Philosophy undermines truth

[Flannel Jesus]

I haven't seen anyone make that claim.

You haven't? It's implcit in Think therefore Am

I disagree

Looks like a pretty explicit basic logical fallacy to me

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying ... %20not%20Q.

[attofishpi]

You haven't? It's implcit in Think therefore Am

I disagree:

Well, it seems to me that in order to think, one must exist. I don't happen to believe that in order to exist, one must think.

If your logic says otherwise, then I reject your logic.

So, lets hear the compelling case for your existence.

I am whatever is causing the sensation of these words. Could be anything; I might be a figure of your fevered imagination.

So you understand neither English nor logic.

If Descartes accepted the validity of his own argument (and he would have because he made it), then he also had to accept the soundness of NOT existing when he is NOT thinking.

(think=true) therefore (am=true)
(think=false) therefore (am=false)

Not really. I am asleep, therefore I am.

[Will Bouwman]

If Descartes accepted the validity of his own argument (and he would have because he made it), then he also had to accept the soundness of NOT existing when he is NOT thinking.

Dunno how many times you will need before this sinks in:

The standard objection to Descartes is that it doesn't necessarily follow from thoughts that there has to be a thinker. All that necessarily follows from thoughts is that there are thoughts.

If you have some beef with Descartes, take it up with him.

[Skepdick]

If Descartes accepted the validity of his own argument (and he would have because he made it), then he also had to accept the soundness of NOT existing when he is NOT thinking.

Dunno how many times you will need before this sinks in:

The standard objection to Descartes is that it doesn't necessarily follow from thoughts that there has to be a thinker. All that necessarily follows from thoughts is that there are thoughts.

I don't know how many times I must repeat myself before it sinks in... The non-standard objection is the one that I've raised.

IF thinking THEN am ELSE am not.

If you have some beef with Descartes, take it up with him.

I am taking it up with the person who introduced the dead guy into the dialogue.

It's quite strange that you chose to introduce somebody you disagree with, no?

[attofishpi]

If Descartes accepted the validity of his own argument (and he would have because he made it), then he also had to accept the soundness of NOT existing when he is NOT thinking.

Dunno how many times you will need before this sinks in:

The standard objection to Descartes is that it doesn't necessarily follow from thoughts that there has to be a thinker. All that necessarily follows from thoughts is that there are thoughts.

I don't know how many times I must repeat myself before it sinks in... The non-standard objection is the one that I've raised.

IF thinking THEN am ELSE am not.

If you have some beef with Descartes, take it up with him.

I am taking it up with the person who introduced the dead guy into the dialogue.

It's quite strange that you chose to introduce somebody you disagree with, no?

Skeppy - this mid-life crisis that occurred over a day ago now is starting to get the better of you.

You are starting to sound like you are doing philosophy, rather than finding ways to undermine it - which clearly is impossible without doing philosophy -

So.

You are fucked with which ever approach you take.

Descartes: I think therefore I am.
Atto: I think therefore I am, I sleep therefore I am.

[promethean75]

Well I think that attofishpi undermines truth and is an affront to philosophy. there I said it.

[attofishpi]

Well I think that attofishpi undermines truth and is an affront to philosophy. there I said it.

..ah prom - i think you don't understand logic to the extent to take me on.

Philosophy you should be aware requires it - (it doesn't just require reading shit loads of old squires that thought about stuff.)

Now what "truth" have I undermined - Skeppy might give me points..

[Skepdick]

Skeppy - this mid-life crisis that occurred over a day ago now is starting to get the better of you.

You are starting to sound like you are doing philosophy, rather than finding ways to undermine it - which clearly is impossible without doing philosophy -

So.

You are fucked with which ever approach you take.

Descartes: I think therefore I am.
Atto: I think therefore I am, I sleep therefore I am.

I feel like I am having to re-explain myself.

There's a clear difference between thinking and NOT thinking.
Just as there's a clear difference between philosophy and NOT philosophy

If you think that I am doing is philosophy then you are necessarily mistaken. Not sure how else to say it - I reject philosophy. All of it. And I refuse to do it. So it trivialy follows that what I am doing is NOT philosophy.

[promethean75]

to tell the truth mate i got as far as the opening chapter on symbols and operations and predicate logic in my logic for dumb blokes book and then skipped to the strategies for proofs section, finally to fall mentally exhausted before the book... never to open it again.

i can also say that not since have i ever found myself in a situation saying 'damn i should have read that logic book'. now true as this may be - the whole 'what use is it anyway?' argument - the fact is, I'm too dumb to be able to learn it quickly enough so as to avoid getting burned out on it and losing interest. it is, afterall, a luxury. that's my fault. if i were smaht enough to absorb it as fast as i wanted to, I'd maintain an interest in it. I'd be naturally interested in it becuz it came so easily, as it were.

so my experience with logic is derived almost completely from my philosophy forum street smarts and is utterly devoid of symbolical and/or notational logic save the occasional dropping of an x or y once in a while in some fallacious argument I'm tryna make. but that's not the worst of your problems. what's worse is that i am a master sophist and rhetorician as well, which makes of me a formidable opponent if i am moved enough to commit to argument.

