Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

John Lock VS. What is IS!

The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 7:38:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: John lock doesn't like that argument and he is against a priori principles of logic. Does he make a good case against what is IS??

"What is IS, and , it is impossible for the same thing to be, and not to be, not Universally assented to; But, which is worse, this argument of universal consent, what is made use to prove innate principles, seems to me a demonstration that there are none such, because there are to which all mankind give universal assent/ I shall begin with the speculative, and instance in those magnified principles of demonstration, "Whatever is, IS" and "It is impossible for the same and not to be" which, of other, I think have the most allowed title to innate. These have so settled a reputation of maxims universally received that it will not doubt be thought strange if anyone should seem to question it. But yet I take liberty to say that these propositions are so far from having a universal assent that there is a great part of mankind to whom they are not known. (aka savage people. Lol)"

"Not on the mind naturally imprinted, because not known to children, idiots etc:"' For, first it is evident that all children, and Idiots do not have so not have the least apprehension or thought of him. And the lack of that is enough to destroy the universal assent what must be the necessary concomitant of all innate truths. It seems to me near a contradiction to say that there are truth are imprinted on the soul(mind), which it doesn't not perceive or understand-- imprinting. If it signifies anything being nothing else but making certain to be perceived.:

His third argument is similar to Wittgenstein's/Hobbes and a few others which is that children/humans cannot think rationally without rational language. That is the language and thinking are the very same. Aka no language no thinking.

Is this a good argument against the universal of what is IS?

Or does he fail?

Why why why?


I would like to see people competing each other.
I am not going to engage in this argument with my own views. But I may ask questions and I may pin opposing arguments of the participants against each other. (if there is any) and this way we can see what resolution comes to.
"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
7/22/2012 7:57:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: oh yeah
Excerpts from Lock's Essay Concerning Human Understanding.(1690) <(89)
"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
7/25/2012 4:22:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/25/2012 2:00:42 PM, carpediem wrote:
*John Locke*

The Fool: Omg I had the wrong person up here?
"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
carpediem
Posts: 61
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 7:59:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/25/2012 4:22:15 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/25/2012 2:00:42 PM, carpediem wrote:
*John Locke*

The Fool: Omg I had the wrong person up here?

Just a spelling mistake.
"I would die at the stake rather than change a semi-colon!"
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 3:42:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: now you get. took a while ..
"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
Websterremembered
Posts: 95
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 12:07:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/22/2012 7:38:16 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: John lock doesn't like that argument and he is against a priori principles of logic. Does he make a good case against what is IS??

"What is IS, and , it is impossible for the same thing to be, and not to be, not Universally assented to; But, which is worse, this argument of universal consent, what is made use to prove innate principles, seems to me a demonstration that there are none such, because there are to which all mankind give universal assent/ I shall begin with the speculative, and instance in those magnified principles of demonstration, "Whatever is, IS" and "It is impossible for the same and not to be" which, of other, I think have the most allowed title to innate. These have so settled a reputation of maxims universally received that it will not doubt be thought strange if anyone should seem to question it. But yet I take liberty to say that these propositions are so far from having a universal assent that there is a great part of mankind to whom they are not known. (aka savage people. Lol)"

"Not on the mind naturally imprinted, because not known to children, idiots etc:"' For, first it is evident that all children, and Idiots do not have so not have the least apprehension or thought of him. And the lack of that is enough to destroy the universal assent what must be the necessary concomitant of all innate truths. It seems to me near a contradiction to say that there are truth are imprinted on the soul(mind), which it doesn't not perceive or understand-- imprinting. If it signifies anything being nothing else but making certain to be perceived.:

His third argument is similar to Wittgenstein's/Hobbes and a few others which is that children/humans cannot think rationally without rational language. That is the language and thinking are the very same. Aka no language no thinking.

Is this a good argument against the universal of what is IS?

Or does he fail?

Why why why?


I would like to see people competing each other.
I am not going to engage in this argument with my own views. But I may ask questions and I may pin opposing arguments of the participants against each other. (if there is any) and this way we can see what resolution comes to.



He is just saying people are idiots, in a much nicer way, lets face it he was one very bright man whatever his faults might have been.