Very logic indeed... *we start from the basis of natural selection*... ahh, so you believe in a blind, ilogic, progress. Evolution is a theory that leaves out reason. Afterwards, we enter mythology.
Cyber-philosophy? As far as I know, much of what is known with the sublime name of *philosophy* is purely inteligible, and never taken from experience... and then, cyber philosophy? Strange rot under this tree. We all know Nietzsche's famous word *philosopher is the bad conscience of his time*... this conformist site tries to justify a system which destroys communication? Error number 3.
Absolute trues are taken indeed here. If they exist or not, thats another discussion. Mostly different from what I have seen in the pointless blind debate here. Quoting Descartes, without changing anything at all from his thougt, and re-quoting his criticisers.
The only great thing I see here is that the site is pointless... art for art... it is pretty obvious that pointless are *away from good and evil*. And this being a project without future, without point, absurd... is great...
Author: Izabela (belaf[at]hotmail.com)
Date: Sep 29, 2000REPLY: First-order-logic is too naive for philosophy..
Author: Paul Barrette (slanted_pirate[ at ]hotmail.com)
Date: Sep 10, 2000
REPLY: First-order-logic is too naive for philosophy!
Is it an absolute truth that there are no absolute truths?
Shut up Sophists, we say again! Out with your basic old tautologies and contradictions coming from the naive first-order-logic!! In fact, first-order-logic fits right for exact models, such as maths or computer science, but we should use something that would fit reality better for philosophical questions, wich hold a greater level of abstraction!!
Author: C.Herger Thomann (cherger[ at ]townsqr.com)
Date: Dec 20, 2000REPLY:
Stating that philosophy has a higher level of abstraction is just saying that it just wants to accept mystic truths without having to back them up other than in the abstract.
If philosophy is just abstract, then fine. Most of the arguers seem to promote it as an actual view of the world and its workings, however.
Wrongo. The world cares not for your beliefs. It will continue to chug along merrily with or without you. Whether you look in the box or not, the cat is there or not regardless. Your looking only influences your perception, not the cat.
Author: Louis Barson (horatio_the_pig[ at ]hotmail.com)
Date: Dec 23, 2000REPLY: How can there be a universe for us outside of what we percive?
Look man, first you must admit that we can influence the world of our senses, when we dig, the earth under us moves, for us at least. Second you must admit that there is no evidence whatsoever for a possitive assertion of a world apart from our sense perception. We can make models and postulate new worlds but we cannot actually know anything about things that do not affect our senses in any way. If something new is found, by virtue of being found it is incorporated into our world of sense perception.
Now having said that, whether or not the world 'cares' about our beliefs is completely beside the point. Abstract views are about the world and do affect the world. Action is the lowest level of abstraction. The more syllogistic systems become, the more abstract they become. Language is an abstraction. Language affects the world. If we can provoke action with words than language can affect the world just as much as action can. We must remember that we only think that actions affect the world through induction.
Abstract systems do relate to the world, philosophy can create models of the world as we know it, the only world.
If a philosophy can demonstrate that its abstract system is consistant with the part of the world it relates to, any 'truths' it descovers will immediately become part of the real world by virtue of being part of our sense perception.
The only way a so called mystic truth (I am intereprating that as meaning a vague unprovable belief) could gain more credence through philosophy would be through being rigorously demonstrated by a good abstract system, proving it true for the real world. Philosophy is not a haven for mystic truths, it either turns them into scientific knowledge, regects them until it has a different method or finds them false.
It really doesn't matter to me whether the world chugs along merrily without me. If im not there what can the world mean to me? Nothing.
As for whether the cat is in the box or not, for our everyday experience that may well be true. However for subatomic particles it is not. To prove it would require a very long discussion however if you are interested in the proof and more info on mysticism, physics and western philosophy I would recomend 'The Tao of Physics'
Im sorry if im confusing or confused, I have only just started studying philosophy. I find the PCP rather daunting and almost definately founded on shaky principles. When I understand the project better I will pass judgement. Till then, Chiao punks. Dont do anything that BigLoui wouldn't do.
