|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 15, 2021 19:22:53 GMT
Some people, like Kantians, claim that following moral prescriptions is enough to be religious person. So, all what religion is about is just morality or some moral prescriptions.
Quite similar views were shared by Nietzsche and the followers of his views. Although they would agree with Kant, they would also add that that moral was a tricky religious invention, and the religious moral was the worse one.
Anyway, both of such views (maybe there are many others, I don't really into this) can be explained rationally and argumentative. The views above didn't take into account that a person's morality was fluent and changeable.
Ok, so the Kantian one doesn't consider that a person can develop or master it's own morality by making it more and more clearer, more straight, more rigorous, and so on. Being moral doesn't imply - there's no more higher or more better morality (behaviour).
The next view is mostly about the ugliness or the weakness of such moral as a Christian one. But those "viewers" had to understand that such a critique must imply a requirement of the criterion, and no Nietzsche's followers couldn't present any such provable criteria. Obviously, the religious view has one - to believe in God.
In conclusion, a person can grow spiritually and morally by living his life more and more religious. And his path is difficult and hard. And his inner faith and outer deeds help him to master his own religious life.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 15, 2021 22:38:08 GMT
Oh, no, the one you've named - is philosophy, not logic. For instance, Husserl attempted to go further to things using phenomenology, and Heidegger did it in his way as well. Logic is that: If some fishes can fly and cats are dogs, then cheese is made of money. It's logically true. Such a sentence as Colorless green ideas sleep furiously is correct as a grammar example, and we can't say anything logically about it. All we can think is that there's broken semantics example. And when you call something to be fundamental is the same as you want to proclaim something as more essential as something other. In that case, the theme automatically transfers to the value theory. Fundament of science is diferent from fundament of knowledge. And what did you want to say by that?
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 15, 2021 22:41:06 GMT
It won't help calling everything logically. No, there are things beyond logic or, at least, that deals with it in a minor sense. For instance, as I've introduced it previously - a quadrilateral has four right angles. - This sentence is beyond logic, but there were period in science then this principle was among many others taken. I can't say that there are no illogical principle in science now. For instance, a) science doesn't accept non-falsifiable theories b) quantum mechanics doesn't have the accepted logic c) anything that refuses the accepted logic can't be 1-to-1 presented as a model d) with no 1-to-1 models there are no certainty about the results e) no certainty about the results automatically leads to non-falsifiable theories f) science accepts the quantum theory, therefore science has one contradiction *h) science can throw away certain (unappropriate) philosophical principles, but it won't make it better. The same can be said about the big bang hypothesis. This hypothesis cannot be checked (how?). So, I see no reason to 1) accept this really weird hypothesis, 2) claim that this hypothesis is better, than the Theism. Logic is essentially axiom and syllogism, and the conversion of one into another. Imperfect syllogism and demonstrations also have logical value. For logic - because this procedure is strictly formal - it doesn't matter which deities are in there. You can put whatever axioms (or even non-axioms) and you can use different syllogisms to get the result. Syllogisms aren't essential after the Russell's opening of the relative structure of propositions. There are no clear 'subject' and 'predicate', but there are 'individuals' and 'notions' aka 'functions by individuals'.
|
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on May 15, 2021 22:46:32 GMT
Fundament of science is diferent from fundament of knowledge. And what did you want to say by that? The origin of a science and a knowledge is different.
|
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on May 15, 2021 22:49:57 GMT
Logic is essentially axiom and syllogism, and the conversion of one into another. Imperfect syllogism and demonstrations also have logical value. For logic - because this procedure is strictly formal - it doesn't matter which deities are in there. You can put whatever axioms (or even non-axioms) and you can use different syllogisms to get the result. Syllogisms aren't essential after the Russell's opening of the relative structure of propositions. There are no clear 'subject' and 'predicate', but there are 'individuals' and 'notions' aka 'functions by individuals'. Russell so are arguing with the founder of logic, Aristotle. Do you believe that someone who only studies logic can be the same as a philosopher who had founded the science of logic? Something, almost only one thing the founder will know better always that the founder. If Russell, as you're saying, are trying to argue with Aristotle, better he refound himself a logic and argue in that base, correct?
