Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What's most important question in philosophy?

markom
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 12:19:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I was reading about philosophical branches, but then I had to make a small research on Google to answer my question and I found something, that has been especially interest of mine since early ages:

> "The Münchhausen Trilemma, also called Agrippa's Trilemma, purports
> that it is impossible to prove any certain truth even in fields such
> as logic and mathematics. According to this argument, the proof of any
> theory rests either on circular reasoning, infinite regress, or
> unproven axioms."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

It been a gut feel of mine, that philosophical and theological debates can never really give a cut down answer to questions. I've cometh to that conclusion simply by observing debates, mine and others. And my conclusion on disagreement is that, from opponents view of point he is right and from my view of point I am right. That is the end stop.

Other reason for my conclusion is that thinking, thus logic itself, is apart from actual world in some way that is hard to explain, but I'd say its unreal dimension compared to physical dimension. Any word can mean any thing in the world, there is no definite correlation between words and real events or objects. It means we need to define and deal with rules. And that's all we can do. We can't for example make sure premisses, rules and definitions are right and truthful, because its fundamentally just an agreement.

Now one could say, you shouldn't make agreement based just on assumption. But the problem is, that we you go to define assumptions and premisses, it can take "forever" to define something, because there is unlimited combinations of words and meanings we can create -> circular reasoning, there is no end stop.

So I'm interested to hear, what is the most important question in philosophy and is Agrippa's Trilemma solved yet?
Panta rhei - Herakleitos
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 12:35:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 12:19:35 PM, markom wrote:
I was reading about philosophical branches, but then I had to make a small research on Google to answer my question and I found something, that has been especially interest of mine since early ages:

> "The Münchhausen Trilemma, also called Agrippa's Trilemma, purports
> that it is impossible to prove any certain truth even in fields such
> as logic and mathematics. According to this argument, the proof of any
> theory rests either on circular reasoning, infinite regress, or
> unproven axioms."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

It been a gut feel of mine, that philosophical and theological debates can never really give a cut down answer to questions. I've cometh to that conclusion simply by observing debates, mine and others. And my conclusion on disagreement is that, from opponents view of point he is right and from my view of point I am right. That is the end stop.

Other reason for my conclusion is that thinking, thus logic itself, is apart from actual world in some way that is hard to explain, but I'd say its unreal dimension compared to physical dimension. Any word can mean any thing in the world, there is no definite correlation between words and real events or objects. It means we need to define and deal with rules. And that's all we can do. We can't for example make sure premisses, rules and definitions are right and truthful, because its fundamentally just an agreement.

Now one could say, you shouldn't make agreement based just on assumption. But the problem is, that we you go to define assumptions and premisses, it can take "forever" to define something, because there is unlimited combinations of words and meanings we can create -> circular reasoning, there is no end stop.

So I'm interested to hear, what is the most important question in philosophy and is Agrippa's Trilemma solved yet?

Agrippa's Trilemma is incorrect. For example, we can prove that we exist. We must exist in order to doubt our own existence. This is a first principle, a truth that is self-evident.
markom
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 12:54:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 12:35:22 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:19:35 PM, markom wrote:
I was reading about philosophical branches, but then I had to make a small research on Google to answer my question and I found something, that has been especially interest of mine since early ages:

> "The Münchhausen Trilemma, also called Agrippa's Trilemma, purports
> that it is impossible to prove any certain truth even in fields such
> as logic and mathematics. According to this argument, the proof of any
> theory rests either on circular reasoning, infinite regress, or
> unproven axioms."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

It been a gut feel of mine, that philosophical and theological debates can never really give a cut down answer to questions. I've cometh to that conclusion simply by observing debates, mine and others. And my conclusion on disagreement is that, from opponents view of point he is right and from my view of point I am right. That is the end stop.

Other reason for my conclusion is that thinking, thus logic itself, is apart from actual world in some way that is hard to explain, but I'd say its unreal dimension compared to physical dimension. Any word can mean any thing in the world, there is no definite correlation between words and real events or objects. It means we need to define and deal with rules. And that's all we can do. We can't for example make sure premisses, rules and definitions are right and truthful, because its fundamentally just an agreement.

Now one could say, you shouldn't make agreement based just on assumption. But the problem is, that we you go to define assumptions and premisses, it can take "forever" to define something, because there is unlimited combinations of words and meanings we can create -> circular reasoning, there is no end stop.

