|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 21, 2020 3:07:14 GMT
Our reasoning is subject to a linear progress, a linear form underneath the foundations of reason, through which we rationalize things. We cannot escape the line, or circularity for that matter, given our reason exists through it.
Dually we cannot have numbers without counting forms. Each of these forms results in a loop given the beginning of the traceable phenomenon ends where it begins. The purest form, that of the line (which is a loop considering it ends with the same 0d point it begins with), is the foundation of all counting hence numbers and therefore arithmetic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 21, 2020 6:48:36 GMT
A priori forms. Kantian epistemology.
My opinion: asking about reasoning is to aak about the meaning of a thing called reasoning. Asking about how can we make logical implications is to ask how this mechanism works.
It's not possible to ask something in logician sense (expecting for the correct logical conclusion) not taking it into account. As soon as we trapped in a logical path there's no way to turn it off. If we were aliens with alienating logic and we'd ask about something we'd follow alienating logic. If we were that aliens who asked such questions and we would expect to answer it in human logic we would fail.
Logic as a tool is the game that produces its rules as soon as you started thinking logically.
So, to get the answer is the same as to change your own nature.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 22, 2020 3:20:52 GMT
A priori forms. Kantian epistemology. My opinion: asking about reasoning is to aak about the meaning of a thing called reasoning. Asking about how can we make logical implications is to ask how this mechanism works. It's not possible to ask something in logician sense (expecting for the correct logical conclusion) not taking it into account. As soon as we trapped in a logical path there's no way to turn it off. If we were aliens with alienating logic and we'd ask about something we'd follow alienating logic. If we were that aliens who asked such questions and we would expect to answer it in human logic we would fail. Logic as a tool is the game that produces its rules as soon as you started thinking logically. So, to get the answer is the same as to change your own nature. The line does not exist prior to the senses as it exists through the senses as well. Form is independent of both a priori and a posteriori knowledge given the example of a blind/deaf/dumb man....what does he sense? Space therefore forms. Form exists both after the sense and prior to them. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 22, 2020 6:46:48 GMT
A priori forms. Kantian epistemology. My opinion: asking about reasoning is to aak about the meaning of a thing called reasoning. Asking about how can we make logical implications is to ask how this mechanism works. It's not possible to ask something in logician sense (expecting for the correct logical conclusion) not taking it into account. As soon as we trapped in a logical path there's no way to turn it off. If we were aliens with alienating logic and we'd ask about something we'd follow alienating logic. If we were that aliens who asked such questions and we would expect to answer it in human logic we would fail. Logic as a tool is the game that produces its rules as soon as you started thinking logically. So, to get the answer is the same as to change your own nature. The line does not exist prior to the senses as it exists through the senses as well. Form is independent of both a priori and a posteriori knowledge given the example of a blind/deaf/dumb man....what does he sense? Space therefore forms. Form exists both after the sense and prior to them. Have you seen a movie "Johny Got His Gun" (1971)? It's about such a tragic situation. Later rights of the movie was bought by Metallica. You forgot of three important things that have an impact on this theme: skin, tongue and intrinsic feel of proprioception. It's impossible to imagine a living person being in so terrible condition to not to have some of those senses. Without a one of them there's no chance to guess correctly if the person lives. If you never seen this film, you can watch it, because it, as I said, concerns to many adjacent problems of this theme. Forms: Sorry, but have can it be to exist both a priori and a posteriori? It's the contradiction. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 22, 2020 17:11:38 GMT
The line does not exist prior to the senses as it exists through the senses as well. Form is independent of both a priori and a posteriori knowledge given the example of a blind/deaf/dumb man....what does he sense? Space therefore forms. Form exists both after the sense and prior to them. Have you seen a movie "Johny Got His Gun" (1971)? It's about such a tragic situation. Later rights of the movie was bought by Metallica. You forgot of three important things that have an impact on this theme: skin, tongue and intrinsic feel of proprioception. It's impossible to imagine a living person being in so terrible condition to not to have some of those senses. Without a one of them there's no chance to guess correctly if the person lives. If you never seen this film, you can watch it, because it, as I said, concerns to many adjacent problems of this theme. Forms: Sorry, but have can it be to exist both a priori and a posteriori? It's the contradiction. Space is observed prior to the senses and after the senses, it is independent of both prior to the senses and the senses themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 25, 2020 15:31:16 GMT
xxxxxxxxxI didn't object this, however, somehow it depends on our body, because to exist for a human being is to have few senses, i.e. tactical, gustative. Also, a priori manifestation of space or time leads to a view that space as a universal, an one objective one, yet indeed existent somehow for anyone, is mixing of two view: this is able to be implied from a person's claims, actions, etc., or that any claims, actions, etc. require space, because the ones are sometimes in space. In the first answer we can argue that such a space may various "shapes", in the second, what exactly kind of that replies or movements we're talking about about space? Actually, I think the current discussion of this matter breaks down because of our different core understanding of it that bases on our languages: Ukrainian - "простір" and "space" are not the same. "Простір" is all where anything physical can happen. What does"space" mean I don't really know. For instance, it's possible to build such a phrase as «"простір" of thoughts» or «"простір" of abstractions». I don't know if the same possible for «"space of thoughts».
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 25, 2020 16:02:36 GMT
xxxxxxxxxI must add something that I forgot to add. The phrases «"простір" of thoughts» and «"простір" of abstractions» would be metaphors. So, actually there's no "простір" of such things. And also, "простір" can be used as a source for (namely "for", not "of") creativity. It's the place for it. But "the place" is "місце", i.e. is what where something is located, or it's potentially able to be found in some way. Sometimes "простір" and "місце" are interchangeable. It happens when the former is taken as an abstract comparely to the latter: «there was the "простір" where a particular situation had occured» is more metaphysically said; «there's the "місце" where where a particular situation had occured» is said not metaphysically.
|
|
