AlexW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 10:07 pm
You cannot fully describe parts either, only selected aspects.
Take a billards ball, you can describe certain aspects, eg its weight, diameter etc but you can never describe it fully as it itself becomes a “new” whole. In essence, every part is the whole and can therefore never be fully described.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:11 pm
You speak of a ''me'' doing the measuring, do you know what or who ''me'' is? can you decribe this ''me'' that is doing the measuring?
What does knowing what or who 'ME' is have to do with measuring?
I have measuring tape - I measure.
You asked this question: Describe the 'we' doing the measuring?
I described the 'we' doing the measuring as 42.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:11 pm
You speak of a ''me'' doing the measuring, do you know what or who ''me'' is? can you decribe this ''me'' that is doing the measuring?
What does knowing what or who 'ME' is have to do with measuring?
I have measuring tape - I measure.
No, the tape measure is measuring...who is reading what the tape measure is informing? is the reader the tape measure?
Logic wrote:
And yet we expect axioms to remain fixed
If the map is to be useful it needs to resemble the teritory in SOME way
Axioms are not set in stone but subject to revision whenever new knowledge is discovered
Axioms set in stone are dogmatic and useless because they cannot be altered in any way
Of course the map must represent the territory as accurately as possible but it is still merely an approximation and
so should never be mistaken for the territory itself because despite the similarity they are entirely different things
Averroes wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:15 pm
We are on a philosophy forum having a discussion on the philosophy of language section of the forum. We started in English, and we will end it in English so that everybody who have been following and reading on the forum can read your proof and assess your reasoning as well.
Who are you?
You are not Averroes. He's been dead for 822 years.
Averroes wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:15 pm
We are on a philosophy forum having a discussion on the philosophy of language section of the forum. We started in English, and we will end it in English so that everybody who have been following and reading on the forum can read your proof and assess your reasoning as well.
Who are you?
You are not Averroes. He's been dead for 822 years.
You cannot think conceptually without language(or some symbolic system), for to think conceptually is to think about something that is not available to immediate sensory perception.
Averroes wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:15 pm
We are on a philosophy forum having a discussion on the philosophy of language section of the forum. We started in English, and we will end it in English so that everybody who have been following and reading on the forum can read your proof and assess your reasoning as well.
Who are you?
You are not Averroes. He's been dead for 822 years.