So I'm interested to hear, what is the most important question in philosophy and is Agrippa's Trilemma solved yet?

Agrippa's Trilemma is incorrect. For example, we can prove that we exist. We must exist in order to doubt our own existence. This is a first principle, a truth that is self-evident.

So what do you mean by "we, prove, doubt, truth and exist" in this context?
Panta rhei - Herakleitos
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 2:18:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 12:54:50 PM, markom wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:35:22 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:19:35 PM, markom wrote:
I was reading about philosophical branches, but then I had to make a small research on Google to answer my question and I found something, that has been especially interest of mine since early ages:

> "The Münchhausen Trilemma, also called Agrippa's Trilemma, purports
> that it is impossible to prove any certain truth even in fields such
> as logic and mathematics. According to this argument, the proof of any
> theory rests either on circular reasoning, infinite regress, or
> unproven axioms."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

It been a gut feel of mine, that philosophical and theological debates can never really give a cut down answer to questions. I've cometh to that conclusion simply by observing debates, mine and others. And my conclusion on disagreement is that, from opponents view of point he is right and from my view of point I am right. That is the end stop.

Other reason for my conclusion is that thinking, thus logic itself, is apart from actual world in some way that is hard to explain, but I'd say its unreal dimension compared to physical dimension. Any word can mean any thing in the world, there is no definite correlation between words and real events or objects. It means we need to define and deal with rules. And that's all we can do. We can't for example make sure premisses, rules and definitions are right and truthful, because its fundamentally just an agreement.

Now one could say, you shouldn't make agreement based just on assumption. But the problem is, that we you go to define assumptions and premisses, it can take "forever" to define something, because there is unlimited combinations of words and meanings we can create -> circular reasoning, there is no end stop.

So I'm interested to hear, what is the most important question in philosophy and is Agrippa's Trilemma solved yet?

Agrippa's Trilemma is incorrect. For example, we can prove that we exist. We must exist in order to doubt our own existence. This is a first principle, a truth that is self-evident.

So what do you mean by "we, prove, doubt, truth and exist" in this context?

I mean exactly what I said I mean. You know what I mean. I'm not going to define every word I use.
markom
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 3:55:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/13/2012 2:18:00 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:54:50 PM, markom wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:35:22 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:19:35 PM, markom wrote:
I was reading about philosophical branches, but then I had to make a small research on Google to answer my question and I found something, that has been especially interest of mine since early ages:

> "The Münchhausen Trilemma, also called Agrippa's Trilemma, purports
> that it is impossible to prove any certain truth even in fields such
> as logic and mathematics. According to this argument, the proof of any
> theory rests either on circular reasoning, infinite regress, or
> unproven axioms."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

It been a gut feel of mine, that philosophical and theological debates can never really give a cut down answer to questions. I've cometh to that conclusion simply by observing debates, mine and others. And my conclusion on disagreement is that, from opponents view of point he is right and from my view of point I am right. That is the end stop.

Other reason for my conclusion is that thinking, thus logic itself, is apart from actual world in some way that is hard to explain, but I'd say its unreal dimension compared to physical dimension. Any word can mean any thing in the world, there is no definite correlation between words and real events or objects. It means we need to define and deal with rules. And that's all we can do. We can't for example make sure premisses, rules and definitions are right and truthful, because its fundamentally just an agreement.

Now one could say, you shouldn't make agreement based just on assumption. But the problem is, that we you go to define assumptions and premisses, it can take "forever" to define something, because there is unlimited combinations of words and meanings we can create -> circular reasoning, there is no end stop.

So I'm interested to hear, what is the most important question in philosophy and is Agrippa's Trilemma solved yet?

Agrippa's Trilemma is incorrect. For example, we can prove that we exist. We must exist in order to doubt our own existence. This is a first principle, a truth that is self-evident.

So what do you mean by "we, prove, doubt, truth and exist" in this context?

I mean exactly what I said I mean. You know what I mean. I'm not going to define every word I use.

I'm not sure if I know, thats why I ask. I don't know your religio-philosophical background, which affects to prove, truth and exists words at least. And if I don't know what you mean more exactly with them, I have no position to reply to your claim. You might be right or wrong in my view of point.
Panta rhei - Herakleitos
markom
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 3:56:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/13/2012 3:00:20 AM, Prox wrote:
The most important philosophical question imo is, "How should philosophical questions be approached?"

