Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

neo-Meinongianism

The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2012 11:37:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I can't stand that. I blame Meinongaianism. For most of the irrationality today.,

In that there is no such thing as a non-existent objects,

You see Russal, didn't want to include ideas as things that existist when forming positivism, because he wanted to avoid, having to say there are an infinite existence of objects(which is false anyway in a positive sense), so he borrowed this idea, to refer to the mind as non-existing objects. In the sense that they are things which are not true or false. It was done more in motivation to be tidy, and it is this irrational idea, from which we have spun of track.

Because without the 'Idea' there is noting to verifiy, Verificationism is a correspondence truth. And thus it depends on at least two different things corresponding.

Why, for non-existence, doesn't exist. But that is non-sense literally, in that there is no sense that it exist. What is important to what I want to get at is difference Sophism here, in that we can't label things true,
"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
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2012 12:21:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/5/2012 11:37:06 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
I can't stand that. I blame Meinongaianism. For most of the irrationality today.,

In that there is no such thing as a non-existent objects,

You see Russal, didn't want to include ideas as things that existist when forming positivism, because he wanted to avoid, having to say there are an infinite existence of objects(which is false anyway in a positive sense), so he borrowed this idea, to refer to the mind as non-existing objects. In the sense that they are things which are not true or false. It was done more in motivation to be tidy, and it is this irrational idea, from which we have spun of track.

Because without the 'Idea' there is nothng to verifiy, Verificationism is a correspondence truth. It logically sound is they allow ideas to exist, and then reduce the claim from all knowledge to, physical knowledge.

And thus it depends on at least two different things corresponding. In this case obviosly one must be physical.

Without 'idea' he also loses the form of what knowledge consist in.

This is also coming out of a time where the realization of the lack of progress is being recognized, so there is a movement againt it, and Russal had just philosophy converted to realism. But I think he over shot, Meinongian is trying to avoid refering to mind so he they are trying to rationalize how they come they could talk about the difference if they infact didn't exist. So non-existent object, was a lazy, conclusion.

But non-existent thing equals 0(1)=0

Where a (thing B)=(thing B) But non-existence=/=non-existence, Why? Because its not there in the first place, to even equal itself.

There is categorical non-existence, in that something may not exist within Sense data, but it still exist as and idea.
"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
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2012 12:30:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/6/2012 12:21:00 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/5/2012 11:37:06 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
I can't stand that. I blame Meinongaianism. For most of the irrationality today.,

In that there is no such thing as a non-existent objects,

You see Russal, didn't want to include ideas as things that existist when forming positivism, because he wanted to avoid, having to say there are an infinite existence of objects(which is false anyway in a positive sense), so he borrowed this idea, to refer to the mind as non-existing objects. In the sense that they are things which are not true or false. It was done more in motivation to be tidy, and it is this irrational idea, from which we have spun of track.

Because without the 'Idea' there is nothng to verifiy, Verificationism is a correspondence truth. It logically sound is they allow ideas to exist, and then reduce the claim from all knowledge to, physical knowledge.

And thus it depends on at least two different things corresponding. In this case obviosly one must be physical.

Without 'idea' he also loses the form of what knowledge consist in.

This is also coming out of a time where the realization of the lack of progress is being recognized, so there is a movement againt it, and Russal had just philosophy converted to realism. But I think he over shot, Meinongian is trying to avoid refering to mind so he they are trying to rationalize how they come they could talk about the difference if they infact didn't exist. So non-existent object, was a lazy, conclusion.

But non-existent thing equals 0(1)=0

Where a (thing B)=(thing B) But non-existence=/=non-existence, Why? Because its not there in the first place, to even equal itself.

There is categorical non-existence, in that something may not exist within Sense data, but it still exist as and idea.

So since it doesn't appear you're in the nominalist camp, how does Platonism fair with you?

http://philmat.oxfordjournals.org...

^Good refutation of nominalism.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2012 8:07:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago

So since it doesn't appear you're in the nominalist camp, how does Platonism fair with you?

http://philmat.oxfordjournals.org...

^Good refutation of nominalism.

Excuse me, I meant those switched. Neo-Meinongianism has been shown to be identical to Platonism. So obviously you don't affirm Platonism. I meant to say up there are you in the nominalist camp?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2012 10:05:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/6/2012 8:07:56 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

So since it doesn't appear you're in the nominalist camp, how does Platonism fair with you?

http://philmat.oxfordjournals.org...

