Pythagorean, greatings

Please help me understand. I almost had it, then I was confused again. I thought a priori was rationalism independant of experience. Rational implies logic and reason, and isnt math deductive reasoning?

You previously posted that constructive knowledge (putting two and to together) was a "human only" ability and that you saw no other source for constructive knowledge exept that it be a priori. when I posited that animals can put to and two together, that still wasnt a priori reasoning (until they produce a body of inferential knowledge). Is there a difference between a priori knowledge and a priori reasoning?

I dont intend to be difficult, I just want to understand as best I can.

I know of an example where a scientist was observing banobo chimps when an injured bird was discoverd by said primate. The chimp took the bird to the top of a tree and threw it into the air repeatedly, as if to help it fly. Does not this show that the chimp made an inference; that it identified the creature as a bird and birds fly; therefore this bird should fly? It may also reveal altruism. (Perhaps someone could help me out with a better example.)

Must a chimp have a library card to get any respect?:p Is it posible that we may be under-aprecciating animal cognition due to our preconcieved humanistic ideas about them?

Wow! I really like that! It seems so true to me.

Is there anyone I can attribute it to?

Billy

You are missing the best part of life equating it with make believe.

As long as you are stuck on that point you cannot make any progress.

What is the point of denying what everyone takes as the ultimate of truth?

Has it resulted in any other great discovery for you other than your own meaninglessness?

I cannot deny reality because I feel it.

The most difficult thing for any person to do, and the most detructive thing they can do, is to deny their emotions.

I have an emotional sense of my being and the being around me, that is appearantly shared by all but you.

How did you reach this point of self denial?

It seems that you have tried to be by doing,

It is the attempt to latch hold of the eternal and the real that makes us both, and nothing other.

We do as we can.

I would like like to reply to this last post. It is unique, and the reply reveals a lot about its author. I think I could pick it apart; but why? Nameless has given it a lot of thought, years in fact, and seems set to it. There is nothing in it to suggest its author will excuse some great evil with it. It is a seat in the shade on a hot day.

I feel like every one I know feels, that everything we do will be washed away by the tide. It is all vanity, but vanity is all that distinguishes me. I want the eternal. I want the heroic life. I have the heroic life. I want the loves of myth and legend, the labors of Sysiphus and Atlas, the endurance of Prometheius. We are made of the dirt beneath our feet to break rocks as big as imagination. Of course I am nothing so long as I would do nothing. I am something for having done something. And was it not grand? I've squeezed gold out of iron, to have what men have always lived and died for, not gold; but life.

I would like like to reply to this last post. It is unique, and the reply reveals a lot about its author. I think I could pick it apart; but why? Nameless has given it a lot of thought, years in fact, and seems set to it. There is nothing in it to suggest its author will excuse some great evil with it. It is a seat in the shade on a hot day.

A seat in the shade on a hot day?! Oh wow,...

That post was like a cool glass of lemonade after a long day of picking cotton.

If the rest of your post is built on this sort of nonsense... It is an untrue statement from whatever angle viewed.
When you say that "philosophers have been impressed.." are you saying 'all'? Many? Some? Two? Sounds like a failed attempt at an 'appeal to popularity'; if everyone thinks or believes something, that don't make it so.
Science knows nothing to be true with absolute certainty. Nothing! That is the realm of fundamnentalist religion and zealotry, the 'delusions' of 'belief'.
Any science study will show you this, and show you why.

Also, calling something a 'fact' (which it is FAR from), again, don't necessarily make it so (another fallacy).

No feelings involved, sometimes I write in a passionate style when called for. *__-

I don't understand the point of using poor cognitive process (other than as 'satire' or an example of 'poor cognitive process') to frame a point. I saw no "elucidating" any problems. It was an entirely faulty opening sentence. The only 'pedagogy' in evidence are my comments and corrections of that error-filled sentence..

Philosophy informed by science.
Human 'knowledge' must be defined. That is the job of philosophers at the moment, informed by science.
I say, at the moment, that knowledge = memory. None 'greater' or 'more grounded' or more 'correct' than any other 'memory'.
Egoic pride imagines one's 'memory' to be 'righter' than any 'conflicting' memory (another perspective).
I pretty much agree with your statement here. All 'assumptions' seem to prove false with sufficient examination.

Science, in toto, has never claimed any such a thing. It will claim, if 'honest', that all 'knowledge' is tentative and conditional. Logic and experience/experiment indicates and the evidence supports the logic, so it is the best theory, at the moment, that is 'tentatively' accepted. There are some 'scientists' who still 'believe'. They die off and science progresses.
THAT is scientific thought.
Nice try, though.

Woah, dog, I don't see it like that at all. Most folks couldn't care less about "ultimate truth" (if there is such a thing); they accept their concepts from their perceptions, their sensory 'evidence', and accept concensus as long as it doesnt threaten the 'truth' of their perceptions, as their "actual reality"! What they see is all they get; what they 'get' is what they 'see'...

