Re: Black DogdaydreamerboyJanuary 1 2005, 22:43:22 UTC
It boggles my mind that you were born in 1989. That just doesn't seem possible, given the nature of your comments and questions. But, I'll have to believe it.
Re: Black Dog____facadeJanuary 1 2005, 22:50:25 UTC
Thank you very much, i assure you its true
I try to work diligently as best i can, given the limited time i've had to think. I find myself often overwhelmed in philosophical conversation, however, with terms that i haven't acquainted myself with, which is what's wonderful about livejournal philosophizing; it comes with meta-encyclopia via internet.
My hope is that by starting to absorb philosophy at an earlier age, and at a fairly productive rate, i may have a chance of making a constructive contribution to the field at a much, much later age, although i recognize that it is a near-impossible to reach such an aim. But, what the hey, I take Emerson's doctrine that we aim above the mark to reach the mark seriously
>I'm skeptic because i have never heard any answer to any philosophical question that was without doubt, have you?
Yes. Study Objectivism and you will see how we can attain certainty. Things exist. Things have natures. You exist as a conscious being. After that you can achieve certain knowledge about many things, even the question of certainty itself.
It's quite refreshing, given the nature of mainstream philosophy.
Here's an example, if someone says "No one can be certain of anything," he is presupposing that the statement itself is an absolute. All statements of this nature must presuppose that knowledge is possible. That's the contradiction of skepticism and subjectivism. You can excuse young people for getting tripped up on it, but there are a lot of dishonest college professors who know they are wrong, yet the continue with what they are doing just the same.
If you see a pencil that looks like it is bent if it is half sticking out of water, then what is happening is you are experiencing the full context of the pencil in relationship to its environment. You are gaining information that there is something special going on regarding the nature of water and light.
So actually you are gaining information about the world, not being deceived by it.
You can pull the pencil out and see that it is whole. The full context is available for your inspection.
It is not logical for skeptics to talk about situations like this and try to apply it to the universe as a whole, or existence as a whole and our experience as conscious beings. There's no logical reason to go from one observation to the other. It's a non-sequitur.
Comments 51
hook me up with a copy dawg.
Reply
Reply
( ... )
Reply
Adrian
Reply
I have 13 led zeppelin cds!
Reply
Reply
I try to work diligently as best i can, given the limited time i've had to think. I find myself often overwhelmed in philosophical conversation, however, with terms that i haven't acquainted myself with, which is what's wonderful about livejournal philosophizing; it comes with meta-encyclopia via internet.
My hope is that by starting to absorb philosophy at an earlier age, and at a fairly productive rate, i may have a chance of making a constructive contribution to the field at a much, much later age, although i recognize that it is a near-impossible to reach such an aim. But, what the hey, I take Emerson's doctrine that we aim above the mark to reach the mark seriously
Reply
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro
Reply
Reply
I'm skeptic because i have never heard any answer to any philosophical question that was without doubt, have you?
Reply
Yes. Study Objectivism and you will see how we can attain certainty. Things exist. Things have natures. You exist as a conscious being. After that you can achieve certain knowledge about many things, even the question of certainty itself.
It's quite refreshing, given the nature of mainstream philosophy.
Here's an example, if someone says "No one can be certain of anything," he is presupposing that the statement itself is an absolute. All statements of this nature must presuppose that knowledge is possible. That's the contradiction of skepticism and subjectivism. You can excuse young people for getting tripped up on it, but there are a lot of dishonest college professors who know they are wrong, yet the continue with what they are doing just the same.
Reply
Is there any example besides objectivism that is unquestionable?
Reply
Reply
Is an optical illusion real?
Reply
So actually you are gaining information about the world, not being deceived by it.
You can pull the pencil out and see that it is whole. The full context is available for your inspection.
It is not logical for skeptics to talk about situations like this and try to apply it to the universe as a whole, or existence as a whole and our experience as conscious beings. There's no logical reason to go from one observation to the other. It's a non-sequitur.
Reply
What about a picture with depth?
Why isn't it logical to go from one observation to the other?
Reply
Leave a comment