Can you logically explain to me how death gives meaning to life?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-10-2014, 06:21 AM
RE: Can you logically explain to me how death gives meaning to life?
(09-10-2014 05:32 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Sure it doesn't tell us anything new, that's the rational limitation. So what? "Meaning" is a philosophical concept. You can't deny philosophy because it lacks meaning, because you need philosophy to define what is meaning Smartass

You can deny that there is any meaning? and really, to start from a natural blank position one ought to initially. A immense problem with classical philosophical positions is making the assumption that such concepts are inherently existent. You shouldn't seek to define what is meaning, you should actually seek IS there meaning?

But too often in our history it's presumed there was meaning and presumed there was a higher essence that can't not be denied, that's why it's only been mainly in the last two centuries of thought that these presumptions have been questioned. You show a pattern of holding on to making claims through presumptions, it's why you've gathered the quaint title of a presuppositionalist.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2014, 06:43 AM (This post was last modified: 09-10-2014 06:53 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Can you logically explain to me how death gives meaning to life?
(09-10-2014 06:21 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  You can deny that there is any meaning? and really, to start from a natural blank position one ought to initially. A immense problem with classical philosophical positions is making the assumption that such concepts are inherently existent. You shouldn't seek to define what is meaning, you should actually seek IS there meaning?
Rational method allows us to define any number of new concepts, because it does not bring any new knowledge. In rational realm, there is nothing that would require extra evidence from the outside, all that is needed is consistency. But the rational realm rules over thought, language and action. This is why we use rationality to define morality. Of course if any empirical evidence from the outside shows up along the way, it has the final word.

(09-10-2014 06:21 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  But too often in our history it's presumed there was meaning and presumed there was a higher essence that can't not be denied, that's why it's only been mainly in the last two centuries of thought that these presumptions have been questioned. You show a pattern of holding on to making claims through presumptions, it's why you've gathered the quaint title of a presuppositionalist.
You're just careful of the religious people who hold presumptuous positions, because are they either indoctrinated or crazy. They're easy to recognize, because few people are really interested in middle-eastern shepherds and ancient Roman torture devices.

Rational presumption is a valid method, a thought experiment must be "made up" to see if it does compute.
Empirical presumption is valid too, if it's a hypothesis, that is the methodological circle of scientific method, which is different from the fallacious circular reasoning.
Circular reasoning holds an idea as a conclusion. Methodological circle holds an idea as a part of the testing method, not conclusion, hence it does not violate logic, which is how empiricism was logically justified in ancient times.

That's it, I don't do anything else, I don't hold any empirical conclusive presumptions. I do however trust in the senses, because there's no other choice. But I am free to make sense with reason of what the senses tell me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2014, 08:37 AM (This post was last modified: 09-10-2014 08:45 AM by cjlr.)
RE: Can you logically explain to me how death gives meaning to life?
(09-10-2014 05:32 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(08-10-2014 05:25 PM)cjlr Wrote:  It's not true in trinary. So there's that.
(2 + 2 = 11. FACT)

But yeah, yeah, we know, you have a pathological fear of nuance and an inability to recognize context...
Is trinary mathematics valid?

As wholly and completely valid as any other base.

The actual point - which eluded you, because where mathematics are concerned you are functionally illiterate - was that 2 and 4, and for that matter addition, are constructs, and possess only contextual meaning.

(09-10-2014 05:32 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Enough to be graded at school? Yes or no.

Yes. What kind of insane question is that?

But then again, you've never had any maths education...

Actually, this wonderfully illustrates your knee-jerk binary absolute reductivism. Consider a topic - any topic. Is it "to be graded at school"? As you have not further specified, any topic taught anywhere must be answered with yes. What, then, can we conclude from that? Does it tell us where or when it ought to be taught or graded? By whom? For what purpose? To what level of detail? No. Does it tell us anything meaningful whatsoever? No.

(09-10-2014 05:32 AM)Luminon Wrote:  The irreducible principle of contradiction that we use to prove the existence of truth is binary Smartass

No, the limiting construct that you fellate is binary, but most of the rest of the world is capable of broader vision.

(09-10-2014 05:32 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(08-10-2014 05:25 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The fact that you added "at the same time in the same way" reveals the vacuity of your insufficient feels.

All you have stated is thus that it is possible to define things a certain way.

That is in and of itself meaningless. Congratulations?
Sure it doesn't tell us anything new, that's the rational limitation. So what? "Meaning" is a philosophical concept. You can't deny philosophy because it lacks meaning, because you need philosophy to define what is meaning Smartass

That is a wonderful non sequitur.

I can't remember "denying philosophy", whatever that means; please do try to keep straight the things that happen in reality and the things that only happen in your head.

You've just admitted that "A is A" tells you nothing. That is literally what you just said.

Do you know what that means? It means you cannot conclude anything from that statement. That pointless, trivial, facetious, superficial statement.

This has implications you don't seem to understand. You cannot - that's cannot, ol' Lumi - then crow and gush about how wonderful your "first principles" are, if by your own literal admission they lead nowhere.

I'm left wondering whether you have any point at all, and if lack one, whether you're even aware of it.

(09-10-2014 05:32 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(08-10-2014 05:25 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Unless it contradicts your own personal magical dark matter ether woo woo, am I right?
Well, that is actually empirical knowledge. For a long time it made no sense rationally, because I lacked information.

It is delusion, backed by overwhelming ignorance of real science.

Seek mental healthcare.