Bad try. There is evidence for Socrates being an actual historic figure, but there is no independent eyewitness evidence at all to support the theory of Jesus' actuality. Sorry, don't mean to 'niggle'.

One can learn from fables and mythology. The speaker is irrelevent (thus 'nameless'), it is the words that either have meaning or not. Personality has naught to do with it.

Again, woah!! WTF is a "moral world"? All morality is, is the judging of things/people as 'good' or 'bad/evil'. According to Xtianity, morality is the very first (and worst) sin!
Thats all it is, I know nothing of a 'moral world'... And I certainly do not 'reside' there: I am completely a-moral (not immoral). No 'morality' at all, so "we all" nothing!

What people accept as 'true' for themselves, is all that can be known of 'truth'. It is completely subjectively known.. small 't' 'truth' anyway, and constantly changes, anyway, within a 'living mind'.. Speaking as if there aught to be, or can be, any consensus of 'truth' is ridiculous. Thinking that 'your' (in general) truth aught to be everyone's (if they differ..) is ignorant vanity.

Again, this is meaningless to me.

Everything 'exists', everyone exists.
Error = '0'.
Multiply it by whatever you like, you still end up with 'bupkiss'! *__-
Actually, people's lives are 'believed/accepted' illusion that is accepted to be 'reality/truth'. That is fine also. Whatever works. It isn't like we have any choice in what to think, what to accept or believe. Most lives are spent asleep as the great dream/illusion/delusion. It is still a wild ride. We are all unique perspectives, all equally 'valid'. Enlightenment is illusion/dream, so is nonlucid day to day sleepwalking dreaming. Everyone has their part in the great Tapestry of existence.

Your definitions of 'truth' seem to be rather 'personal', and somewhat unique (of course), but slowly unfolding to my understanding of your intended meaning of 'truth'.
I rather avoid the word 'truth', like 'love' or 'god' as everyone has their own personal concepts and baggage involved, and there is no evidence that those 'concepts' have any 'value' beyond the mind of the conceiver.

Just occurred to me, how about a definition of 'truth' as being everyone's memory. If it is in your memory, it is your 'truth' (as most people feel that way anyway). Your 'truth', his 'truth', all different, all unique, all equally 'true'.
(It does seem to render the term meaningless, though.)

It is always dangerous to speak for 'everyone'. I, for instance, have had to alter and change and abandon my 'world-view' so many times, that I have learned the fallacy of identifying and attaching to them. But, you are correct regarding the emotional, prideful and downright ugly and at time violent responses when egoically attached people feel threatened by a different perspective that is not automatically disregarded as 'wrong'. Which of the blind men describibg the elephant are 'wrong'? Is not all perspectives together not a better indicator of the 'reality' of an elephant?
It takes practice to examine 'reality'

Its 'real' for them, just as what we hold as 'memory' is (seems) 'real' to us.

Nonsense. This is not the place to 'testify' your 'beliefs'. This is the place for rational, logical, supportable conversation.
I repeat, that there is absolutely no independent eyewitness accounts of him of his alleged works. Period. No evidence at all. Find some, then we can talk about your 'God Kings'. It seems that I have touched on a 'belief' inadvertantly. I will not discuss this point further. Not the topic anyway.

I don't think that the topic here is 'mythology' or 'magic' or 'religion'. Perhaps if you wanted to start a new thread. I have much experience in all three.
And 'presumptions', way more often than not turn out to be completely spurious, such as your assumption that; "all have an emotional attachment to their view of truth."
I don't have a 'view of truth'. I have, like any good scientist, a theory that is the best at the moment and subject to alteration or discard should new data require. No problem.

Again speaking for all. Pride? Vanity?
Perhaps YOU live in a 'moral world'. As I have stated, I am a-moral, and I have no room for 'morality' (sin) in MY world-view.

And that 'dangerous' stuff... The only 'danger' in 'truth' is when some a$$hole tries to cram THEIR 'truth' up someone (who has their own 'truth') else's butt! Then we're in the land of egoic pride and emotional belief, the land of fundamentalism and it's attendent 'delusional' symptomatic behavior.
But, there isn't much that I can say about 'truth' because, from this perspective, it is a meaningless concept.

A seat in the shade on a hot day?! Oh wow, that made me laugh, in a good way.

What would be the point of picking it apart? Maybe, helping him? At least get Nameless to the point where he can respond to a thread on topic without diverging into long asides about what he believes, which usually involve the idea that people shouldn't believe so strongly in things, which is, obviously, ironic.

But then again, as Agent Rigg learned in Saw IV from the dead Jigsaw, "You can't save everybody." Not on the internet, anyway.

A seat in the shade on a hot day. LOL. The best part is, you did get him to respond on topic with that reply.

You, Fido, have mad internet message board skillz.

I almost killed myself at this point in the thread.

Some things shouldn't be 'picked apart', like a fine dinner. All flavors work together, in their ratios and quantities, balanced, would lose much of it's 'savor' if it were 'intellectualized' too much...
Not 'set to it' at all. In fact, if I continue to post, please notice the different perspective, some of it rather 'major', in 'subsequent' posts 'from' here. 'It' is still in the same 'neighborhood', though.
That ought to put to rest the unfortunate rumors of my death!