[attofishpi]

to tell the truth mate i got as far as the opening chapter on symbols and operations and predicate logic in my logic for dumb blokes book and then skipped to the strategies for proofs section, finally to fall mentally exhausted before the book... never to open it again.

i can also say that not since have i ever found myself in a situation saying 'damn i should have read that logic book'. now true as this may be - the whole 'what use is it anyway?' argument - the fact is, I'm too dumb to be able to learn it quickly enough so as to avoid getting burned out on it and losing interest. it is, afterall, a luxury. that's my fault. if i were smaht enough to absorb it as fast as i wanted to, I'd maintain an interest in it. I'd be naturally interested in it becuz it came so easily, as it were.

so my experience with logic is derived almost completely from my philosophy forum street smarts and is utterly devoid of symbolical and/or notational logic save the occasional dropping of an x or y once in a while in some fallacious argument I'm tryna make. but that's not the worst of your problems. what's worse is that i am a master sophist and rhetorician as well, which makes of me a formidable opponent if i am moved enough to commit to argument.

I think I would have been bored shitless with formal logic also. I had no comprehension of such, just programming logic which served an interesting outcome.

But still, maybe you can explain why you stated I am an affront to philosophy and that I undermine 'truth'? (is this a support of your ILP buddy )

[attofishpi]

Skeppy - this mid-life crisis that occurred over a day ago now is starting to get the better of you.

You are starting to sound like you are doing philosophy, rather than finding ways to undermine it - which clearly is impossible without doing philosophy -

So.

You are fucked with which ever approach you take.

Descartes: I think therefore I am.
Atto: I think therefore I am, I sleep therefore I am.

I feel like I am having to re-explain myself.

There's a clear difference between thinking and NOT thinking.
Just as there's a clear difference between philosophy and NOT philosophy

If you think that I am doing is philosophy then you are necessarily mistaken. Not sure how else to say it - I reject philosophy. All of it. And I refuse to do it. So it trivialy follows that what I am doing is NOT philosophy.

Turns out I am winning on that front - just ask promethean !

I don't think people that have spent LOADS of time reading philosophers of yore, like my type - and perhaps yours.

Personally, I still question everything people on the forum post without any taint of those ol' yore philosophers on board my thoughts of attack (mostly)

However, I still respect the field, which clearly you don't?

Philosophy to me should always attempt to boil down to a binary answer - YAY or NAY.

[Skepdick]

Philosophy to me should always attempt to boil down to a binary answer - YAY or NAY.

Can all questions be reduced to binary answers? Maybe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monad_(fu ... ple:_Maybe

[promethean75]

"is this a support of your ILP buddy?"

who Biggs? no we don't conspire together in any way and he does his own thing. I've never even PMd the guy. incidentally he is the philosophy forum poster I've known (on the Internet) the longest. 2002ish from a yahoo group. although any correspondence thereafter between us wuz by chance of ending up at ILP at the same time.

that's a long time man.

as to the being an affront to philosophy comment, i wuz just commiting a random act of cruelty. my therapist said i needed to do this so i can exercise purpose and control over my sociopathological tendencies. not to be confused with suicidal tendencies, which is a metal band.

[attofishpi]

"is this a support of your ILP buddy?"

who Biggs? no we don't conspire together in any way and he does his own thing. I've never even PMd the guy. incidentally he is the philosophy forum poster I've known (on the Internet) the longest. 2002ish from a yahoo group. although any correspondence thereafter between us wuz by chance of ending up at ILP at the same time.

that's a long time man.

as to the being an affront to philosophy comment, i wuz just commiting a random act of cruelty. my therapist said i needed to do this so i can exercise purpose and control over my sociopathological tendencies. not to be confused with suicidal tendencies, which is a metal band.

I didn't find that "attack" cruel in any way - in fact I love it when people (usually morons) attack me with ill thought words (irrational crap) - iambiguous is becoming one of my favourites - interesting you thought I was talking about him from ILP...but there appears to be plenty - maybe Atla came from there too - he's just projected himself as a twat in another thread that should turn out fun.

No matter - all good.

[attofishpi]

Philosophy to me should always attempt to boil down to a binary answer - YAY or NAY.

Can all questions be reduced to binary answers? Maybe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monad_(fu ... ple:_Maybe

I don't think so, but it should always attempt to.