^Good refutation of nominalism.

Excuse me, I meant those switched. Neo-Meinongianism has been shown to be identical to Platonism. So obviously you don't affirm Platonism. I meant to say up there are you in the nominalist camp?

The Fool: yeah I am a Platonist, But I translate the Forms as concept/ideas of the mind, but only part of the Form of the Good is intuitive in the mind. And a Cartisian in that the mind is 100%. and thus all experiences mental or sense-data are self-evident. (and the experience itself prelinguinsic.) Thus error is only possible upon a correspondence Truth of ideas with sense-data.

I get around "the Demon" in that the posit of an evil demon is not justified. His underlining intension here is a response to skeptics, save science, and making it and all knowledge dependant on God, not only for himself but to please higher Christians authority so to avoid Galilaos fate which had just happened. The inquisition is also on the lose, as well.

But I would defend in more space that, the Demon hypothese is untenable in the first place to even have to by pass. He uses logical inference to put himself in a God dependent state, in which Faith in the Good Christan God will be the reason for enabling him out of pure skepicism, granting him logic, and the justification for knowledge in science.

It may be more intuitive to a believer, but myself sticking with the critique of pure reason, as such being beyond possible knowledge, and thus not even justified to postulate a possibility.

In one sene it sumes up to (?)->Something, I would argue, I don't know is a lack of knowledge, in that you can't know what you don't know because its

And in another form (contradition, aka 1-1=0) then doubt,
As in If (0)->(1)
Something from impossibilty,?

But I think almost every other thing in the Meditations is Pure Genious. Including the clarity and ease in which he explains it. But I am not a substance duelist, but rather the substance is Absolute universe, and everything in it are properies of it. It could never be mental or physical or it would lose it demacation criteria.
"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
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 7:06:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/6/2012 10:05:54 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/6/2012 8:07:56 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

So since it doesn't appear you're in the nominalist camp, how does Platonism fair with you?

http://philmat.oxfordjournals.org...

^Good refutation of nominalism.

Excuse me, I meant those switched. Neo-Meinongianism has been shown to be identical to Platonism. So obviously you don't affirm Platonism. I meant to say up there are you in the nominalist camp?

The Fool: yeah I am a Platonist, But I translate the Forms as concept/ideas of the mind, but only part of the Form of the Good is intuitive in the mind. And a Cartisian in that the mind is 100%. and thus all experiences mental or sense-data are self-evident. (and the experience itself prelinguinsic.) Thus error is only possible upon a correspondence Truth of ideas with sense-data.

I get around "the Demon" in that the posit of an evil demon is not justified. His underlining intension here is a response to skeptics, save science, and making it and all knowledge dependant on God, not only for himself but to please higher Christians authority so to avoid Galilaos fate which had just happened. The inquisition is also on the lose, as well.

But I would defend in more space that, the Demon hypothese is untenable in the first place to even have to by pass. He uses logical inference to put himself in a God dependent state, in which Faith in the Good Christan God will be the reason for enabling him out of pure skepicism, granting him logic, and the justification for knowledge in science.

It may be more intuitive to a believer, but myself sticking with the critique of pure reason, as such being beyond possible knowledge, and thus not even justified to postulate a possibility.

In one sene it sumes up to (?)->Something, I would argue, I don't know is a lack of knowledge, in that you can't know what you don't know because its

And in another form (contradition, aka 1-1=0) then doubt,
As in If (0)->(1)
Something from impossibilty,?

But I think almost every other thing in the Meditations is Pure Genious. Including the clarity and ease in which he explains it. But I am not a substance duelist, but rather the substance is Absolute universe, and everything in it are properies of it. It could never be mental or physical or it would lose it demacation criteria.

Very well, how would you like to debate a conceptualist argument for the existence of God? I've never done a conceptualist argument before & I haven't seen one done on DDO ever. I looked.

So we would be the first to have one!
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 9:12:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 7:06:25 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 6/6/2012 10:05:54 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/6/2012 8:07:56 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

So since it doesn't appear you're in the nominalist camp, how does Platonism fair with you?

http://philmat.oxfordjournals.org...

^Good refutation of nominalism.