I love the poetry of your passion! Live LARGE and drain it to the dregs! I do!!
Rock on, my friend!

Oh, you gone and did it now. You bolded and colored. The gloves are off...

Philosophy is not about truth, or knowledge, exactly; but it has the real purpose of a good life, and as the name suggests: Love.

It is metaphysical, and as such I tend to reject it out of hand.

The one sort of knowledge that is apriori has nothing to do with rationality.

It is emotional intelligence.

It is the ability to love and return love; (hard when you feel isolated and disconnected, eh?) and this love of people which most seem born with, cannot be taught; but the understanding of it, the understanding that knowledge has meaning as people give it meaning, that their being is essential to the truth of knowledge- this is the knowledge of love for philosophers to learn.

That is why the truly happy...

What need have those who can love for knowledge

since they know all the mysteries of life before hand.

If your goal is your home your journey is over. Take off your shoes and kick back.

truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.

I didn't have to search for this definition, it was the first that popped up on dictionary.com.

Metaphysics;

American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition - Cite

metaphysics;

The field in philosophy that studies ultimate questions, such as whether every event has a cause and what things are genuinely real.

or

American Heritage Dictionary -


n.
(used with a sing. verb) Philosophy The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
(used with a pl. verb) The theoretical or first principles of a particular discipline: the metaphysics of law.
(used with a sing. verb) A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment.
(used with a sing. verb) Excessively subtle or recondite reasoning.

Not everyone is interested in what is 'real'. And most, to varying degrees. So?
(I would question, then, the reason for your presence here; spread the good word?)

I understand what you are saying.

Or an infection of the 'belief virus'. But I can see your perspective... and?


Now you are just 'testifying' to your 'beliefs/faith'. I do no't discuss people's 'beliefs' with them. Or I end a discussion when I find that 'beliefs' are involved. Too dangerous.

More testimony? What does 'the truly happy' mean? Someone that is happy all the time according to your definition of happiness? Yourself? Can two people be standing before you and saying that they are 'happy'. Would they both be 'truly happy' or would you discriminate according to some internal rule? Is anyone ever 'happy all the time'? There has been no evidence to suppory that fantasy.
'Truly'! That usually interprets as "according to what feels right to me" (what I know to be "TRUTH" = 'belief') as in 'my happiness is 'true' and yours isn't.'
Point to an example of your fantasy. Who would you say is 'truly happy', and, of course, you can only speak from your experience/perspective, which means that you can only speak for yourself. And if not you, then the concept itself is just more fantasy/testimony (sentimental nonsense, from this perspective).

Sounds like sour grapes to me. If you had 'knowledge', you would have understood that your statement is a false dichotomy, fallacious cognition, error (as per common definition). Why is it an either/or situation? Humans come in all shapes and sizes, all have their amounts and ratios in each moment of either. Even you have some 'intelligence/knowledge'. You need not 'deny and degrade' that with which God did not grace you. But, perhaps you do. Personally? I'm just peachy with 'knowledge/the ability for creative critical thought' and also 'love'. I feel like a 'whole' human, no problem.
Also, if your statement were true, it would hold if the 'integers' were reversed;
"What need have those with knowledge for love?"
Logical examination seems to highlite the absurdity of the statement. But, absurdity doesn't bother you because you don't care for 'truth/reality'. I understand the perspective, I simply don't share it. Live and let live..

More personal 'testimony'? I can't do anything other than meet 'testimony' with silence. It is not avaliable nor responsive to critical examination.
Like your statement.
When speaking of people in general, as in the above, why do you avoid the term 'we' (including yourself in the group)? Why do you exclude yourself from 'people'? Do you feel isolated? Wouldn't that 'feeling' affect your 'loving relationship' with 'others'?


Sorry, I don't have discussions with old dusty bumperstickers.

Am I hearing right in that you do not 'trust knowledge' because of your 'beliefs/faith' (in 'love', for instance), and I am skeptical of 'knowledge' due to 'knowledge' itself, and 'intuitional experience'. So, if correct, we do have 'common ground', just differing perspectives. No problem.

But, thankfully for Billy, we got to hear all about your ideas of truth and perspective.

Here it is again in other words:

In some ways, we gain perspective when we elevate one view, and devalue all the other views, which inadvertently gives rise to the illusion that one's perspective is an actuality or the 'truth'.

Billy

You have the last word. I already said what I had to say.
But remember that the science and math that you seem to eschew, next time you want to buy a computer (like the one that you are using) or need surgery or a pacemaker, go to someone skilled in 'emotional intelligence'. Perhaps you can get your next car from one, that 'he' built... (rolls eyes)

I've enjoyed some of our conversations and hope that I've provided at least some food for thought, but I'm feeling that its time to leave you to your conversations, so..
Happy Holidays
Peace