Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-11-2018 4:13 AM
216 online now:
Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle, vimesey (3 members, 213 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 843,778 Year: 18,601/29,783 Month: 546/2,043 Week: 98/386 Day: 1/47 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3Next
Author Topic:   Philosophy of Ideas
nwr
Member
Posts: 5584
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 16 of 44 (305628)
04-21-2006 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by robinrohan
04-21-2006 5:50 AM


Re: An a-priori type of guy
For example, mathematical truth is considered a priori

So "a priori" means "deductive"?


No. In the case of mathematics, the deduction is based on premises that did not come from empirical observation.

If you made a deduction from empirical observations, then the conclusion would not be considered a priori.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by robinrohan, posted 04-21-2006 5:50 AM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by robinrohan, posted 04-21-2006 10:21 AM nwr has responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 44 (305658)
04-21-2006 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by nwr
04-21-2006 8:06 AM


Re: An a-priori type of guy
No. In the case of mathematics, the deduction is based on premises that did not come from empirical observation

Are you referring to things like the assumptions we make for plain geometry? Is that what you call "a priori"?


"The whole of life goes like this. We seek repose by battling against difficulties, and once they are overcome, repose becomes unbearable because of the boredom it engenders."--Pascal
This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by nwr, posted 04-21-2006 8:06 AM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by nwr, posted 04-21-2006 6:40 PM robinrohan has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5584
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 18 of 44 (305761)
04-21-2006 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by robinrohan
04-21-2006 10:21 AM


Re: An a-priori type of guy
Are you referring to things like the assumptions we make for plain geometry? Is that what you call "a priori"?

I don't claim to be an expert. I am just commenting on how philosophers seem to use the term "a priori". I am not asserting that it makes sense.

It is tied up with epistemology (theory of knowledge), where they use terminology such as:

  • a priori or a posteriori;
  • analytic or synthetic;
  • necessary or contingent.
    Kant complicated things by insisting that there could be a synthetic a priori, and Kant would have considered the truths of plane geometry to be synthetic a priori.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 17 by robinrohan, posted 04-21-2006 10:21 AM robinrohan has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 19 by Son Goku, posted 04-21-2006 7:12 PM nwr has not yet responded

      
  • Son Goku
    Member
    Posts: 1120
    From: Ireland
    Joined: 07-16-2005
    Member Rating: 4.0


    Message 19 of 44 (305768)
    04-21-2006 7:12 PM
    Reply to: Message 18 by nwr
    04-21-2006 6:40 PM


    Re: An a-priori type of guy
    Kant complicated things by insisting that there could be a synthetic a priori, and Kant would have considered the truths of plane geometry to be synthetic a priori.

    I think Kant was correct in adding that category as I never felt comfortable placing mathematics next to standard a prior statements.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 18 by nwr, posted 04-21-2006 6:40 PM nwr has not yet responded

      
    John Galt
    Inactive Junior Member


    Message 20 of 44 (305810)
    04-21-2006 9:25 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
    04-19-2006 9:03 AM


    Philosophies.....
    Does Objectivism fall under your list of philosophy?
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Phat, posted 04-19-2006 9:03 AM Phat has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 21 by Phat, posted 04-21-2006 10:28 PM John Galt has not yet responded

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 11574
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.2


    Message 21 of 44 (305815)
    04-21-2006 10:28 PM
    Reply to: Message 20 by John Galt
    04-21-2006 9:25 PM


    Re: Philosophies.....
    Sure! Ayn Rand is welcome!
    Concise CD writes:

    She immigrated to the U.S. in 1926 after graduating from the University of Petrograd and worked as a screenwriter in Hollywood. She won a cult following with two best-selling novels presenting her belief that all real achievement comes from individual ability and effort, that laissez-faire capitalism is most congenial to the exercise of talent, and that selfishness is a virtue, altruism a vice. In The Fountainhead (1943), a superior individual transcends traditionalism and conformism. The allegorical Atlas Shrugged (1957) combines science fiction with her political message. She expounded her philosophy, which she called objectivism, in nonfiction works and as editor of two journals and became an icon of radical libertarianism.