Excuse me, I meant those switched. Neo-Meinongianism has been shown to be identical to Platonism. So obviously you don't affirm Platonism. I meant to say up there are you in the nominalist camp?

The Fool: yeah I am a Platonist, But I translate the Forms as concept/ideas of the mind, but only part of the Form of the Good is intuitive in the mind. And a Cartisian in that the mind is 100%. and thus all experiences mental or sense-data are self-evident. (and the experience itself prelinguinsic.) Thus error is only possible upon a correspondence Truth of ideas with sense-data.

I get around "the Demon" in that the posit of an evil demon is not justified. His underlining intension here is a response to skeptics, save science, and making it and all knowledge dependant on God, not only for himself but to please higher Christians authority so to avoid Galilaos fate which had just happened. The inquisition is also on the lose, as well.

But I would defend in more space that, the Demon hypothese is untenable in the first place to even have to by pass. He uses logical inference to put himself in a God dependent state, in which Faith in the Good Christan God will be the reason for enabling him out of pure skepicism, granting him logic, and the justification for knowledge in science.

It may be more intuitive to a believer, but myself sticking with the critique of pure reason, as such being beyond possible knowledge, and thus not even justified to postulate a possibility.

In one sene it sumes up to (?)->Something, I would argue, I don't know is a lack of knowledge, in that you can't know what you don't know because its

And in another form (contradition, aka 1-1=0) then doubt,
As in If (0)->(1)
Something from impossibilty,?

But I think almost every other thing in the Meditations is Pure Genious. Including the clarity and ease in which he explains it. But I am not a substance duelist, but rather the substance is Absolute universe, and everything in it are properies of it. It could never be mental or physical or it would lose it demacation criteria.

Very well, how would you like to debate a conceptualist argument for the existence of God? I've never done a conceptualist argument before & I haven't seen one done on DDO ever. I looked.

So we would be the first to have one!

The Fool: conceptualist as appose Too?
"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
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 9:38:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 9:12:36 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/7/2012 7:06:25 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 6/6/2012 10:05:54 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/6/2012 8:07:56 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

So since it doesn't appear you're in the nominalist camp, how does Platonism fair with you?

http://philmat.oxfordjournals.org...

^Good refutation of nominalism.

Excuse me, I meant those switched. Neo-Meinongianism has been shown to be identical to Platonism. So obviously you don't affirm Platonism. I meant to say up there are you in the nominalist camp?

The Fool: yeah I am a Platonist, But I translate the Forms as concept/ideas of the mind, but only part of the Form of the Good is intuitive in the mind. And a Cartisian in that the mind is 100%. and thus all experiences mental or sense-data are self-evident. (and the experience itself prelinguinsic.) Thus error is only possible upon a correspondence Truth of ideas with sense-data.

I get around "the Demon" in that the posit of an evil demon is not justified. His underlining intension here is a response to skeptics, save science, and making it and all knowledge dependant on God, not only for himself but to please higher Christians authority so to avoid Galilaos fate which had just happened. The inquisition is also on the lose, as well.

But I would defend in more space that, the Demon hypothese is untenable in the first place to even have to by pass. He uses logical inference to put himself in a God dependent state, in which Faith in the Good Christan God will be the reason for enabling him out of pure skepicism, granting him logic, and the justification for knowledge in science.

It may be more intuitive to a believer, but myself sticking with the critique of pure reason, as such being beyond possible knowledge, and thus not even justified to postulate a possibility.

In one sene it sumes up to (?)->Something, I would argue, I don't know is a lack of knowledge, in that you can't know what you don't know because its

And in another form (contradition, aka 1-1=0) then doubt,
As in If (0)->(1)
Something from impossibilty,?

But I think almost every other thing in the Meditations is Pure Genious. Including the clarity and ease in which he explains it. But I am not a substance duelist, but rather the substance is Absolute universe, and everything in it are properies of it. It could never be mental or physical or it would lose it demacation criteria.

Very well, how would you like to debate a conceptualist argument for the existence of God? I've never done a conceptualist argument before & I haven't seen one done on DDO ever. I looked.

So we would be the first to have one!

The Fool: conceptualist as appose Too?