I think that is good one and its very practical too.
Panta rhei - Herakleitos
Tnkissfan
Posts: 199
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 6:37:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/13/2012 3:55:36 AM, markom wrote:
At 5/13/2012 2:18:00 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:54:50 PM, markom wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:35:22 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:19:35 PM, markom wrote:
I was reading about philosophical branches, but then I had to make a small research on Google to answer my question and I found something, that has been especially interest of mine since early ages:

> "The Münchhausen Trilemma, also called Agrippa's Trilemma, purports
> that it is impossible to prove any certain truth even in fields such
> as logic and mathematics. According to this argument, the proof of any
> theory rests either on circular reasoning, infinite regress, or
> unproven axioms."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

It been a gut feel of mine, that philosophical and theological debates can never really give a cut down answer to questions. I've cometh to that conclusion simply by observing debates, mine and others. And my conclusion on disagreement is that, from opponents view of point he is right and from my view of point I am right. That is the end stop.

Other reason for my conclusion is that thinking, thus logic itself, is apart from actual world in some way that is hard to explain, but I'd say its unreal dimension compared to physical dimension. Any word can mean any thing in the world, there is no definite correlation between words and real events or objects. It means we need to define and deal with rules. And that's all we can do. We can't for example make sure premisses, rules and definitions are right and truthful, because its fundamentally just an agreement.

Now one could say, you shouldn't make agreement based just on assumption. But the problem is, that we you go to define assumptions and premisses, it can take "forever" to define something, because there is unlimited combinations of words and meanings we can create -> circular reasoning, there is no end stop.

So I'm interested to hear, what is the most important question in philosophy and is Agrippa's Trilemma solved yet?

Agrippa's Trilemma is incorrect. For example, we can prove that we exist. We must exist in order to doubt our own existence. This is a first principle, a truth that is self-evident.

So what do you mean by "we, prove, doubt, truth and exist" in this context?

I mean exactly what I said I mean. You know what I mean. I'm not going to define every word I use.

I'm not sure if I know, thats why I ask. I don't know your religio-philosophical background, which affects to prove, truth and exists words at least. And if I don't know what you mean more exactly with them, I have no position to reply to your claim. You might be right or wrong in my view of point.

whaaaaat???
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 8:24:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The very nature of our communication and cognitive process causes many problems.

This is why everything can be made true, even false things. The inverse is also the case. All affirmations are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense.

Yes, that is an assertion, and if you make it true, you'll get the Cosmic Joke.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 8:59:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/13/2012 2:18:00 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:54:50 PM, markom wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:35:22 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:19:35 PM, markom wrote:
I was reading about philosophical branches, but then I had to make a small research on Google to answer my question and I found something, that has been especially interest of mine since early ages:

> "The Münchhausen Trilemma, also called Agrippa's Trilemma, purports
> that it is impossible to prove any certain truth even in fields such
> as logic and mathematics. According to this argument, the proof of any
> theory rests either on circular reasoning, infinite regress, or
> unproven axioms."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

It been a gut feel of mine, that philosophical and theological debates can never really give a cut down answer to questions. I've cometh to that conclusion simply by observing debates, mine and others. And my conclusion on disagreement is that, from opponents view of point he is right and from my view of point I am right. That is the end stop.

Other reason for my conclusion is that thinking, thus logic itself, is apart from actual world in some way that is hard to explain, but I'd say its unreal dimension compared to physical dimension. Any word can mean any thing in the world, there is no definite correlation between words and real events or objects. It means we need to define and deal with rules. And that's all we can do. We can't for example make sure premisses, rules and definitions are right and truthful, because its fundamentally just an agreement.

Now one could say, you shouldn't make agreement based just on assumption. But the problem is, that we you go to define assumptions and premisses, it can take "forever" to define something, because there is unlimited combinations of words and meanings we can create -> circular reasoning, there is no end stop.

So I'm interested to hear, what is the most important question in philosophy and is Agrippa's Trilemma solved yet?

Agrippa's Trilemma is incorrect. For example, we can prove that we exist. We must exist in order to doubt our own existence. This is a first principle, a truth that is self-evident.

So what do you mean by "we, prove, doubt, truth and exist" in this context?

I mean exactly what I said I mean. You know what I mean. I'm not going to define every word I use.

