the respect that even if I assume the car is running well, it is still based upon a specific continuum of definitions (ie no scratches, good tires, new oil, etc.) that are taken for what is. So even with a continuum of definitions these definitions are always assumed. However if I never assumed anything, and seek further definition, it is still requiring the definitions to be assumed.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:54 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:07 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:04 pm
However, with my interpretation/definition of the word 'axiom' that I was using, that is; a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true, by Me, can not be false nor wrong.
You can define a cat as a dog and it doesn't change its nature. What you are describing is an axiom.
Age wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:04 pm
By definition ALL truth-theories could be false.
Indeed. So can yours.
Age wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:04 pm

I have asked enough times already; Why form or have a theory about the Truth of things,
Well, my theory of Truth is quite different. Mine is called the Bullshit theory of Truth and it goes like this.
Truth is bullshit. Like God.
Age wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:04 pm

which obviously could be false or wrong anway, especially when thee Truth of things can very easily and very simply, and almost instantly, be seen and understood instead anyway?
If you think the universe is simple, then you are probably a simple-minded fool...
Still assumptions.

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Skepdick » Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:09 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:54 pm
Still assumptions.
All units of measurements are grounded in human experience. Most trivial one of all being - counting.

If you think experience is assumed, you are... mistaken.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:12 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:09 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:54 pm
Still assumptions.
All units of measurements are grounded in human experience. Most trivial one of all being - counting.

If you think experience is assumed, you are... mistaken.
Show me the number 1 as an empirical reality without making an assumption as to what it is....

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Skepdick » Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:22 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:12 pm
Show me the number 1 as an empirical reality without making an assumption as to what it is....
Ontological error.

You know how to count, don't you? How many fingers on your left hand?

You can think of the number 5 as the set of all sets with cardinality 5.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:36 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:22 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:12 pm
Show me the number 1 as an empirical reality without making an assumption as to what it is....
Ontological error.

You know how to count, don't you? How many fingers on your left hand?

You can think of the number 5 as the set of all sets with cardinality 5.
Ontology is bullshit according to you because there is no truth, hence no error.

No, since numbers are used for counting...show me the number 1 without using an assumption. This is considering that as "used" they are utilities and hence tools, show me the tool without assuming anything.

Counting then is strictly a replication of experiences, then based off of group agreed upon axioms.

I have a better idea, show me how one "counts" one entity...without assuming anything of course. What is the correct way to count ? Define it.

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Skepdick » Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:45 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:36 pm
Ontology is bullshit according to you because there is no truth, hence no error.
Yes! That's the error. You are trying to 'ontologise' a number. In the Platonism/Nominalism stand-off I am more of a conceptualist.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:36 pm
No, of numbers are used for counting...show me the number 1 without using an assumption.
It's right here ---> 1
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:36 pm
Counting then is strictly a replication of experiences, then based off of group agreed upon axioms.
Counting is individuation. From phenomenology - when you bracket some object of experience. You individuate it. One.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:36 pm
I have a better idea, show me how one "counts" one entity...without assuming anything of course.
You want me to show you how to count? OK.

. (one)
. (two)
. (three)
. (four)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: leqisuva and 5 guests