Well it would be affirming conceptualism & some forms of actualism while denying both Nominalism & Platonism.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 10:53:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 9:38:24 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 6/7/2012 9:12:36 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/7/2012 7:06:25 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 6/6/2012 10:05:54 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/6/2012 8:07:56 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

So since it doesn't appear you're in the nominalist camp, how does Platonism fair with you?

http://philmat.oxfordjournals.org...

^Good refutation of nominalism.

Excuse me, I meant those switched. Neo-Meinongianism has been shown to be identical to Platonism. So obviously you don't affirm Platonism. I meant to say up there are you in the nominalist camp?

The Fool: yeah I am a Platonist, But I translate the Forms as concept/ideas of the mind, but only part of the Form of the Good is intuitive in the mind. And a Cartisian in that the mind is 100%. and thus all experiences mental or sense-data are self-evident. (and the experience itself prelinguinsic.) Thus error is only possible upon a correspondence Truth of ideas with sense-data.

I get around "the Demon" in that the posit of an evil demon is not justified. His underlining intension here is a response to skeptics, save science, and making it and all knowledge dependant on God, not only for himself but to please higher Christians authority so to avoid Galilaos fate which had just happened. The inquisition is also on the lose, as well.

But I would defend in more space that, the Demon hypothese is untenable in the first place to even have to by pass. He uses logical inference to put himself in a God dependent state, in which Faith in the Good Christan God will be the reason for enabling him out of pure skepicism, granting him logic, and the justification for knowledge in science.

It may be more intuitive to a believer, but myself sticking with the critique of pure reason, as such being beyond possible knowledge, and thus not even justified to postulate a possibility.

In one sene it sumes up to (?)->Something, I would argue, I don't know is a lack of knowledge, in that you can't know what you don't know because its

And in another form (contradition, aka 1-1=0) then doubt,
As in If (0)->(1)
Something from impossibilty,?

But I think almost every other thing in the Meditations is Pure Genious. Including the clarity and ease in which he explains it. But I am not a substance duelist, but rather the substance is Absolute universe, and everything in it are properies of it. It could never be mental or physical or it would lose it demacation criteria.

Very well, how would you like to debate a conceptualist argument for the existence of God? I've never done a conceptualist argument before & I haven't seen one done on DDO ever. I looked.

So we would be the first to have one!

The Fool: conceptualist as appose Too?

Well it would be affirming conceptualism & some forms of actualism while denying both Nominalism & Platonism.

The fool: I would only reply that you which doesnt exist is not there to even talk about. And that the misunderstanding could only be that of language. But that langauge presupposes it whether we like it or not. For it is that which is referred to when we speak of unicorn. You would have to deny the possibity of speaking of such things.

The Fool: plus most people here would not have much merit behind the vote. To be honest, I think you and YWW, are the only people who get that I am saying, are at a point to really grasp half of what I am saying. And yet we all have stronger opposing polarities. He doesn't believe in a rational understanding of God. You believe in a rational justifcation of God. And my canditate for God, must be discovered through critical inquiry and that I call 'The Good in itself.'

Aristotle: like a unmoved mover, which we desire to be like and gravitate towards and is the purpose of life.

The Fool: I believe

Socrates: "we all desire the Good, the difference is in the ignorance of how to achieve it"

The Fool: and of course rationality. And so evil comes out of ignorance and irrationality.
"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
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 11:51:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The fool: I would only reply that you which doesnt exist is not there to even talk about. And that the misunderstanding could only be that of language. But that langauge presupposes it whether we like it or not. For it is that which is referred to when we speak of unicorn. You would have to deny the possibity of speaking of such things.

The Fool: plus most people here would not have much merit behind the vote. To be honest, I think you and YWW, are the only people who get that I am saying, are at a point to really grasp half of what I am saying. And yet we all have stronger opposing polarities. He doesn't believe in a rational understanding of God. You believe in a rational justifcation of God. And my canditate for God, must be discovered through critical inquiry and that I call 'The Good in itself.'

Aristotle: like a unmoved mover, which we desire to be like and gravitate towards and is the purpose of life.

The Fool: I believe

Socrates: "we all desire the Good, the difference is in the ignorance of how to achieve it"

The Fool: and of course rationality. And so evil comes out of ignorance and irrationality.

Might it be, sir, that the means by which we understand God, a mind, is by knowledge of a different variety than what you offer, that is, knowledge by aquaintence?

I understand the people I have a personal relationship with through such means, is God simply a deduction?