|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 26, 2021 16:03:40 GMT
The analytic truths are truths of language, i.e. the Sun shines all the day. The synthetic truths are truths of facts, i.e. the Sun is a star at the center of our Galaxy.
To doubt the difference between those kinds of truth was offered by W. V. O. Quine in his work "Two Dogmas of Empiricism". I'll try to present his doubt in a more simple & plain manner.
Any synthetic truths are those via some proven data. To check experimentally or by observing is to confirm some statement as a synthetic one. We might say that semantics of a researched statement is open to be checked in a science way.
Analytic statements are seemed to be true only by their meanings, while which meanings they have, and how to check those meanings? Usually we can guess it by opening a dictionary or an encyclopedia, or some similar way. However, any meanings would be separated into states of affairs (i.e. the word combinations, the phrases) which can be checked either grammatically or factually. A phrase a fur cat is a possible construction, but a dull cat is really confusing phrase. Some phrases like rational absurd or irrationally deduced belong to an oxymoron type, and linear whales or good even numbers seem to be nonsense. Haven't we said that analytic truths are reliable only by a language? Then why there are nonsense constructions? Those phrases are non grammatically nonsense. Noah Chomsky for this case gave an example colorless green ideas sleep furiously. That phrase widely show how weird our language can be if we left it by its own, claiming its absolute character.
So, we do need to have semantics even for analytic statements. Only one types of sentences can avoid it: logical statements i.e. the tautologies or logical truths. Indeed, a logical truth is true by its logical meanings. It is functionally closed by its meanings. Another thing is analytic statements.
Therefore, as analytic so synthetic statements must be viewed along with their semantics. And what about semantics? - We can't say about it anything till using logical way, or to make it formal (to attempt to prove the differentiation of analytic and synthetic truths). But how to do it when logical truths are closed on their own, while the analytic (=language) and the synthetic (=facts) are far of it? We could say about any analytic truths that all of them were synthetic if and only if we would be sure about our decisions on any synthetic truths. Quine posted that such a trick is impossible, and our way to choose synthetic truths had analytic (=language) components. It's like we view only pieces or corners of objects, not the objects as they are.
We can be sure that our synthetic truths are also incomplete by two ways: all synthetic truths are inductive (i.e. their are incomplete), and by experiments (but, where our insurance in that we can provide the perfect experiment, or a perfect observation?). All of such ways end in incompleteness of the task. That's why we have to agree that the synthetic statements have components of analyticity.
What can we conclude? - That don't know about the difference of as analytic so synthetic truths, or we can say that their relations are fuzzy.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on May 26, 2021 17:40:34 GMT
The analytic truths are truths of language, i.e. the Sun shines all the day. The synthetic truths are truths of facts, i.e. the Sun is a star at the center of our Galaxy. To doubt the difference between those kinds of truth was offered by W. V. O. Quine in his work "Two Dogmas of Empiricism". I'll try to present his doubt in a more simple & plain manner. Any synthetic truths are those via some proven data. To check experimentally or by observing is to confirm some statement as a synthetic one. We might say that semantics of a researched statement is open to be checked in a science way. Analytic statements are seemed to be true only by their meanings, while which meanings they have, and how to check those meanings? Usually we can guess it by opening a dictionary or an encyclopedia, or some similar way. However, any meanings would be separated into states of affairs (i.e. the word combinations, the phrases) which can be checked either grammatically or factually. A phrase a fur cat is a possible construction, but a dull cat is really confusing phrase. Some phrases like rational absurd or irrationally deduced belong to an oxymoron type, and linear whales or good even numbers seem to be nonsense. Haven't we said that analytic truths are reliable only by a language? Then why there are nonsense constructions? Those phrases are non grammatically nonsense. Noah Chomsky for this case gave an example colorless green ideas sleep furiously. That phrase widely show how weird our language can be if we left it by its own, claiming its absolute character. So, we do need to have semantics even for analytic statements. Only one types of sentences can avoid it: logical statements i.e. the tautologies or logical truths. Indeed, a logical truth is true by its logical meanings. It is functionally closed by its meanings. Another thing is analytic statements. Therefore, as analytic so synthetic statements must be viewed along with their semantics. And what about semantics? - We can't