Or, you know; fucking prove it. We're all waiting.

inb4 "lol conspiracy"

(09-10-2014 05:32 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(08-10-2014 05:25 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Only toys are absolute. Reality is complicated. Your inability to confront that is not meangingful.

You can fantasize about semantic definitions all you like; it is not helpful in assessing the real world.

There is entirely no point to my even speaking to you, because you're too stubborn and self-absorbed to engage in any actual dialogue, but let's just pretend that's not so; I have a question for you:
how do you define 'truth'?
Yes, reality is complicated, this is why it has only a few aspects that are the same for all reality. These few general aspects are what philosophy uses to define identity, logic, scientific method and so on.

Truth is of course "that which connects us to reality". Reality is always something of matter and energy.
Thinking does not necessarily connect us with reality, only if it's philosophical, which means, if it shares its basic properties with reality, such as consistency. Also, thinking must respect senses. Everything must pass through senses, even communication and scientific measurement.

That's a non-answer.

I submit to you once more that your vacuous and idiotic "first principles" (the site you always cite is explicitly theistic, by the way - do you not care?) are childish deepity irrelevance.

It is quite possible to reduce all definitions to "A is A and not-A is not A". To do so is stunningly pointless.

God help you if you think you can conclude anything from having defined "A is A".

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
09-10-2014, 08:42 AM
RE: Can you logically explain to me how death gives meaning to life?
(09-10-2014 06:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(09-10-2014 05:55 AM)Chas Wrote:  Your knowledge of mathematics and logic is poor as is demonstrated by your lack of understanding of what is meant by that example.
The number base we use is arbitrary and binary logic is only one choice - the simplest.

Your unsupported assumption that only binary logic is valid is indicative of your entire black-and-white outlook.
When it is said that you lack nuance, it is to say that your thinking is simplistic, shallow, naive, ideological, and illogical.
No, I did not say only binary logic is valid Facepalm Only that binary logic is the most simple, irreducible form of validity, that is the very concept of validity.
I don't refer to mathematics at all Drinking Beverage I refer to the discipline of definitions, which is philosophy. Philosophy deals with irreducibly simple general concepts that allow us to keep track of all other disciplines, if they are valid.

Chas is quite correct in that assessment, and your response proves it.

That you call all other logical systems reducible to binary logic necessarily implies that only binary constructs are valid, as all other "valid" statements are then expressible in binary terms (and binary terms only).

So, no, you don't get it.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like cjlr's post
09-10-2014, 10:33 AM
RE: Can you logically explain to me how death gives meaning to life?
Makes sense that Luminon thinks binary is only valid; he thinks the world in black or white terms with no in between.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2014, 11:22 AM
RE: Can you logically explain to me how death gives meaning to life?
For the record, philosophy is not mathematics.
It's not about "getting anywhere" (that's logistics).
It's not about answers, unless the questions are general. The general question about mathematics is, is it true? Yes. Any other questions about mathematics belong to mathematics, not philosophy. Philosophy only deals with the general and necessary properties of reality that all reality has in common, not any particular disciplines that have the nuances. All nuances belong to their respective disciplines and should not be applied on people in general, only by the evidence provided by their respective disciplines and within their scope.
Sorry for the fine print.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2014, 11:50 AM
RE: Can you logically explain to me how death gives meaning to life?
(09-10-2014 11:22 AM)Luminon Wrote:  For the record, philosophy is not mathematics.
It's not about "getting anywhere" (that's logistics).
It's not about answers, unless the questions are general. The general question about mathematics is, is it true? Yes. Any other questions about mathematics belong to mathematics, not philosophy. Philosophy only deals with the general and necessary properties of reality that all reality has in common, not any particular disciplines that have the nuances. All nuances belong to their respective disciplines and should not be applied on people in general, only by the evidence provided by their respective disciplines and within their scope.
Sorry for the fine print.

Congratulations, ol' Lumi.

You've completely neutered philosophy by removing any consideration of reality.

Don't project your own inadequacies onto an entire field, ol' Lumi; most philosophers can and do understand the contextual subtleties that will forever evade you.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2014, 12:32 PM
RE: Can you logically explain to me how death gives meaning to life?
(09-10-2014 11:22 AM)Luminon Wrote:  For the record, philosophy is not mathematics.

Actually, as soon as you start trying to use logic and boolean algebra to express your ideas, it is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2014, 12:33 PM
RE: Can you logically explain to me how death gives meaning to life?
(09-10-2014 11:50 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Congratulations, ol' Lumi.

You've completely neutered philosophy by removing any consideration of reality.

Don't project your own inadequacies onto an entire field, ol' Lumi; most philosophers can and do understand the contextual subtleties that will forever evade you.
Neutered? Philosophy's domain is freedom and life itself! Human thinking, language and action are the domain of virtue and vice, good and evil. For that there is no laboratory protocol or cooking recipe, there's the universality of philosophy. And that's glorious.

Yes, there is stuff like linguistics and many other disciplines, but the only small but irreplaceable central part of philosophy is moral philosophy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2014, 12:35 PM
RE: Can you logically explain to me how death gives meaning to life?
(09-10-2014 12:32 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(09-10-2014 11:22 AM)Luminon Wrote:  For the record, philosophy is not mathematics.

Actually, as soon as you start trying to use logic and boolean algebra to express your ideas, it is.

Near the completion of my bachelor's degree in mathematics, I was asked to join the graduate program
in the Department of Philosophy at my university on the strength of my performance in Mathematical Logic. So, there's that.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: