The Wrong One

[Left Coast]

No, only in a limited sense. A=A is also 3 different As as different time and spaces. Logic if done over-reductively removes time and place and for 2 or more humans, there are always more than one case of something is at a given time in a given sense.
Rationalism including logic has been tried and it only works in limited sense.

Here it is in the technical sense for the LNC as ontology:
It is impossible that the same thing can at the same time both belong and not belong to the same object and in the same respect, and all other specifications that might be made, let them be added to meet local objections.
Contradiction (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Now those 2 As of A=A are not at the same time and place.
We are doing in effect for "everything, something, something else and/or nothing" different aspects(respect) of same, similar and/or different.

E.g. we are the same as members of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, similar as individuals, yet also some times different. I.e. logic has a limit.

Regards
Mikkel

PS You can debate all you like. I don't mind as such. I like debating, but I started this in the discussion forum because I would like to hear other points of view without having to debate. But never mind, we are now debating.

How is A in a different time and place than A? They are identical. Am I myself? Are you you? Is my cat my cat? Is any given thing itself, ie that which it is?

 

[Nakosis]

I am a skeptic. In practice it means that I accept limits on what I know. So I believe instead. Now I will talk about The Way or any other version of Knowing The Right Way or whatever words you use.
So here is goes with the standard non-religious approach to gods. Not all the versions of gods can be true, because they contradict each other.
But that has nothing to do with gods as such. It happens every time we as 2 or more human debate the same. Be it metaphysics, ontology, logic, knowledge, ethics, politics or what not for the right and wrong answer for what we share as the same. The same can't be and not be in the same sense. That is not unique for gods.

So here it is as a probability for all humans including me as for all the cases of the same. I hold with 99,9...8 % probability wrong beliefs, hence my religion is The Wrong One.
So how do you deal with that in your world view?

Do you have The Way how ever you phrase it or do you accept that you don't know that and accept that you have in the end faith and that is it.

Regards and love
Mikkel

Compassion seems the "right" way to me. I don't always know the right thing to do but if I view others through an eye of compassion then I think in most cases I will limit any harm I do.

What is compassion? I suppose hoping that things work out for the benefit of others. If I am able to do something that is beneficial to someone else, that's a good thing. Beyond that, I don't much know about a right way.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How is A in a different time and place than A? They are identical. Am I myself? Are you you? Is my cat my cat? Is any given thing itself, ie that which it is?

So these 2 As as for A=A are at the exactly same place? They are not. And you don't understand and experience that at the same time, because time goes on.
Over-reductive logic removes time and place. That is the limit of logic. They are not identical for time and place. They are identical in the abstract, but only similar yet different in practice.
It is the "hex" of language and thinking. They are processes in time and place about something in time and place.

So I am not me over time. I am a timeline of similarities and differences.

And for a thing in itself, it is never a thing in itself, because you can't draw a border to everything else, when you look closer.

Regards and love
Mikkel

 

[Left Coast]

So these 2 As as for A=A are at the exactly same place? They are not. And you don't understand and experience that at the same time, because time goes on.
Over-reductive logic removes time and place. That is the limit of logic. They are not identical for time and place. They are identical in the abstract, but only similar yet different in practice.
It is the "hex" of language and thinking. They are processes in time and place about something in time and place.

So I am not me over time. I am a timeline of similarities and differences.

And for a thing in itself, it is never a thing in itself, because you can't draw a border to everything else, when you look closer.

Regards and love
Mikkel

You are using logic to try to refute logic. So your position is literally self-refuting.

If A is not A, then time is not time and place is not place. So your whole objection becomes nonsense.

asdfiubweybwaecybowebwiuebaiuweeuawef. weiounwiuef weoiawuifenawbef bawycbweuicbyyb weui. weuh!

See?

 

[MNoBody]

Questions of conscience are matters of perspective.How encompassing is that perspective?
Is the one observing really seeing all that is relevant from that unique point of view they apparently occupy?
From a limited perceptual position,
is it possible to ascertain the absolute regarding whatever is in question?
Apparently the appropriate 'Way", would be one that is not easily or readily apparent,
and the majority would by nature tend to not know of it, nor practice it nor seek it,
having something "right" in front of their eyes which convinced them of the veracity of their obvious path which must be right since so many feet have walked it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are using logic to try to refute logic. So your position is literally self-refuting.

If A is not A, then time is not time and place is not place. So your whole objection becomes nonsense.

asdfiubweybwaecybowebwiuebaiuweeuawef. weiounwiuef weoiawuifenawbef bawycbweuicbyyb weui. weuh!

See?

Well, I am still here, so it can't be that self-refuting. Even if I am objectively wrong, that has a limit, because I am still here. So it seems your self-refuting has a limit in practice.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Left Coast]

Well, I am still here, so it can't be that self-refuting.

No you aren't. You just agreed you aren't you.

Even if I am objectively wrong, that has a limit, because I am still here. So it seems your self-refuting has a limit in practice.

Regards
Mikkel

More self-refuting nonsense.

 

[Polymath257]

This is discussion, not debate. Now self-report yourself and give yourself a warning.

Regards
Mikkel

Oh, I wasn't debating you....I that was a reminder to myself that I am almost always taking myself too seriously.

 

[halbhh]

I am a skeptic. In practice it means that I accept limits on what I know. So I believe instead. Now I will talk about The Way or any other version of Knowing The Right Way or whatever words you use.
So here is goes with the standard non-religious approach to gods. Not all the versions of gods can be true, because they contradict each other.
But that has nothing to do with gods as such. It happens every time we as 2 or more human debate the same. Be it metaphysics, ontology, logic, knowledge, ethics, politics or what not for the right and wrong answer for what we share as the same. The same can't be and not be in the same sense. That is not unique for gods.

So here it is as a probability for all humans including me as for all the cases of the same. I hold with 99,9...8 % probability wrong beliefs, hence my religion is The Wrong One.
So how do you deal with that in your world view?

Do you have The Way how ever you phrase it or do you accept that you don't know that and accept that you have in the end faith and that is it.

Regards and love
Mikkel

By testing the instructions to see what happens.

That can be a significant thing though. For instance the central Christian instruction for how to live on Earth:
"Love your neighbor as yourself"
is, if done in a real way (if actually done) sorta like a revolution, or jumping off a cliff, metaphorically, with a hang glider, first time. It works, but it's a...exciting (heh heh, understatement) or heart pounding thing when you first try it. (see, for me, it wasn't just be casually polite and keep emotional distance, which isn't at all 'love', but instead actual love, meaning risky)

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No you aren't. You just agreed you aren't you.



More self-refuting nonsense.

Standard warning. This is not how reality really is. It is apparently only so and not representative of real reality, what ever that is.
Yes, for course I am not me. Because if I was me all the time, I couldn't change. But I change over time, so the me just a moment ago is not me now. It is a process in time and over time it changes.
The "I" is a narrative and process and not an absolute thing in itself frozen in time and for all time. If that was the case, then e.g. we couldn't die.
So, yes. I believe in a different "I" than you and I am still writing this.

You know what?!! We are playing philosophy and you shouldn't do that with a "you know what". We are not fun, because we check beliefs, including our own and then we learn from that.

So here it is for walking. Can I refute walking using walking? Yes, I can try walking in the air. Walking is a human behavior and it has a limit. So now we have established that human behavior can have limits.
I have just done the same with logic. I have shown you, that logic has a limit. So now another limit. Words have limits.
"No you aren't" as in I am writing this. Just because you say words, doesn't make it so. That is not limited to religion.

So that I have another understanding of logic, because I always include time and place and don't think that this A is absolutely in all senses including time and place identical with this A, don't mean that I have done a contradiction, because time and place has changed. This now is not the now now and at any given time is not frozen in time, because time goes on.

"I think, therefore I am" even has a limit, if you look closer.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Oh, I wasn't debating you....I that was a reminder to myself that I am almost always taking myself too seriously.

Oh, I do that too.

Regards and love
Mikkel

 

[Left Coast]

Standard warning. This is not how reality really is. It is apparently only so and not representative of real reality, what ever that is.

How did you determine that negative?

Yes, for course I am not me. Because if I was me all the time, I couldn't change. But I change over time, so the me just a moment ago is not me now. It is a process in time and over time it changes.
The "I" is a narrative and process and not an absolute thing in itself frozen in time and for all time. If that was the case, then e.g. we couldn't die.
So, yes. I believe in a different "I" than you and I am still writing this.

It doesn't matter if your definition of "I" is different than mine. However you define it, according to your logic, "I according to you" is not "I according to you." Am is not am, writing is not writing, this is not this.

See the problem yet?

You know what?!! We are playing philosophy and you shouldn't do that with a "you know what". We are not fun, because we check beliefs, including our own and then we learn from that.

So here it is for walking. Can I refute walking using walking? Yes, I can try walking in the air. Walking is a human behavior and it has a limit. So now we have established that human behavior can have limits.

No, you havent. According to you, a limit is not a limit. And human behaviors aren't human behaviors.

Do you see the problem with your position yet?

I have just done the same with logic. I have shown you, that logic has a limit. So now another limit. Words have limits.

No, you haven't.

"No you aren't" as in I am writing this. Just because you say words, doesn't make it so.

Same to you, obviously.

So that I have another understanding of logic, because I always include time and place and don't think that this A is absolutely in all senses including time and place identical with this A, don't mean that I have done a contradiction, because time and place has changed.

But I didn't ask you about time and place. I asked you simple, basic, fundamental question. And if you deny it, all else in your pseudo-reasoning becomes nonsense.

Dheceidueur. Eidgehebe jeheueb483y ekdue72ceie$&÷:÷>÷8○8○》\《Suwveur.

Do you see yet?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How did you determine that negative?

I was told, that I couldn't question what "I" really is, so I explain, that this is not really real and the "I" is of course a thing in itself and logical and rational and all that. And not a narrative and a process in time and a product of the brain. Of course an "I" is a real thing in itself and fundamental to reality apparently.

It doesn't matter if your definition of "I" is different than mine. However you define it, according to your logic, "I according to you" is not "I according to you." Am is not am, writing is not writing, this is not this.

Yes, there is no given time frozen in time, so this here is not now here, because time and place has changed.

See the problem yet?

Yes, you don't account for the time passing and different places.

...
But I didn't ask you about time and place. I asked you simple, basic, fundamental question. And if you deny it, all else in your pseudo-reasoning becomes nonsense.

But it is not fundamental for all of reality, because everything is not just one thing at one time and in one respect.
So here it is for the LNC:
"It is impossible that the same thing can at the same time both belong and not belong to the same object and in the same respect, and all other specifications that might be made, let them be added to meet local objections ."
Contradiction (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Same thing and not everything, thus not fundamental for everything Same time and not all time, thus not fundamental for all time. Same object, all objects are in space unless you can show me an object not in space. Same respect; i.e. a property and not all properties for all things, so not fundamental for all properties. Finally local objections, which are not fundamental for everywhere, because it is local and thus in space.

So again: This is an A. This is another A. They are of the same category, they are signs. As signs go they are same sign, but they are not the same sign in time and place.
So unless you can show be that there are no different time and no different places and show that this A is this A also for time and space, which you can't, then I will stand by the limit of logic.
A=A is an abstract thought, which strips away time and place and uses the word identical in an idealized sense. But in practice they are not exactly the same, because you see A and A, right? You do see 2 As and not just one A, right? That they are identical, is in your brain because you can do that in your brain as a process but they are not fundamentally identical in time and place. That is the limit.

Dheceidueur. Eidgehebe jeheueb483y ekdue72ceie$&÷:÷>÷8○8○》\《Suwveur.

Do you see yet?

Yes, I see that you thought that logic is a sort of thing fundamental to reality. It is not. Logic is a process in a given brain or computer in part. What logic really is as metaphysics and fundamental ontology is another game.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

It doesn't matter if your definition of "I" is different than mine. However you define it, according to your logic, "I according to you" is not "I according to you." Am is not am, writing is not writing, this is not this.

...

