For example, I could imagine an stork mating with an elephant and giving birth to a baby elephant without artificial help. That doesn't mean that such a thing is possible.
Validation and proofdaydreamerboyJanuary 2 2005, 14:19:32 UTC
I'm going to be away from my computer for awhile to go out and eat. But first this...
Proving something is only one form of validation. Certain things are validated by direct perception. In fact at the base of a proof lies the idea that you your base of concepts starts out with things that have been perceived directly, such as the existence of particular objects.
Once you have built up a base of concepts, then you can look at something you are not sure about a prove that it is one kind of thing or another.
To say that you have to "prove that you exist" is a grave philosophical error, which has been around in philosophy for quite a while, being giving a lot of emphasis by Descartes and Hume and such people.
Is that why "facade" is in your screen name? If so, good thing I caught you before it's too late.
Re: Validation and proof____facadeJanuary 2 2005, 14:26:50 UTC
I believe that only in a posteriori claims to truth, not a priori claims to truth
if you can't justify that base of concepts, however, objectivism is a faith-based claim, ey?
I discount lots of perception-based proof because perceptions are untrustworthy. As such, a think we may need, at least in the realm of philosophy, an a priori proof of our existence.
That's not why facade is my screen name. I wanted illusion, because it has aesthetic appeal to me, and has to do with my distrusting of perception, but illusion names were all taken, so i chose a synonym
perceptionsdaydreamerboyJanuary 2 2005, 14:42:28 UTC
Well, please re-read carefully what I wrote. If you believe in such a thing as "untrustworthiness," then you are actually believing in a lot of other things and are presuming the validity of the senses.
You sound like you are ready to read Leonard Peikoff's essay on the analytic-synthetic dichotomy, why it is invalid, which is in the book "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (2 ed.)" by Ayn Rand.
How the hell did you get into this at such an early age?
Re: perceptions____facadeJanuary 2 2005, 14:51:30 UTC
So let me see if i understand you
If we assume that certain things cannot bring us truth, we are assuming that, in fact, truth exists, and that the things we've listed simply are not the things that can draw us to them? I'm not sure however, what a rational thought-process has to do with empiric sense-related things, but i would bet that that is discussed by Leonard Peikoff in his essay
Correct me if i'm mistaken Analytic things are those-which-are-accepted-due-to-rational-thought-process Synthetic things are those-which-are-accepted-due-to-empiric-and-deductive-thought-process
Sort of like rationalism versus empiricism, respectively?
I bought i very good lecture series from the teaching company entitled 'great minds of the western intellectual tradition' a few years ago as an introduction, and went eclectically from there
If you merely pose a complex question (or even a simple one) you have to assume that you do know the truth about some things, just to be able to pose the question.
Yes, you really should read the essay, or his complete book "Objectivism--The Philosophy of Ayn Rand". I will send you a gift certificate for two or three books, if you can get youe e-mail address to me when I am on AIM ( "Daydreamerboy123"). I'll just leave the AIM on, even if I'm out. Otherwise, you can get them at any Border's or Barnes and Noble or your library.
Re: Premises____facadeJanuary 2 2005, 15:07:22 UTC
My constraint is not economic, its time based, really, the gift certificates aren't needed. Donate your money to the tsunami effort instead!
Why must we know the truth of some things to be able to pose the question? Moreso, assuming we need to know the truth about some things, why does this translate to the truth about all things?
Comments 51
Reply
Reply
Reply
Proving something is only one form of validation. Certain things are validated by direct perception. In fact at the base of a proof lies the idea that you your base of concepts starts out with things that have been perceived directly, such as the existence of particular objects.
Once you have built up a base of concepts, then you can look at something you are not sure about a prove that it is one kind of thing or another.
To say that you have to "prove that you exist" is a grave philosophical error, which has been around in philosophy for quite a while, being giving a lot of emphasis by Descartes and Hume and such people.
Is that why "facade" is in your screen name? If so, good thing I caught you before it's too late.
Adrian
Reply
if you can't justify that base of concepts, however, objectivism is a faith-based claim, ey?
I discount lots of perception-based proof because perceptions are untrustworthy. As such, a think we may need, at least in the realm of philosophy, an a priori proof of our existence.
That's not why facade is my screen name. I wanted illusion, because it has aesthetic appeal to me, and has to do with my distrusting of perception, but illusion names were all taken, so i chose a synonym
what do you think?
Reply
You sound like you are ready to read Leonard Peikoff's essay on the analytic-synthetic dichotomy, why it is invalid, which is in the book "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (2 ed.)" by Ayn Rand.
How the hell did you get into this at such an early age?
Adrian
Reply
If we assume that certain things cannot bring us truth, we are assuming that, in fact, truth exists, and that the things we've listed simply are not the things that can draw us to them?
I'm not sure however, what a rational thought-process has to do with empiric sense-related things, but i would bet that that is discussed by Leonard Peikoff in his essay
Correct me if i'm mistaken
Analytic things are those-which-are-accepted-due-to-rational-thought-process
Synthetic things are those-which-are-accepted-due-to-empiric-and-deductive-thought-process
Sort of like rationalism versus empiricism, respectively?
I bought i very good lecture series from the teaching company entitled 'great minds of the western intellectual tradition' a few years ago as an introduction, and went eclectically from there
Reply
Yes, you really should read the essay, or his complete book "Objectivism--The Philosophy of Ayn Rand". I will send you a gift certificate for two or three books, if you can get youe e-mail address to me when I am on AIM ( "Daydreamerboy123"). I'll just leave the AIM on, even if I'm out. Otherwise, you can get them at any Border's or Barnes and Noble or your library.
Reply
Why must we know the truth of some things to be able to pose the question? Moreso, assuming we need to know the truth about some things, why does this translate to the truth about all things?
Reply
Leave a comment