say about it anything till using logical way, or to make it formal (to attempt to prove the differentiation of analytic and synthetic truths). But how to do it when logical truths are closed on their own, while the analytic (=language) and the synthetic (=facts) are far of it? We could say about any analytic truths that all of them were synthetic if and only if we would be sure about our decisions on any synthetic truths. Quine posted that such a trick is impossible, and our way to choose synthetic truths had analytic (=language) components. It's like we view only pieces or corners of objects, not the objects as they are. We can be sure that our synthetic truths are also incomplete by two ways: all synthetic truths are inductive (i.e. their are incomplete), and by experiments (but, where our insurance in that we can provide the perfect experiment, or a perfect observation?). All of such ways end in incompleteness of the task. That's why we have to agree that the synthetic statements have components of analyticity. What can we conclude? - That don't know about the difference of as analytic so synthetic truths, or we can say that their relations are fuzzy. IF YOU'VE HEARD OF SOMEONE, DON'T LISTEN TO HIM The fact that you slavishly follow the ignorant but conceited media's misuse of "oxymoron" (which actually is a clever phrase that only seems like a contradiction, but not in the meanings being used of its component words, such as "boneless ribs") makes me dismiss your post as also following deceptive self-appointed authorities, especially a snake like Chomsky, who is in the thick of the Postmodern era's putting inferior people in superior positions.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 26, 2021 21:00:08 GMT
The analytic truths are truths of language, i.e. the Sun shines all the day. The synthetic truths are truths of facts, i.e. the Sun is a star at the center of our Galaxy. To doubt the difference between those kinds of truth was offered by W. V. O. Quine in his work "Two Dogmas of Empiricism". I'll try to present his doubt in a more simple & plain manner. Any synthetic truths are those via some proven data. To check experimentally or by observing is to confirm some statement as a synthetic one. We might say that semantics of a researched statement is open to be checked in a science way. Analytic statements are seemed to be true only by their meanings, while which meanings they have, and how to check those meanings? Usually we can guess it by opening a dictionary or an encyclopedia, or some similar way. However, any meanings would be separated into states of affairs (i.e. the word combinations, the phrases) which can be checked either grammatically or factually. A phrase a fur cat is a possible construction, but a dull cat is really confusing phrase. Some phrases like rational absurd or irrationally deduced belong to an oxymoron type, and linear whales or good even numbers seem to be nonsense. Haven't we said that analytic truths are reliable only by a language? Then why there are nonsense constructions? Those phrases are non grammatically nonsense. Noah Chomsky for this case gave an example colorless green ideas sleep furiously. That phrase widely show how weird our language can be if we left it by its own, claiming its absolute character. So, we do need to have semantics even for analytic statements. Only one types of sentences can avoid it: logical statements i.e. the tautologies or logical truths. Indeed, a logical truth is true by its logical meanings. It is functionally closed by its meanings. Another thing is analytic statements. Therefore, as analytic so synthetic statements must be viewed along with their semantics. And what about semantics? - We can't say about it anything till using logical way, or to make it formal (to attempt to prove the differentiation of analytic and synthetic truths). But how to do it when logical truths are closed on their own, while the analytic (=language) and the synthetic (=facts) are far of it? We could say about any analytic truths that all of them were synthetic if and only if we would be sure about our decisions on any synthetic truths. Quine posted that such a trick is impossible, and our way to choose synthetic truths had analytic (=language) components. It's like we view only pieces or corners of objects, not the objects as they are. We can be sure that our synthetic truths are also incomplete by two ways: all synthetic truths are inductive (i.e. their are incomplete), and by experiments (but, where our insurance in that we can provide the perfect experiment, or a perfect observation?). All of such ways end in incompleteness of the task. That's why we have to agree that the synthetic statements have components of analyticity. What can we conclude? - That don't know about the difference of as analytic so synthetic truths, or we can say that their relations are fuzzy. IF YOU'VE HEARD OF SOMEONE, DON'T LISTEN TO HIM The fact that you slavishly follow the ignorant but conceited media's misuse of "oxymoron" (which actually is a clever phrase that only seems like a contradiction, but not in the meanings being used of its component words, such as "boneless ribs") makes me dismiss your post as also following deceptive self-appointed authorities, especially a snake like Chomsky, who is in the thick of the Postmodern era's putting inferior people in superior positions. No, you're wrong Sage. I don't follow Chomsky. I don't like him either. None of his political views, and even many of his ideas of generating grammar. To use someone's concepts don't necessary mean that I share the same views. The work is the work. Within the philosophy I can't be brother-sister warmy, but I try to think beyond the common limits. Yes, you're right an oxymoron could be so. Anyway, I didn't want to accent this. The oxymoron was just an example of mine, not the central theme. There are main thoughts, and there are side ones. Sometimes they may be confused.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on May 27, 2021 19:03:30 GMT
IF YOU'VE HEARD OF SOMEONE, DON'T LISTEN TO HIM The fact that you slavishly follow the ignorant but conceited media's misuse of "oxymoron" (which actually is a clever phrase that only seems like a contradiction, but not in the meanings being used of its component words, such as "boneless ribs") makes me dismiss your post as also following deceptive self-appointed authorities, especially a snake like Chomsky, who is in the thick of the Postmodern era's putting inferior people in superior positions. No, you're wrong Sage. I don't follow Chomsky. I don't like him either. None of his political views, and even many of his ideas of generating grammar. To use someone's concepts don't necessary mean that I share the same views. The work is the work. Within the philosophy I can't be brother-sister warmy, but I try to think beyond the common limits. Yes, you're right an oxymoron could be so. Anyway, I didn't want to accent this. The oxymoron was just an example of mine, not the central theme. There are main thoughts, and there are side ones. Sometimes they may be confused. Decade After Decadent Decade, Generation After Degenerate Generation An oxymoron is a fake contradiction, used for effect, such as "sounds of silence, less is more, paid volunteers. You miss my point, which is that if you blindly follow self-appointed authorities on language, you will follow such know-it-all nobodies on epistemology. I made that clear. Finding out that you've been misled on the meaning of oxymoron should make you question everything that is discussed by such people today, even what they determine is important. Do not let them define the issue. Also, Martin Heidegger, one of their heroes, was a Nazi. The fact that they can get away with dismissing that fatal flaw shows how much else they can get away with. They are ephemeral in these decadent times and should be ignored as complete as mumbling drunks are.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 27, 2021 19:07:11 GMT
No, you're wrong Sage. I don't follow Chomsky. I don't like him either. None of his political views, and even many of his ideas of generating grammar. To use someone's concepts don't necessary mean that I share the same views. The work is the work. Within the philosophy I can't be brother-sister warmy, but I try to think beyond the common limits. Yes, you're right an oxymoron could be so. Anyway, I didn't want to accent this. The oxymoron was just an example of mine, not the central theme. There are main thoughts, and there are side ones. Sometimes they may be confused. Decade After Decadent Decade, Generation After Degenerate Generation An oxymoron is a fake contradiction, used for effect, such as "sounds of silence, less is more, paid volunteers. You miss my point, which is that if you blindly follow self-appointed authorities on language, you will follow such know-it-all nobodies on epistemology. I made that clear. Finding out that you've been misled on the meaning of oxymoron should make you question everything that is discussed by such people today, even what they determine is important. Do not let them define the issue. Also, Martin Heidegger, one of their heroes, was a Nazi. The fact that they can get away with dismissing that fatal flaw shows how much else they can get away with. They are ephemeral in these decadent times and should be ignored as complete as mumbling drunks are. If to be truly honest - I agree with you. Those wrong definitions are what my soul doesn't want to accept.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 27, 2021 19:49:35 GMT
No, you're wrong Sage. I don't follow Chomsky. I don't like him either. None of his political views, and even many of his ideas of generating grammar. To use someone's concepts don't necessary mean that I share the same views. The work is the work. Within the philosophy I can't be brother-sister warmy, but I try to think beyond the common limits. Yes, you're right an oxymoron could be so. Anyway, I didn't want to accent this. The oxymoron was just an example of mine, not the central theme. There are main thoughts, and there are side ones. Sometimes they may be confused. Decade After Decadent Decade, Generation After Degenerate Generation An oxymoron is a fake contradiction, used for effect, such as "sounds of silence, less is more, paid volunteers. You miss my point, which is that if you blindly follow self-appointed authorities on language, you will follow such know-it-all nobodies on epistemology. I made that clear. Finding out that you've been misled on the meaning of oxymoron should make you question everything that is discussed by such people today, even what they determine is important. Do not let them define the issue. Also, Martin Heidegger, one of their heroes, was a Nazi. The fact that they can get away with dismissing that fatal flaw shows how much else they can get away with. They are ephemeral in these decadent times and should be ignored as complete as mumbling drunks are. Could you tell more about those decadents. I don't like Martin Heidegger. I find his concept of Nothing - to be nothing important. He said that we had to afraid of Nothing. Why should we? There is a cosmological argument or a thing-human set argument which say that all what has been created has its beauty, and has its tiniest proportions for a human to live. And I guess that Heidegger just inverted that argument into: instead of admiring the fruits and goods of this world, we have to blame all what this world doesn't have... What a nonsense...
|
|
|
Post by joustos on May 27, 2021 22:24:37 GMT
The analytic truths are truths of language, i.e. the Sun shines all the day. The synthetic truths are truths of facts, i.e. the Sun is a star at the center of our Galaxy. To doubt the difference between those kinds of truth was offered by W. V. O. Quine in his work "Two Dogmas of Empiricism". I'll try to present his doubt in a more simple & plain manner. Any synthetic truths are those via some proven data. To check experimentally or by observing is to confirm some statement as a synthetic one. We might say that semantics of a researched statement is open to be checked in a science way. Analytic statements are seemed to be true only by their meanings, while which meanings they have, and how to check those meanings? Usually we can guess it by opening a dictionary or an encyclopedia, or some similar way. However, any meanings would be separated into states of affairs (i.e. the word combinations, the phrases) which can be checked either grammatically or factually. A phrase a fur cat is a possible construction, but a dull cat is really confusing phrase. Some phrases like rational absurd or irrationally deduced belong to an oxymoron type, and linear whales or good even numbers seem to be nonsense. Haven't we said that analytic truths are reliable only by a language? Then why there are nonsense constructions? Those phrases are non grammatically nonsense. Noah Chomsky for this case gave an example colorless green ideas sleep furiously. That phrase widely show how weird our language can be if we left it by its own, claiming its absolute character. So, we do need to have semantics even for analytic statements. Only one types of sentences can avoid it: logical statements i.e. the tautologies or logical truths. Indeed, a logical truth is true by its logical meanings. It is functionally closed by its meanings. Another thing is analytic statements. Therefore, as analytic so synthetic statements must be viewed along with their semantics. And what about semantics? - We can't say about it anything till using logical way, or to make it formal (to attempt to prove the differentiation of analytic and synthetic truths). But how to do it when logical truths are closed on their own, while the analytic (=language) and the synthetic (=facts) are far of it? We could say about any analytic truths that all of them were synthetic if and only if we would be sure about our decisions on any synthetic truths. Quine posted that such a trick is impossible, and our way to choose synthetic truths had analytic (=language) components. It's like we view only pieces or corners of objects, not the objects as they are. We can be sure that our synthetic truths are also incomplete by two ways: all synthetic truths are inductive (i.e. their are incomplete), and by experiments (but, where our insurance in that we can provide the perfect experiment, or a perfect observation?). All of such ways end in incompleteness of the task. That's why we have to agree that the synthetic statements have components of analyticity. What can we conclude? - That don't know about the difference of as analytic so synthetic truths, or we can say that their relations are fuzzy. I don't know about analytical and synthetic truths, but I remember Kant's analytical and synthetic judgments [which are true in different ways or under different conditions]. Analytical judgment is a proposition whose predicate merely makes explicit something that is contained in the subject. For example, "Cherry blossoms are white with some pink hues." [Comment: this proposition can be aid to be true IF we already have a true and complete knowledge of the subject. So, the issue of the nature of true knowledge remains completely open.] A synthetic judgment is a proposition in which the predicate has some addition to what is contained in the subject. E.g.: Cherry blossoms fall from trees a week after they are born -- as we learn from perceptual experience. (This is Kant's addition of sensuous content, rather than an explicitation of what we mean by "cherry blossoms"....and new epistemological issues arise.) To be true [necessary, invariable], he thought, we need synthetic a priori judgments, that is, adding also categories of the mind, such as Necessity or Cause, which are not based on sense experiences [as Hume explained and made Kant awaken from his "dogmatic slumbers], .... as if the mind instinctively knew when to apply the a priori categories. Kant is a problem, not a solution.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on May 28, 2021 16:23:39 GMT