Take 2:
Identity: "... A radical position, advocated by Peter Geach, is that these debates, as usually conducted, are void for lack of a subject matter: the notion of absolute identity they presuppose has no application; there is only relative identity. ..."
Identity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

You are talking as if "I" is an absolute fundamental thing. It is not, it is a process in time and place relative to processes in a given brain in a given body over time and place and subject to change.
Now of course, this is just a debate and yes, you as an "I" are an absolute fundamental thing. I am only debating for the sake of debating.

In other words absolute identity is an nominal idea and not a thing. Remember we are only debating.

Regards
Mikkel

PS Philosophy is such fun.

 

[dfnj]

I don't know about objective truth.
Yes, it matters to me what people believe but I haven't found any objective way to decide if we are right or wrong, so I have stopped doing that.

I think there are few absolute truths when it comes to the way human language works. All religions are true. All dogmas are true. Each of us has our own personal dogma. This is how human language works. For human language to have any meaning at all, you first have to start with a set of assumptions or axioms. Axioms are considered to be true as a given and do not require any proof. People choose the axioms they have. It is a choice. There is no objective way to prove one set of axioms are better or more "right" than any other.

There is a difference between a "choice" and a "decision". A decision is based on reasons. As far as I can tell people "choose" axioms. There are no objective reasons to support a "decision" on which axioms to have.

Once you are aware of a set of axioms, then statements and assertions are considered to be "Truth" or false in relation to the axioms. It's just the way language works. Although as much as it seems obvious to me this is how language works, sometimes I feel like it's considered an axiom! This is because when people do not share the same set of axioms, statements made by one person will seem "insane" and "crazy" by the other. This is how human language works.

Now you could argue there is some kind of ultimate truth. The thing is as far as I know there is no one objective truth. There is no one dogma we can all agree on objectively. There's no way to prove one dogma is better than another. There's no way to prove one dogma is the absolute truth of reality. All objectivity is considered "good" or "bad" based on a subjective opinion.

The thing about axioms when it comes to belief systems, besides some people resisting to admitting they even have any assumptions, when you take someones axiom and put it under a microscope, it seem invariably the axiom becomes ludicrous and false. Here's a video claiming the axioms science are built on do not hold up in scrutiny:

So I think we are all right and we are all wrong at the same time. The difference is we just have a different set of axioms. People with the same set of axioms become thought clones. Sometimes people will choose a different set of axioms based on the context of a conversation or who is involved in the conversation. But if someone does not share your axioms anything you say will be immediately labeled BS.

 

[Left Coast]

I was told, that I couldn't question what "I" really is, so I explain, that this is not really real and the "I" is of course a thing in itself and logical and rational and all that. And not a narrative and a process in time and a product of the brain. Of course an "I" is a real thing in itself and fundamental to reality apparently.

I didn't tell you anything of the sort, if you mean me.

If you think "I" is a "real thing in itself" and "fundamental to reality," then are you admitting that "I," whatever you think it is, is itself?

Yes, there is no given time frozen in time, so this here is not now here, because time and place has changed.

That sentence is meaningless if things are not themselves.

Yes, you don't account for the time passing and different places.

According to your idea, I dont need to account for time and place because time is not time and place is not place. And accounting is not accounting.

Do you see your problem yet?

But it is not fundamental for all of reality, because everything is not just one thing at one time and in one respect.

That is a non sequitur. All we're discussing is if a thing is what it is, in the particular sense of the thing we mean, right now.

So here it is for the LNC:
"It is impossible that the same thing can at the same time both belong and not belong to the same object and in the same respect, and all other specifications that might be made, let them be added to meet local objections ."
Contradiction (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Same thing and not everything, thus not fundamental for everything Same time and not all time, thus not fundamental for all time. Same object, all objects are in space unless you can show me an object not in space. Same respect; i.e. a property and not all properties for all things, so not fundamental for all properties. Finally local objections, which are not fundamental for everywhere, because it is local and thus in space.

So again: This is an A. This is another A. They are of the same category, they are signs. As signs go they are same sign, but they are not the same sign in time and place.

You are conflating a thing for the symbol of the thing we use to signify it. The LNC isn't about As. It's about whether a thing is itself, at this time and this moment. If you deny this, you have left behind all coherent thought.