    I never quite agreed with Rand, for reasons which I forget! :rolleyes: I gotta look them up again! :)
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 20 by John Galt, posted 04-21-2006 9:25 PM John Galt has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 22 by Phat, posted 04-21-2006 10:41 PM Phat has not yet responded

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 11574
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.2


    Message 22 of 44 (305816)
    04-21-2006 10:41 PM
    Reply to: Message 21 by Phat
    04-21-2006 10:28 PM


    Philosophies.....Ayn Rands Objectivism
    Here is what I got off of AynRands website:
    aynrand.org writes:

    My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

    Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

    Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

    Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself.

    The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

    The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit.

    It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others.

    The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders.

    In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.


    When she says that Man is an end to himself, and that
    The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
    That grinds against my Christian worldview a bit!
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 21 by Phat, posted 04-21-2006 10:28 PM Phat has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 23 by anglagard, posted 04-21-2006 11:59 PM Phat has not yet responded

      
    anglagard
    Member
    Posts: 2184
    From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
    Joined: 03-18-2006


    Message 23 of 44 (305827)
    04-21-2006 11:59 PM
    Reply to: Message 22 by Phat
    04-21-2006 10:41 PM


    Re: Philosophies.....Ayn Rands Objectivism
    I have more than a passing familiarty with Objectivism, from reading the works of Ayn Rand and meeting many adherents back in my Libertarian activist days. While many of their points are compelling...

    I must basically agree with Phat. To me the lack of a spiritual element renders it incomplete.

    Edited for usual modus operandi

    This message has been edited by anglagard, 04-21-2006 11:59 PM

    This message has been edited by anglagard, 04-22-2006 12:05 AM


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 22 by Phat, posted 04-21-2006 10:41 PM Phat has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 26 by John Galt, posted 04-22-2006 8:59 AM anglagard has not yet responded
     Message 27 by John Galt, posted 04-22-2006 9:03 AM anglagard has not yet responded

        
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 11574
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.2


    Message 24 of 44 (305839)
    04-22-2006 1:41 AM
    Reply to: Message 14 by lfen
    04-20-2006 11:57 PM


    Re: An a-priori type of guy
    Ifen writes:

    I still wonder then what Phat knows a priori about God versus what he derived from evidence. I don't think I know anything a priori about God at all.

    My Christian philosophy was kindled, in large measure, by an impartation---at least how I perceived it happening.
    Our family grew up Methodist and my parents went to church as a social outlet and because, as my Dad once told me, "It makes you feel good!"

    Jesus was never glorified or spoken of as openly as I speak of Him now. There were many years that I never considered going to church! Once, I was swept into a cult known as The Way International. This girl got me involved and I took the Power for abundant Living course...all the while stoked on cocaine, which I was addicted to in those days. Needless to say, I never really got into The Way and soon found drugs and old friends much more comforting.

    Philosophically, I always considered the idea of God and of traditional Christian concepts as plausible but not necessary.

    In late 1992, as I was in the best shape of my life riding my bicycle up and down mountain passes, another old girl whom I knew invited me to church. I agreed on principle because I trusted her and also because I was tired of getting high on pot every day of my life. I never expected the church would have any impact on my life, and I certainly was never planning on "being born again!"

    The way I knew it, I had said the prayer enough that I was most certainly already saved. One memorable day, however, I literally experienced an impartation so convincing that I couldnt question it if I tried! I simply knew that God was real at that moment and have known this a-priori conclusion ever since then!

    It can be argued that my indoctorination was a gradual lifestyle that had led up to an emotional catharsis.
    I won't deny empirical reasons for the epiphany that I had, yet in my own mind and soul I see it as a factual change and not an indoctorination.

    I left that church after learning charismatic acceptable Protestant doctorines similar to the Assemblies of God denomination and doctorines, and I have developed a critical analysis of my faith and belief since that time.

    One key example of my questioning about faith and belief centers around our own EvC discussions regarding creedal christianity which assert that all people are saved and simply need to come to an awareness of the fact---which contradicts what I was taught ---that many are called yet few are chosen.

    I agree that behavior is important, yet I am unconvinced that there does not await an impartation of the reality of God for some of us that we have not yet experienced.

    Since I say experienced, I suppose that my claim of a-priorian philosophy could be challenged! :)

    So...Ifen...perhaps my impartation was an experience more than a knowing but it was instantaneous.