Decade After Decadent Decade, Generation After Degenerate Generation An oxymoron is a fake contradiction, used for effect, such as "sounds of silence, less is more, paid volunteers. You miss my point, which is that if you blindly follow self-appointed authorities on language, you will follow such know-it-all nobodies on epistemology. I made that clear. Finding out that you've been misled on the meaning of oxymoron should make you question everything that is discussed by such people today, even what they determine is important. Do not let them define the issue. Also, Martin Heidegger, one of their heroes, was a Nazi. The fact that they can get away with dismissing that fatal flaw shows how much else they can get away with. They are ephemeral in these decadent times and should be ignored as complete as mumbling drunks are. Could you tell more about those decadents. I don't like Martin Heidegger. I find his concept of Nothing - to be nothing important. He said that we had to afraid of Nothing. Why should we? There is a cosmological argument or a thing-human set argument which say that all what has been created has its beauty, and has its tiniest proportions for a human to live. And I guess that Heidegger just inverted that argument into: instead of admiring the fruits and goods of this world, we have to blame all what this world doesn't have... What a nonsense... This Is Not the Way Things Are But What They Are Made to Be by a Vicious Clique That Must Be OverthrownTo get back on the road to human progress, we must dismiss all philosophy after William James, just as we dismiss Greek and Latin literature during its last few centuries, throughout the Dark Ages, and during the stagnant and exhausted Middle Ages. The greatest false idea in our time is "new and improved." The New Age is sewage. Disrespect even the self-appointed authorities' thought processes (returning to Low-IQ language, pronouncing that word "processeeze" shows their stupidity and drooling pomposity in that they think that is as advanced and educated as the correct "cry-seeze" for crises). Think independently from this high-and-mighty lowlife and you will realize that Nature is a crime against humanity and much of it has to be eliminated. It is not designed for our own good.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jun 1, 2021 17:31:12 GMT
Could you tell more about those decadents. I don't like Martin Heidegger. I find his concept of Nothing - to be nothing important. He said that we had to afraid of Nothing. Why should we? There is a cosmological argument or a thing-human set argument which say that all what has been created has its beauty, and has its tiniest proportions for a human to live. And I guess that Heidegger just inverted that argument into: instead of admiring the fruits and goods of this world, we have to blame all what this world doesn't have... What a nonsense... This Is Not the Way Things Are But What They Are Made to Be by a Vicious Clique That Must Be OverthrownTo get back on the road to human progress, we must dismiss all philosophy after William James, just as we dismiss Greek and Latin literature during its last few centuries, throughout the Dark Ages, and during the stagnant and exhausted Middle Ages. The greatest false idea in our time is "new and improved." The New Age is sewage. Disrespect even the self-appointed authorities' thought processes (returning to Low-IQ language, pronouncing that word "processeeze" shows their stupidity and drooling pomposity in that they think that is as advanced and educated as the correct "cry-seeze" for crises). Think independently from this high-and-mighty lowlife and you will realize that Nature is a crime against humanity and much of it has to be eliminated. It is not designed for our own good. Academic philosophy is sheltered, shallow, and defective. In order to go deep enough into human understanding, we also have to consider how people misunderstand things. What's more, we have to realize that the ad hominem "fallacy" is usually true, especially when attacking the intellectual lowlifes who swarm in our Postmodern universities. Look at the mispronunciation of processes. Those who use it are too lazy or stupid to understand the rule that refers to crisis, crises; analysis, analyses; parenthesis, parentheses, etc., or else they would realize that their pronunciation would only be used with the plural of an imaginary word "processis." Second, these frauds want to sound educated to unaware people; they think "processeeze" sounds educated, so they flaunt their ignorance and are never called out on it. Third, at the beginning of the Death of Grammar, in the 1960s, we students were told by lazy English teachers that we didn't have to closely study grammar; all we had to do was listen to how "educated" people spoke. That's defective teaching, because, first, people can't learn very accurately through something passive like listening, and, second, college education is a fraud and its graduates are nothing to look up to as "smart in school."