So unless you can show be that there are no different time and no different places and show that this A is this A also for time and space, which you can't, then I will stand by the limit of logic.
A=A is an abstract thought, which strips away time and place and uses the word identical in an idealized sense. But in practice they are not exactly the same, because you see A and A, right? You do see 2 As and not just one A, right? That they are identical, is in your brain because you can do that in your brain as a process but they are not fundamentally identical in time and place. That is the limit.

Every word in that paragraph presumes the self-evident fact of the LNC to mean anything at all. Otherwise, dusveis eir7x33usi 3odudbd 3ie8 soxicu.

Do you see your problem yet?

 

[Left Coast]

Take 2:
Identity: "... A radical position, advocated by Peter Geach, is that these debates, as usually conducted, are void for lack of a subject matter: the notion of absolute identity they presuppose has no application; there is only relative identity. ..."
Identity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

You are talking as if "I" is an absolute fundamental thing.

No, I'm not. Replace "I" for any other word you like. Is a chair a chair? Is Religious Forums Religious Forums? Is my phone my phone?

It is not, it is a process in time and place relative to processes in a given brain in a given body over time and place and subject to change.

This is a non sequitur to the LNC.

Now of course, this is just a debate and yes, you as an "I" are an absolute fundamental thing. I am only debating for the sake of debating.

So, you don't believe what you're saying?

In other words absolute identity is an nominal idea and not a thing. Remember we are only debating.

I'm not claiming things don't change. We're talking about something monumentally obvious and fundamental to all ideas and all coherent communication of those ideas.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
That sentence is meaningless if things are not themselves.
...

Yeah, that is it, right. Things are themselves, yet they all come from the Big Bang and the proposed singularity and they changed over time. You are in yourself made up of matter from old stars in part, yet you are in yourself and not connected to anything else.
There are no things in themselves. There are interrelated processes and relationships. If you were totally in yourself, you couldn't write your posts to me, because you wouldn't be in a relationship with the rest of the universe.
In themselves is an artifact of thinking, it is an nominal idea no different than God. You can't show a thing in itself, because you are there showing it. The thing is in a relationship to you. And you are in relationship to a brain and so on.

So your next post should only be you in yourself and not in relationship to the rest of the universe. Try that and check if you can answer me?

Regards
Mikkel

BTW "That sentence is meaningless..." means what in itself and what is it in itself? Meaningless is in a relationship to you. The sentence is not in itself.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

---We're talking about something monumentally obvious and fundamental to all ideas and all coherent communication of those ideas.

But we are not things in themselves, because then we couldn't communicate. This A is not in itself. It is right now been seen by you.
"I know something" have 3 parts and not just in itself "something".

Regards
Mikkel

PS I am doing phenomenology in part in case you haven't noticed.
In philosophy: the study of phenomena as distinct from that of the nature of being. We have to do ontology as some point.

 

[Left Coast]

Yeah, that is it, right. Things are themselves, yet they all come from the Big Bang and the proposed singularity and they changed over time. You are in yourself made up of matter from old stars in part, yet you are in yourself and not connected to anything else.
There are no things in themselves. There are interrelated processes and relationships. If you were totally in yourself, you couldn't write your posts to me, because you wouldn't be in a relationship with the rest of the universe.
In themselves is an artifact of thinking, it is an nominal idea no different than God. You can't show a thing in itself, because you are there showing it. The thing is in a relationship to you. And you are in relationship to a brain and so on.

Things can be inter-related to other things and yet be distinguishable from them. We recognize this all the time. It's why you replied to my post with this commentary, and not someone else's. It's why I'm guessing you haven't eaten any gravel today. Again, the LNC underlies all the ideas you're trying to communicate, and the very words you're using to communicate them.

So your next post should only be you in yourself and not in relationship to the rest of the universe. Try that and check if you can answer me?

Total straw man.

BTW "That sentence is meaningless..." means what in itself and what is it in itself? Meaningless is in a relationship to you. The sentence is not in itself.

According to you, relationships are not relationships. And sentences aren't sentences. All is incoherent.

Do you see your problem yet?