|
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on May 15, 2021 22:53:46 GMT
It's simple, to found a logic is to realize the true nature of language. It's hard, but it's possible.
|
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on May 15, 2021 22:54:27 GMT
I am not talking about found a kind of logic, but a logic.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 16, 2021 12:35:08 GMT
And what did you want to say by that? The origin of a science and a knowledge is different. South, why do you post multiposts? I mean - just create on post, and ask some questions. If you like you can ask several questions at a time. This question - whether or not science is the only one tool to get knowledge - is a hard topic. I can agree there are knowledge beyond science, but I do not understand about the 'origins' of science and knowledge as well. For example, most of scientists and historicians (this info can be found in as philosophy textbooks so mathematical ones; like Popkin, Stroll "Philosophy...") agree that Thales from Miletus was the first European scientist. It's true that in Egypt, Babylon, China and India were scientists even before any European science. But we don't really know about them, and mostly that knowledge is highly close to religion (and maybe it was even better for the science). The origins of knowledge... well... one can say that we get knowledge from himself while he's thinking, or he's staring at a wall. Some can say they get knowledge reading books or watching anime. I didn't doubt that those origins were the same, but I don't really know what to comment here?
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 16, 2021 12:47:21 GMT
TriangleAristotle wasn't the 'founder' of logic (or a logic, or kinds of logic), if we consider that "to be the founder" is "to be a writer who wrote about it firstly". Before Aristotle there were schools in India, some Chinese calculations (Leibniz new about it, and left a comment about Chinese logic). In the Ancient Greece that was Democritus. But it's hardly to say was Plato the founder or not, because in Plato's "Parmenides" we can see the perfect example of even more complex in difficult logic - the logic of notions. Russell proved that there are relative conclusions (actually, Russell wrote that it was Frege who discovered this fact) like: for all x, if x belongs to a class C, then x relates to y with a relation named R (x).xєC: xRy Unfortunately, but this won't help. I mean - surely, we can think that all what we've been doing is just "a logic", while there is "logic", and we need to comprehend it. But only what we can do here is - to hope that such "logic" exists. I mean - how could we tell about it with certainly? - Just think about it: if we have "a logic" (not "logic"), and we use it, then our thinking is poor, because if we would have the "logic", then our comprehension would be better. So, it won't save us. Anyway, I can't say that you're wrong or something. No, I think I agree with you. But here's a strange fact: I agree with you not because of logic or non-logic, but just agree and that's all. I mean - my agreement is beyond logic... That's how the Analytic Philosophers thought. I'd say there are some oversimplification (because the language is not just symbols and vocals, but it's cultural, it's historical, and it is alive - when we're using it, it changes). Here's a sketch about it:
|
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on May 16, 2021 13:56:33 GMT
The origin of a science and a knowledge is different. South, why do you post multiposts? I mean - just create on post, and ask some questions. If you like you can ask several questions at a time. This question - whether or not science is the only one tool to get knowledge - is a hard topic. I can agree there are knowledge beyond science, but I do not understand about the 'origins' of science and knowledge as well. For example, most of scientists and historicians (this info can be found in as philosophy textbooks so mathematical ones; like Popkin, Stroll "Philosophy...") agree that Thales from Miletus was the first European scientist. It's true that in Egypt, Babylon, China and India were scientists even before any European science. But we don't really know about them, and mostly that knowledge is highly close to religion (and maybe it was even better for the science). The origins of knowledge... well... one can say that we get knowledge from himself while he's thinking, or he's staring at a wall. Some can say they get knowledge reading books or watching anime. I didn't doubt that those origins were the same, but I don't really know what to comment here? The origin of knowledge is the idea. We can only be poetical in that investigation. The origin of science, the first use of an object of nature as utile. I am reading Chesterton and liking a lot. He is sincere and hopeful, and talks a lot, which is a quality I apreciate in a person. He is talking about the insanity the logician does of puting the heavens in his head, and that almost all poets are sane, because talks about the infinite, not the finite. If you like, read Orthodoxy. You cannot need to be turned christian by this reading, but is sincere and benignal, he is not trying to put you in a hell.