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 1, 2021 18:56:17 GMT
This Is Not the Way Things Are But What They Are Made to Be by a Vicious Clique That Must Be OverthrownTo get back on the road to human progress, we must dismiss all philosophy after William James, just as we dismiss Greek and Latin literature during its last few centuries, throughout the Dark Ages, and during the stagnant and exhausted Middle Ages. The greatest false idea in our time is "new and improved." The New Age is sewage. Disrespect even the self-appointed authorities' thought processes (returning to Low-IQ language, pronouncing that word "processeeze" shows their stupidity and drooling pomposity in that they think that is as advanced and educated as the correct "cry-seeze" for crises). Think independently from this high-and-mighty lowlife and you will realize that Nature is a crime against humanity and much of it has to be eliminated. It is not designed for our own good. Academic philosophy is sheltered, shallow, and defective. In order to go deep enough into human understanding, we also have to consider how people misunderstand things. What's more, we have to realize that the ad hominem "fallacy" is usually true, especially when attacking the intellectual lowlifes who swarm in our Postmodern universities. Look at the mispronunciation of processes. Those who use it are too lazy or stupid to understand the rule that refers to crisis, crises; analysis, analyses; parenthesis, parentheses, etc., or else they would realize that their pronunciation would only be used with the plural of an imaginary word "processis." Second, these frauds want to sound educated to unaware people; they think "processeeze" sounds educated, so they flaunt their ignorance and are never called out on it. Third, at the beginning of the Death of Grammar, in the 1960s, we students were told by lazy English teachers that we didn't have to closely study grammar; all we had to do was listen to how "educated" people spoke. That's defective teaching, because, first, people can't learn very accurately through something passive like listening, and, second, college education is a fraud and its graduates are nothing to look up to as "smart in school." I have to admit that my English makes the situation even worse: I use as words so phrases mostly according to no real Grammar. And I deliberately condemn myself for doing it. Instead of serious work on it and learning it by classic grammar books, and with no real reasons I put it away (I've got about five good books to study English). Unfortunately, I'm not lonely here. Many others just use blindly ggl translator... And this us rather a big trouble, than a helpful thing. Such corporate tyrant as ggl use their tricky and sneaky tactics to capture the attention of naïve youth, while at the bottoms of their plans there are no traces of mercy and grace. I agree that there must be some tyranny in education, and there must be some efforts for clever minds' proper education sake. We can't throw away no logic laws, even if we don't like some. The same is fair for many spheres as Physics, Mathematics, Biology, etc. The oversimplification is clever only if it's been a deep ,long, thoughtful and waged decision. To study hard isn't so bad; it's the way to reveal yourself. Some are in thinking where's to demonstrate themselves? – By hard and care work. Your work can show better who are you. And work means to put some efforts in it. The efforts? To what? (One might ask.) – To support and care what was good before the one took it. Being responsible is almost the same as being consciousness.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 1, 2021 20:30:03 GMT
Could you tell more about those decadents. I don't like Martin Heidegger. I find his concept of Nothing - to be nothing important. He said that we had to afraid of Nothing. Why should we? There is a cosmological argument or a thing-human set argument which say that all what has been created has its beauty, and has its tiniest proportions for a human to live. And I guess that Heidegger just inverted that argument into: instead of admiring the fruits and goods of this world, we have to blame all what this world doesn't have... What a nonsense... This Is Not the Way Things Are But What They Are Made to Be by a Vicious Clique That Must Be OverthrownTo get back on the road to human progress, we must dismiss all philosophy after William James, just as we dismiss Greek and Latin literature during its last few centuries, throughout the Dark Ages, and during the stagnant and exhausted Middle Ages. The greatest false idea in our time is "new and improved." The New Age is sewage. Disrespect even the self-appointed authorities' thought processes (returning to Low-IQ language, pronouncing that word "processeeze" shows their stupidity and drooling pomposity in that they think that is as advanced and educated as the correct "cry-seeze" for crises). Think independently from this high-and-mighty lowlife and you will realize that Nature is a crime against humanity and much of it has to be eliminated. It is not designed for our own good. If nature is no good and must be over thrown then you are following your own nature by over throwing it and a contradiction ensues.