Why do you suppose that? Semantics is the way which we communicate and we must presuppose we understand each other to discuss things. Also, regarding "Cogito ergo Sum", at best, it proves that something exists. "I" in "I think" or "I am" can be replaced with anything, so it proves that "x" exists. This means that I can state "unicorns" think, therefore unicorns exist. It ontologically defines things into existence: the problem with almost all of what Décartes said.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
markom
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 9:11:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/13/2012 8:24:43 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
The very nature of our communication and cognitive process causes many problems.

This is why everything can be made true, even false things. The inverse is also the case. All affirmations are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense.

Yes, that is an assertion, and if you make it true, you'll get the Cosmic Joke.

Yes, thats why I would label it the problem of the philosophy of language. If we define better what we mean and get to the agreement of definitions, then its easier to find out truth values of claims. But not without problems according to Agrippa. Safest thing of course is to keep as close as possible to physical factors, but what joy it would give to us? :D
Panta rhei - Herakleitos
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 10:19:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/13/2012 8:59:37 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 5/13/2012 2:18:00 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:54:50 PM, markom wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:35:22 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:19:35 PM, markom wrote:
I was reading about philosophical branches, but then I had to make a small research on Google to answer my question and I found something, that has been especially interest of mine since early ages:

> "The Münchhausen Trilemma, also called Agrippa's Trilemma, purports
> that it is impossible to prove any certain truth even in fields such
> as logic and mathematics. According to this argument, the proof of any
> theory rests either on circular reasoning, infinite regress, or
> unproven axioms."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

It been a gut feel of mine, that philosophical and theological debates can never really give a cut down answer to questions. I've cometh to that conclusion simply by observing debates, mine and others. And my conclusion on disagreement is that, from opponents view of point he is right and from my view of point I am right. That is the end stop.

Other reason for my conclusion is that thinking, thus logic itself, is apart from actual world in some way that is hard to explain, but I'd say its unreal dimension compared to physical dimension. Any word can mean any thing in the world, there is no definite correlation between words and real events or objects. It means we need to define and deal with rules. And that's all we can do. We can't for example make sure premisses, rules and definitions are right and truthful, because its fundamentally just an agreement.

Now one could say, you shouldn't make agreement based just on assumption. But the problem is, that we you go to define assumptions and premisses, it can take "forever" to define something, because there is unlimited combinations of words and meanings we can create -> circular reasoning, there is no end stop.

So I'm interested to hear, what is the most important question in philosophy and is Agrippa's Trilemma solved yet?

Agrippa's Trilemma is incorrect. For example, we can prove that we exist. We must exist in order to doubt our own existence. This is a first principle, a truth that is self-evident.

So what do you mean by "we, prove, doubt, truth and exist" in this context?

I mean exactly what I said I mean. You know what I mean. I'm not going to define every word I use.

Why do you suppose that? Semantics is the way which we communicate and we must presuppose we understand each other to discuss things. Also, regarding "Cogito ergo Sum", at best, it proves that something exists. "I" in "I think" or "I am" can be replaced with anything, so it proves that "x" exists. This means that I can state "unicorns" think, therefore unicorns exist. It ontologically defines things into existence: the problem with almost all of what Décartes said.

He asked me to define half the words in my sentence. I'm not going to add disclaimers to everything I write, saying "this is exactly what I mean." It's unnecessary. Plus, he presumably understands English, since his original post was in English. Everything I defined would fall right in line with proper English understanding. He does not have to know my religio-philosophical background to know how I would define "we." I mean we, as in "you and me." Did you have to know that I'm a Christian to know that's my definition of "we"?

Also, Descartes put the cart before the horse. I don't think, therefore I exist. I exist, therefore I think. I have to exist in order to doubt my own existence.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 11:30:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Can you do it or can't you? If not I'll get someone else who can."
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Raisor
Posts: 4,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 11:55:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/13/2012 8:59:37 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 5/13/2012 2:18:00 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:54:50 PM, markom wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:35:22 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:19:35 PM, markom wrote:
I was reading about philosophical branches, but then I had to make a small research on Google to answer my question and I found something, that has been especially interest of mine since early ages:

> "The Münchhausen Trilemma, also called Agrippa's Trilemma, purports
> that it is impossible to prove any certain truth even in fields such
> as logic and mathematics. According to this argument, the proof of any
> theory rests either on circular reasoning, infinite regress, or
> unproven axioms."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

It been a gut feel of mine, that philosophical and theological debates can never really give a cut down answer to questions. I've cometh to that conclusion simply by observing debates, mine and others. And my conclusion on disagreement is that, from opponents view of point he is right and from my view of point I am right. That is the end stop.