|
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on May 16, 2021 14:01:43 GMT
Triangle Aristotle wasn't the 'founder' of logic (or a logic, or kinds of logic), if we consider that "to be the founder" is "to be a writer who wrote about it firstly". Before Aristotle there were schools in India, some Chinese calculations (Leibniz new about it, and left a comment about Chinese logic). In the Ancient Greece that was Democritus. But it's hardly to say was Plato the founder or not, because in Plato's "Parmenides" we can see the perfect example of even more complex in difficult logic - the logic of notions. Russell proved that there are relative conclusions (actually, Russell wrote that it was Frege who discovered this fact) like: for all x, if x belongs to a class C, then x relates to y with a relation named R (x).xєC: xRy Unfortunately, but this won't help. I mean - surely, we can think that all what we've been doing is just "a logic", while there is "logic", and we need to comprehend it. But only what we can do here is - to hope that such "logic" exists. I mean - how could we tell about it with certainly? - Just think about it: if we have "a logic" (not "logic"), and we use it, then our thinking is poor, because if we would have the "logic", then our comprehension would be better. So, it won't save us. Anyway, I can't say that you're wrong or something. No, I think I agree with you. But here's a strange fact: I agree with you not because of logic or non-logic, but just agree and that's all. I mean - my agreement is beyond logic... That's how the Analytic Philosophers thought. I'd say there are some oversimplification (because the language is not just symbols and vocals, but it's cultural, it's historical, and it is alive - when we're using it, it changes). Here's a sketch about it: To have a method is a prudent thing to have. So, we are in safe ground, and will not try to forgot what is essential. Well, Aristotle had formalized the ancient logic. So, Democritus have the idea, and Aristotle had created a logic based on that idea. No problem. To found a logic is to found a way of thinking things which proceeds from a original (in the sense not of being original, but being in a origin) idea.
|
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on May 16, 2021 14:22:28 GMT
Analyctical philosophers have his values and are valuables in logical investigation. I was reading sometime ago the Acta Analytica (springer) and making some discoveries. There are no method in analyctics, only discoveries. It's a simple and sometimes a playful task, and is understandable that some people really don't understand what is the matter.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 16, 2021 15:53:48 GMT
Analyctical philosophers have his values and are valuables in logical investigation. I was reading sometime ago the Acta Analytica (springer) and making some discoveries. There are no method in analyctics, only discoveries. It's a simple and sometimes a playful task, and is understandable that some people really don't understand what is the matter. Yes, you are right: most of the other philosophers consider the AP as rather a style, than a method. Well, I guess there were many really profound and feature analytic philosophers. Sometimes they are mostly underrated. No men know the matter as good as he pretends to know. As Socrates said: "I know that I know nothing". AP is a really tough and skillful school. It's probably one of the most hardest philosophies ever. But at the same time the ones went far from the original philosophy questions, and that move perhaps wasn't as good as it could be.
|
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on May 16, 2021 16:13:35 GMT
They have a true master skill, but have no method. Logic, as we conclude, cannot be a method by itself.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 16, 2021 16:41:30 GMT
They have a true master skill, but have no method. Logic, as we conclude, cannot be a method by itself. Who is your favourite philosopher? (Or philosophers?)
|
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on May 16, 2021 17:02:15 GMT
They have a true master skill, but have no method. Logic, as we conclude, cannot be a method by itself. Who is your favourite philosopher? (Or philosophers?) Sun Tzu? haha, I don't know. Kant I consider now the a great philosopher, but I have no such preferences. Philo of Alexandria is a great reading. The alegoric method I believe, the alegory itself, is the seed of literary work. I like a lot Christian Wolff but have so little acess to his work. Hume, also, like a lot the "system" of passions he mades on a certain work that now I forgot. Berkeley helps me a lot.
|
|