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jun 2, 2021 15:52:10 GMT
Academic philosophy is sheltered, shallow, and defective. In order to go deep enough into human understanding, we also have to consider how people misunderstand things. What's more, we have to realize that the ad hominem "fallacy" is usually true, especially when attacking the intellectual lowlifes who swarm in our Postmodern universities. Look at the mispronunciation of processes. Those who use it are too lazy or stupid to understand the rule that refers to crisis, crises; analysis, analyses; parenthesis, parentheses, etc., or else they would realize that their pronunciation would only be used with the plural of an imaginary word "processis." Second, these frauds want to sound educated to unaware people; they think "processeeze" sounds educated, so they flaunt their ignorance and are never called out on it. Third, at the beginning of the Death of Grammar, in the 1960s, we students were told by lazy English teachers that we didn't have to closely study grammar; all we had to do was listen to how "educated" people spoke. That's defective teaching, because, first, people can't learn very accurately through something passive like listening, and, second, college education is a fraud and its graduates are nothing to look up to as "smart in school." I have to admit that my English makes the situation even worse: I use as words so phrases mostly according to no real Grammar. And I deliberately condemn myself for doing it. Instead of serious work on it and learning it by classic grammar books, and with no real reasons I put it away (I've got about five good books to study English). Unfortunately, I'm not lonely here. Many others just use blindly ggl translator... And this us rather a big trouble, than a helpful thing. Such corporate tyrant as ggl use their tricky and sneaky tactics to capture the attention of naïve youth, while at the bottoms of their plans there are no traces of mercy and grace. I agree that there must be some tyranny in education, and there must be some efforts for clever minds' proper education sake. We can't throw away no logic laws, even if we don't like some. The same is fair for many spheres as Physics, Mathematics, Biology, etc. The oversimplification is clever only if it's been a deep ,long, thoughtful and waged decision. To study hard isn't so bad; it's the way to reveal yourself. Some are in thinking where's to demonstrate themselves? – By hard and care work. Your work can show better who are you. And work means to put some efforts in it. The efforts? To what? (One might ask.) – To support and care what was good before the one took it. Being responsible is almost the same as being consciousness. Stupidity Supremacy If our vicious hereditary ruling class orders its agents in education to neglect grammar, that's more evidence that it leads to sound thinking, which the heiristocracy fears.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 3, 2021 18:22:27 GMT
The analytic truths are truths of language, i.e. the Sun shines all the day. The synthetic truths are truths of facts, i.e. the Sun is a star at the center of our Galaxy. To doubt the difference between those kinds of truth was offered by W. V. O. Quine in his work "Two Dogmas of Empiricism". I'll try to present his doubt in a more simple & plain manner. Any synthetic truths are those via some proven data. To check experimentally or by observing is to confirm some statement as a synthetic one. We might say that semantics of a researched statement is open to be checked in a science way. Analytic statements are seemed to be true only by their meanings, while which meanings they have, and how to check those meanings? Usually we can guess it by opening a dictionary or an encyclopedia, or some similar way. However, any meanings would be separated into states of affairs (i.e. the word combinations, the phrases) which can be checked either grammatically or factually. A phrase a fur cat is a possible