Other reason for my conclusion is that thinking, thus logic itself, is apart from actual world in some way that is hard to explain, but I'd say its unreal dimension compared to physical dimension. Any word can mean any thing in the world, there is no definite correlation between words and real events or objects. It means we need to define and deal with rules. And that's all we can do. We can't for example make sure premisses, rules and definitions are right and truthful, because its fundamentally just an agreement.

Now one could say, you shouldn't make agreement based just on assumption. But the problem is, that we you go to define assumptions and premisses, it can take "forever" to define something, because there is unlimited combinations of words and meanings we can create -> circular reasoning, there is no end stop.

So I'm interested to hear, what is the most important question in philosophy and is Agrippa's Trilemma solved yet?

Agrippa's Trilemma is incorrect. For example, we can prove that we exist. We must exist in order to doubt our own existence. This is a first principle, a truth that is self-evident.

So what do you mean by "we, prove, doubt, truth and exist" in this context?

I mean exactly what I said I mean. You know what I mean. I'm not going to define every word I use.

Why do you suppose that? Semantics is the way which we communicate and we must presuppose we understand each other to discuss things. Also, regarding "Cogito ergo Sum", at best, it proves that something exists. "I" in "I think" or "I am" can be replaced with anything, so it proves that "x" exists. This means that I can state "unicorns" think, therefore unicorns exist. It ontologically defines things into existence: the problem with almost all of what Décartes said.

This is not how the Cogito works...

The X in the cogito must be aware of its own thinking so that it can not be able to doubt its own existence. You cant apply the Cogito to any entity beside yourself. I can doubt that unicorns think, I can doubt their existence.

You are right that "at best, it proves that something exists." The cogito only proves there is thinking going on, it doesnt prove that I am the one thinking or that there exists some entity "I" at all.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 1:27:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There is only one thing that we can be certain of. It iis that there is some form of existence, there is a universe.

Whether or not we perceive it accurately has little to do with this self evident truth.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
markom
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 1:29:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/13/2012 10:19:04 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 5/13/2012 8:59:37 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 5/13/2012 2:18:00 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:54:50 PM, markom wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:35:22 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 5/12/2012 12:19:35 PM, markom wrote:
I was reading about philosophical branches, but then I had to make a small research on Google to answer my question and I found something, that has been especially interest of mine since early ages:

> "The Münchhausen Trilemma, also called Agrippa's Trilemma, purports
> that it is impossible to prove any certain truth even in fields such
> as logic and mathematics. According to this argument, the proof of any
> theory rests either on circular reasoning, infinite regress, or
> unproven axioms."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

It been a gut feel of mine, that philosophical and theological debates can never really give a cut down answer to questions. I've cometh to that conclusion simply by observing debates, mine and others. And my conclusion on disagreement is that, from opponents view of point he is right and from my view of point I am right. That is the end stop.

Other reason for my conclusion is that thinking, thus logic itself, is apart from actual world in some way that is hard to explain, but I'd say its unreal dimension compared to physical dimension. Any word can mean any thing in the world, there is no definite correlation between words and real events or objects. It means we need to define and deal with rules. And that's all we can do. We can't for example make sure premisses, rules and definitions are right and truthful, because its fundamentally just an agreement.

Now one could say, you shouldn't make agreement based just on assumption. But the problem is, that we you go to define assumptions and premisses, it can take "forever" to define something, because there is unlimited combinations of words and meanings we can create -> circular reasoning, there is no end stop.

So I'm interested to hear, what is the most important question in philosophy and is Agrippa's Trilemma solved yet?

Agrippa's Trilemma is incorrect. For example, we can prove that we exist. We must exist in order to doubt our own existence. This is a first principle, a truth that is self-evident.

So what do you mean by "we, prove, doubt, truth and exist" in this context?

I mean exactly what I said I mean. You know what I mean. I'm not going to define every word I use.

Why do you suppose that? Semantics is the way which we communicate and we must presuppose we understand each other to discuss things. Also, regarding "Cogito ergo Sum", at best, it proves that something exists. "I" in "I think" or "I am" can be replaced with anything, so it proves that "x" exists. This means that I can state "unicorns" think, therefore unicorns exist. It ontologically defines things into existence: the problem with almost all of what Décartes said.