    This message has been edited by Phat, 04-21-2006 11:44 PM


    Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 14 by lfen, posted 04-20-2006 11:57 PM lfen has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 25 by lfen, posted 04-22-2006 3:02 AM Phat has responded

      
    lfen
    Member (Idle past 2653 days)
    Posts: 2189
    From: Oregon
    Joined: 06-24-2004


    Message 25 of 44 (305845)
    04-22-2006 3:02 AM
    Reply to: Message 24 by Phat
    04-22-2006 1:41 AM


    Re: An a-priori type of guy
    perhaps my impartation was an experience more than a knowing but it was instantaneous.

    Interesting. Would you care to say more about your experience? Would you say that during this experience you were in a non ordinary state of consciousness or was your awareness typical?

    lfen


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 24 by Phat, posted 04-22-2006 1:41 AM Phat has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 28 by Phat, posted 04-22-2006 10:45 AM lfen has not yet responded

      
    John Galt
    Inactive Junior Member


    Message 26 of 44 (305882)
    04-22-2006 8:59 AM
    Reply to: Message 23 by anglagard
    04-21-2006 11:59 PM


    Re: Philosophies.....Ayn Rands Objectivism
    It's only been in the last few years that I've discovered Ayn Rand. having lost all faith the in the Catholic Church, not necessarily my spirituality (I've got lots of it from combined philosophies and religions), I also must say the only problem I have with Objectivism, and I've been working hard to find a solution, is that God has no place inside of it. Spirituality, however, in a form, is a great part of Objectivism. Spirituality can come from many alternate sources outside of religion. It is the presence of a higher power that cannot exist within the parametres of Objectivism

    I must also add that Raynd's views are completely dependant upon each man in a given society be subject to reason. This, however, does not exist anywhere in our current world. Raynd's view of selfishness does not imply that one must 'stab someone in the back' to achieve this but that by personal achievement through our abilities we discover our values and happiness. Such happiness cannot exist so long as there is 1 person who believes that they entitled to something with working for; entitled to it by need.

    Greed is not good or evil. It is the context of the word which gives it such qualities, like anything else. The problem lies in the fact that some men ARE more able than others. This should not be looked upon as a vice, but a virtue. The fact that one may be more able than an other should not be grounds for anger and jealousy; it is only factual.

    In a society such as Raynd describes, yes, men work by their own means, for their own ends. But achievement of these things provides the opportunity for others to achieve as well. This, I guess, in my eyes provides happiness for others while we are striving to be our best. It isn't a matter of rich vs poor, in fact it ins't a matter of anything vs anything. Wealth, once again in Raynd's society, would simply respect outstanding ability which unfortunately is not celebrated, but condemned.

    I guess people just aren't ready to accept such doctrines as one man being more able than another (not to say that means that they are better or superior). Also, please note, when i say man or men I refer to the Humankind and not the one sex in case anyone might be confused.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 23 by anglagard, posted 04-21-2006 11:59 PM anglagard has not yet responded

      
    John Galt
    Inactive Junior Member


    Message 27 of 44 (305883)
    04-22-2006 9:03 AM
    Reply to: Message 23 by anglagard
    04-21-2006 11:59 PM


    Re: Philosophies.....Ayn Rands Objectivism
    I must basically agree with Phat. To me the lack of a spiritual element renders it incomplete.

    Spirituality , in my understanding of Objectivism, CAN be achieved through the success and achievement of our works. What is spirituality but the confirmation of life and discovering peace within?
    Discovery of God or a higher power is another story.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 23 by anglagard, posted 04-21-2006 11:59 PM anglagard has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 29 by Phat, posted 04-22-2006 10:52 AM John Galt has responded

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 11574
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.2


    Message 28 of 44 (305898)
    04-22-2006 10:45 AM
    Reply to: Message 25 by lfen
    04-22-2006 3:02 AM


    Re: An a-priori type of guy
    Ifen writes:

    Interesting. Would you care to say more about your experience? Would you say that during this experience you were in a non ordinary state of consciousness or was your awareness typical?


    IIRC, I was not in any different frame of mind than would befit a typical day. I DO recall that after the conversion experience, I was able to stop smoking pot on a daily basis for the first time in my life and, let me tell you, that was no easy task! :rolleyes: It was not something that the church even knew about, yet it was a decisive lifestyle change for me!