construction, but a dull cat is really confusing phrase. Some phrases like rational absurd or irrationally deduced belong to an oxymoron type, and linear whales or good even numbers seem to be nonsense. Haven't we said that analytic truths are reliable only by a language? Then why there are nonsense constructions? Those phrases are non grammatically nonsense. Noah Chomsky for this case gave an example colorless green ideas sleep furiously. That phrase widely show how weird our language can be if we left it by its own, claiming its absolute character. So, we do need to have semantics even for analytic statements. Only one types of sentences can avoid it: logical statements i.e. the tautologies or logical truths. Indeed, a logical truth is true by its logical meanings. It is functionally closed by its meanings. Another thing is analytic statements. Therefore, as analytic so synthetic statements must be viewed along with their semantics. And what about semantics? - We can't say about it anything till using logical way, or to make it formal (to attempt to prove the differentiation of analytic and synthetic truths). But how to do it when logical truths are closed on their own, while the analytic (=language) and the synthetic (=facts) are far of it? We could say about any analytic truths that all of them were synthetic if and only if we would be sure about our decisions on any synthetic truths. Quine posted that such a trick is impossible, and our way to choose synthetic truths had analytic (=language) components. It's like we view only pieces or corners of objects, not the objects as they are. We can be sure that our synthetic truths are also incomplete by two ways: all synthetic truths are inductive (i.e. their are incomplete), and by experiments (but, where our insurance in that we can provide the perfect experiment, or a perfect observation?). All of such ways end in incompleteness of the task. That's why we have to agree that the synthetic statements have components of analyticity. What can we conclude? - That don't know about the difference of as analytic so synthetic truths, or we can say that their relations are fuzzy. I don't know about analytical and synthetic truths, but I remember Kant's analytical and synthetic judgments [which are true in different ways or under different conditions]. Analytical judgment is a proposition whose predicate merely makes explicit something that is contained in the subject. For example, "Cherry blossoms are white with some pink hues." [Comment: this proposition can be aid to be true IF we already have a true and complete knowledge of the subject. So, the issue of the nature of true knowledge remains completely open.] A synthetic judgment is a proposition in which the predicate has some addition to what is contained in the subject. E.g.: Cherry blossoms fall from trees a week after they are born -- as we learn from perceptual experience. (This is Kant's addition of sensuous content, rather than an explicitation of what we mean by "cherry blossoms"....and new epistemological issues arise.) To be true [necessary, invariable], he thought, we need synthetic a priori judgments, that is, adding also categories of the mind, such as Necessity or Cause, which are not based on sense experiences [as Hume explained and made Kant awaken from his "dogmatic slumbers], .... as if the mind instinctively knew when to apply the a priori categories. Kant is a problem, not a solution. I agree my example of analytic truth wasn't good (I brought it up by myself). While subject&predicate structure is in the traditional, not modern logic. The diversion between analytic & synthetic truths were already in Leibniz's writings ( A. Pap "Semantic &...", the relevant chapter of Leibniz). The most profound and complete investigation on in is not in Kant's famous book (surely, I read those parts there), but in Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empirism" + "Words and Objekts". There are examples; I don't remember them. One of the handle example is from Andre, Thayse, Gribomont "Approche Logique De L`Intelligence...", V.1. They wrote " Till three hours before his death, he was alive". (I must say I had to translate from Russian or Ukrainian to English, that's why some important things might be dropped.) So, in general analyticity is what you rightly said - an extraction from the subject. While in the modern linguistics or semiotics there are no subject&predicate they (as far as I know) use actants. It's a wide representation of categorematical elements in the sentence (or in a proposition, if we're talking about it in a logical sense).
|
|