He asked me to define half the words in my sentence. I'm not going to add disclaimers to everything I write, saying "this is exactly what I mean." It's unnecessary. Plus, he presumably understands English, since his original post was in English. Everything I defined would fall right in line with proper English understanding. He does not have to know my religio-philosophical background to know how I would define "we." I mean we, as in "you and me." Did you have to know that I'm a Christian to know that's my definition of "we"?

Also, Descartes put the cart before the horse. I don't think, therefore I exist. I exist, therefore I think. I have to exist in order to doubt my own existence.

Yes, your sentence was about 10 words long I just asked a little bit opening for the theme. For example I'd say there are biological organisms that physically exists for a moment on earth and those particular organisms can be said to debate if they exist or not. That has almost nothing to do with thinking because there are a lot of other living and non living structures that also exists. And besides of that, body can exist with or without thinking, that can be proved by self instrospection. What comes to I and Me and conscioussness that is very debatable concept and I have other thread for that discussion.

We as a concept is very much dependant on the cultural and religional context because its a singular form of I or self: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Yes, I'm not native english speaker and I could defend by that fact, but I have an idea, how those words are used commonly. Still there are people on earth, believe or not, who may not use words always in common sense, especially if they trigger a philosophical discussion. Maybe I just over estimated the potential level of discussion at that point?
Panta rhei - Herakleitos
markom
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 1:32:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/13/2012 1:27:53 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
There is only one thing that we can be certain of. It iis that there is some form of existence, there is a universe.

Whether or not we perceive it accurately has little to do with this self evident truth.

Btw, why do we need to be certain of some things? Do we need to be certain of I'm getting up next morning, when I sleep down this evening? Science and logic tries to reach certainty, thats certain. But how far we think they can go and how far they can go?
Panta rhei - Herakleitos
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 6:44:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool:

I must agree that keytahero is right on the ball on this one, for the cogito is not meant to be linguistically semantic, but consciously true. In that I cannot deny that ‘I' exist. For you may not understand what I mean when I say the words ‘I exist', for what I mean by the words ‘I exist' may be misinterpreted, But the speaker could never be wrong about the meaning they invest in the words ‘I exist'. Nor could they be wrong about when they feel pain. We may label the pain wrong, according to the standardization of the term. But I the feeling of pain and that I feel it is not-disputable. No matter if there is an evil demon. (aka evil god) lets alone somebody playing a semantics game.

An even more powerful adjustment to the cogito is to give Descartes (POC) to understand him as simply, meaning consciousness. I have heard from fellow scholars that this more specific when reading him in the original Latin. And this adjustment whether he meant it of not makes it clearer that any awareness. But it is circular to look up awareness as a definition for to understand the meaning presupposes that you are aware all ready at least enough to understand what it means.

If you know the history of it, you should remember the purpose is to address the argument of infinite regress, from the sceptics in which, Descartes is saying that the buck stops here. And it does. That is experiences are the final regress, for they it self-evidence by consciousness. And that which necessitates an experience is that which we call a priori.

This is the same as for the word 'symantics' for it presupposes you know what Symantics' means.

Lastly an appeal to what is physical presupposes the it is itself a bearer of truth even to say it is self correcting begs the logical proof that it is self correcting.
So its doesn't help at all to apeal to what is physical. That is why positivism fell in the first place.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 8:48:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Why are you the way you are?"
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2012 9:56:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/13/2012 8:48:43 PM, Kleptin wrote:
"Why are you the way you are?"

Because you touch yourself at night.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2012 10:18:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Got a new suggestion:

"What is love? (Baby don't hurt me...)
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
markom
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2012 11:35:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/14/2012 10:18:42 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Got a new suggestion:


"What is love? (Baby don't hurt me...)

Love is the most sung theme in the world, and still they don't know? ;D
Panta rhei - Herakleitos
markom
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2012 11:44:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/13/2012 6:44:42 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool:

This is the same as for the word 'symantics' for it presupposes you know what Symantics' means.

Other nice example is "To know what recursive means, first you need to know what is recursive" And this is actually recognized to present different functional levels of language. And while its not good to refer circularly to same semantic level on language, its not a problem, when you refer to lower level.

Anyway...