    By my making some rather profound choices, one could assert that I was effecting the change---but from my perspective, the change had already happened!

    I DO recall a few altered states of consciousness after the day, however! Whether or not these were due to my sudden withdrawl from marijuana or not, I cannot say. I was on a natural high which could have been due to my bodies normalization of serotonin levels, or some other such explanation. I have, of course, attributed the experience as an ongoing process that is God-ordained, but of course I would be biased! :)

    I can say that this one experience allowed me to know that I know that God is real, but in truth it has been a combination of experiences added to that one which validated my belief. Interestingly, the opposite occurs for others involved in organized religion---they have an epiphany which shows them that the beliefs lack validity....go figure...

    Ain't gonna stop me from spreading the good news that remains very real in my heart, however! :)


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 25 by lfen, posted 04-22-2006 3:02 AM lfen has not yet responded

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 11574
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.2


    Message 29 of 44 (305901)
    04-22-2006 10:52 AM
    Reply to: Message 27 by John Galt
    04-22-2006 9:03 AM


    Re: Philosophies.....Ayn Rands Objectivism
    John Galt writes:

    Spirituality , in my understanding of Objectivism, CAN be achieved through the success and achievement of our works. What is spirituality but the confirmation of life and discovering peace within?

    In the context of objectivism, is spirituality a material thing? Is an individual concept of awareness or belief necessarily a spiritual reality?
    John Galt writes:

    Discovery of God or a higher power is another story.

    Apparantly you see it that way. Perhaps you see self actualization as a form of confirmation and validation of your purpose in life. If so, God would be another story in relation to your awareness of Him. (or her...or another higher power)
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 27 by John Galt, posted 04-22-2006 9:03 AM John Galt has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 30 by John Galt, posted 04-22-2006 12:13 PM Phat has responded

      
    John Galt
    Inactive Junior Member


    Message 30 of 44 (305913)
    04-22-2006 12:13 PM
    Reply to: Message 29 by Phat
    04-22-2006 10:52 AM


    Re: Philosophies.....Ayn Rands Objectivism
    First of all, so its easier on me in the future, could you explain how I quote what you have written so that my replies are easier to understand?

    Second, is spirituality a material thing? Yes. Through electrical pulses in my brain I am able to think through logic and reason. These things are not concrete, but they are material. They cannot be seen, touched or smelled, but does that void their existence as 'material' things? I don't believe so. The concept of being aware of oneself is the first step any man must make before he can come to realize any of the things that surround him. "I think, therefore I am." is erroneous because it implies that we must think before we realize we exist. I see it as the opposite, "I am, therefore I think." Self actualization is the first thought process one must go through before understanding that what we are doing is thinking. How can thought exist if we don't exist before?

    Finding peace within is material. Once again, like thought, it is not concretely material but I do not need to see my 'peace' visually to know that I have it.

    Self actualization and validation are what we must discover before we can determine what purpose we wish our lives to follow. To me, the purpose of any life should be achievement. Achievement can come in any form: to invent, to travel, to find 'God' or whatever you may choose. But in the end, you must want to achieve something; without it, you have no purpose and a man without purpose it spiritually dead. I don't believe Raynd denies spirituality, just existence of God because his existence cannot be reached through reason. We set goals (or achievements) in our life so that we may strive to be better than we are. Sometimes it is not the actual attainement of said goal, but the journey to it by which we find what we wanted. But in the end, completing our goals gives us a sense of self-esteem unachievable anywhere's else. To be able to say, "I did this." about what we achieved gives us a feeling of self-worth. We then set new goals and the process continues. Everything you do in life is a means to an ends and it is at these ends that we find validaty, or if you may, spirituality.

    Quick note, egoism and selfishness in Raynd's Objectivist theories do not follow the traditional sense of the definitions we know today. They are not evils. Simply put, they refer to the self.

    Thanx for listening.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 29 by Phat, posted 04-22-2006 10:52 AM Phat has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 31 by AdminNWR, posted 04-22-2006 12:47 PM John Galt has responded
     Message 35 by Phat, posted 04-22-2006 9:45 PM John Galt has not yet responded

      
    Prev1
    2
    3Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018