Being somewhat aware of some of the world and some of the mental process is something that in a way exists, so is something that is brought to awareness (the world) as is something that is aware, let us call it I. Thats fuzzy way to express one certainty, be it the Axiom. But it is also so that all "some" parts of the described experience are very vulnerable for interpretation and definition hassle. For example we have different conscious states, self produced or accidental along with cultural effects that greatly influence how we experience the I part. For example buddhists have a concept called Anatta (anatma) coming from some sort of realization that self doesnt exist at all. All three parts, object, subject and funtion are greatly changing, moving and morphing. I, we, awareness, the world. These parts also have their life cycle. What we percept is changes relative to other changes. "Exists" from this perspective means merely temporal cognition and condition. If "I exists" is meant to refer something absolute and eternal for instance, which is claimed by spiritualists, then "exists" has totally different meaning. That's why I'd say, if it is not debatable, it is at least yearning for more strict definition before accepted as a part of the basic axiom.

Agrippa's trilemma raises a question for fundamentalists: what can we really know, how do we get to know and what do we know? Descartes solution brings up millions of other questions, because there is practically no end of the questions human mind can create. Only way to make a stop to the questions and conclude something is to AGREE with pre-assumptions. Either you do that person by person, by authorities when you can be it! or reputative person or his book or even God if you want to think so. You can also do agreement with bigger jury and judge, which is prefered by empiricists. What you do there between parties is a dialoque. That's the way anti-nuclear joint statement was made between Mihail Gorbatshov and Ronald Reagan. Political debate could have gone forever, but once they shaked hands, sat down and made a deal.

One of the pre-assumptions would be that we can make a division between semantical reasoning and reasoning based on physical and mental world observations. If you stay on semantical world only there is no end, no beginning. If you try to correlate thoughts, words and reasoning with physical (or any) observations, there is much bigger changes to get some conclusions. By some concensus we can agree, that "I exist" and continue further, or there won't be end on questioning. Well theoretically. In practice our physics and psyche will put individual questioning some limit anyway like need to sleep, eat, jumping kids, aberrant concentration, lack of motivation and interest, sickness, death,...

I don't know exactly what Descartes meant with I, think and exists, or with God http://oregonstate.edu..., but it is very possible he didn't observe reality as we are able to observe in modern days plus he didn't have knowledge pool as we have today.

Logic is weak. Compare it to people's assumptions that they can keep on and on by will. Some of them are burning themselves alive for Buddha and Sangha, some are crashing planes agaist the buildings in the name of Allah, some are offering their heads in the name of Christ and all this rather than saying they could be wrong on what they believe. That is how superior holding on premisses and axioms is compared to pure logic. When logic proves something right and wrong, when there is almost nothing to profit or lose, why would one change his position what ever happens on debate?

Pure logic a priori, no concrete links with observable world posteriori is the point where it breaks according to Agrippa. Thats probably the nucleus of trilemma. It is not, that you cannot make circular, axiomatic or infinite reasoning. You can do that, because there is actually no way to not to do it at the end. Not in deductive Aristotelian logic says Agrippa, not in inductive, causal, transcendental, and all otherwise structured justifications. They all will be in vain according to Albert Hans. On the other side you could be just asking like Sokrates or talking like Nietzsche without arguments, which are both regarded as great philosophers, but whos going to make a dialog with such lunatic guys?
Panta rhei - Herakleitos
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2012 12:03:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Interesting question. What is "most important" depends upon circumstances. Sometimes the most important tool is a hammer, other times a saw. There is no universal "most important."

I think that philosophical analysis can reach conclusions. The Argument from Evil disproves the O3 god, for example.

In the philosophy of science, physical quantities are defined by the way they are measured. Thus if nothing moves, time does not exist. That's insightful.
markom
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2012 11:09:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/15/2012 12:03:36 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Interesting question. What is "most important" depends upon circumstances. Sometimes the most important tool is a hammer, other times a saw. There is no universal "most important."

I can agree with that.

I think that philosophical analysis can reach conclusions. The Argument from Evil disproves the O3 god, for example.

What do you mean with this Argument thing?

In the philosophy of science, physical quantities are defined by the way they are measured. Thus if nothing moves, time does not exist. That's insightful.
Panta rhei - Herakleitos
markom
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2012 3:59:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/15/2012 11:13:13 AM, drafterman wrote:
The most important question in philosophy is:

"What's most important question in philosophy?"

I thought Why "What's most important question in philosophy?" is most important question in philosophy?
Panta rhei - Herakleitos
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2012 4:04:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/15/2012 4:01:09 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I don't know about you guys, but I certainly don't exist.

I perceive (whatever that means) myself (whatever that is) similarly. I both exist (whatever that is) and don't exist at the same time because fvck you, this is philosophy.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"