| | Soup's Philosophy | |
| | Author | Message |
---|
Supersteve
Posts : 122 Join date : 2010-08-11 Age : 30 Location : IL
| Subject: Soup's Philosophy Wed Nov 17, 2010 7:21 pm | |
| Philosophy has always interested, and while I doubt it interests any of you I figure I'll post some of my ideas anyway, besides, who doesnt want a few extra sheep points? xP First is my epistological philosophy. The only part I came up with was the Nonsingularity under the Rationalist truths section, the way I chose to organize it (I've never seen it arranged this way, and I think I did it quite well), and the final section on the Anti-Rational Proof. I'd really enjoy feedback on any of this, that's kinda why I'm posting it. -EPISTEMOLOGY- - Spoiler:
Epistemology is the philosophical study of absolute, finite, and provable truths. There are three separate groups to which I’ll chose to organize our ‘truths’: Scientific truths, Empirical (or A Posteriori) truths, and Rationalist (or A Priori) truths. All of humanities truths are based upon the truth of experience, and the soundness of human logic.
Categories of Truth
Empirical truths are the simplest to define. They consist of all the truths accepted through experience. The sky is blue, dogs bark, and you have an aunt Susan are all examples of Empirical truth, truth accepted because you personally have experienced it. At it’s core Empirical truth only requires an absolute trust in your experience, and therefore your senses and memory.
Scientific truths are also fairly easy to define. These truths are the truths we accept because they have been proven by the scientific method. The shape of the earth, the structure of an atom, and the periodic table of the elements are examples of current scientific truths. While what is scientifically true has changed slightly over the ages humanity generally accepts it on the true-until-disproven method. To accept scientific truths requires not only an absolute trust in your experience, but also in human reason, as it is the reason that validities the experience making it accepted and scientifically provable. Both reason and experience are necessary in the acceptance of these truths.
Rationalist truths are very tricky. These are the truths established without a single regard to experience, using logic alone. The idea of these Rationalist truths and really Rationalism altogether was brought about by Rene Descartes, although other philosophers like Benedict de Spinoza, Gottfried von Leibniz, Bertrand Russel and myself have made contributions to it. One example of Rationalist truth includes the truth of definition, pioneered by the Linguistic philosophers, namely stating that a sentence can represent truth so long as the definition of a word matches the claim made by the sentence (I.e., to say “A bachelor is single.” must inherently be true, simply because that is the very definition of the word. The Rationalist truth of Nonsingularity is a development on the idea of causation, which states that every effect must have a cause. Nonsingularity itself develops that idea and states that there must exist other, whatever that other may be simply because there must be something to cause you to exist. Lastly, and most crucial is the truth of self, Descartes’ famous “Cogito Ergo Sum”, I think, therefore I am. Descartes’ rationalized that for him to exist that he must exist to do the thinking. Rationalist truth only requires an absolute belief in the soundness of human logic and reason.
Skepticisms
Methodological Skepticism is the distrust of experience, and was created by the great philosopher Rene Descartes. What it states is that you cannot trust wholly that which has been wrong, in this case experience. Our experience is wrong all the time: when you remember things incorrectly, when you dream, when you hallucinate or see things which aren’t, etc. Descartes states that we shouldn’t wholly trust experience, and certainly can’t use it as a basis for epistological truth. There really is no way to determine what is real and what isn’t using just our senses and experience, since they are both fallible. Methodological Skepticism tears down Empirical and Scientific truth entirely. How can you really know the sky is blue, or that dogs bark, or that you have an aunt named Susan, or even an aunt at all? How can you know that the earth is round, or the structure of an atom, or what elements really are without trust of your senses?
The Anti-Rational Proof. “It is prudent to not wholly trust that which has deceived” was Descartes’ foundation for his doubt of senses in his Methodological Skepticism, however, the same skepticism holds true in regards to logic, the remaining source for human knowledge. Logic is unreliable, as proven when debate ends in understanding, or in learning, when what was thought to be true has become disproven. As sound as our logic may seem it can be wrong. As much as we can verify our logic through others or repetitive self examination it doesn’t mean that a flaw can not exist. We can not claim there to be pure, finite, and provable truth based on experience or logic, and for the same reason. Now, this Anti-Rational Proof shouldn’t be accepted with ought skepticism either, and even the same skepticism proven by it can be reapplied. So let’s say you do just that, you say that in being true it disproves itself, what then are you left with? You have two sides, those who accept the proof and those who accept it to the extent of rejecting it. Both sides can be justified and are logically sound, so what determines them? Faith. There is no reason to choose either side over the other, so you are left with a stalemate. However, what does that prove then? If the ‘belief’ of the Anti-Rational Proof is just that, a belief, then the soundness of logic must also be a belief, taken by faith. Therefore, logic must be taken by faith, just as in the case of experience, and just the same as all the rest of humanities ‘knowledge’. Anything which must be taken by faith, such as experience or logic, can not be used as a basis for infallible, undeniable, and absolute truth.
| |
| | | Jackrabbit~
Posts : 1214 Join date : 2010-01-15 Age : 29 Location : East Coast USA, be jealous
| Subject: Re: Soup's Philosophy Wed Nov 17, 2010 7:42 pm | |
| I'm reading it tomorrow after-school when I'm not cramming for hw :3 /first comment | |
| | | littlehero
Posts : 1294 Join date : 2010-07-04 Age : 29 Location : New Jersey.....and beyond
| Subject: Re: Soup's Philosophy Wed Nov 17, 2010 8:29 pm | |
| When you say Rationalist truth. Are you saying like a educated guess? Like, you don't know the answer but you can just make a smart guess on what it actually is, yet you could be wrong. Rational truth can be determined by experience not direct experience, but indirect. The sea is water, so fish live in it. You know the sea is water, but by just knowing there is water you assume there is fish.
Too long of a paragraph and many fancy names and words kinda confuse me. I'm trying to sum up what you said? : o | |
| | | Supersteve
Posts : 122 Join date : 2010-08-11 Age : 30 Location : IL
| Subject: Re: Soup's Philosophy Wed Nov 17, 2010 9:12 pm | |
| Rationalist truth has nothing to do with experience. It might help to read the methodological skepticism bit firsst, then apply those truths to it. Its not a guess either, its things you can prove using logic alone, so you wouldnt even see the water or know what a fish is because you cant trust that those things exist edit: n thx for asking questions, when I get around to revising it ill try to explain that better | |
| | | littlehero
Posts : 1294 Join date : 2010-07-04 Age : 29 Location : New Jersey.....and beyond
| Subject: Re: Soup's Philosophy Wed Nov 17, 2010 9:27 pm | |
| Then again. Don't we experience? I mean it is something we rely on. Also Logic is created through what we experienced. So isn't Rational just a branch off of scientific. You can't get logic with just a blank slate of nothing else to reason with. Logic is something we gain trough experience. So isn't rationalism something you refuse to believe is true or exist? | |
| | | Supersteve
Posts : 122 Join date : 2010-08-11 Age : 30 Location : IL
| Subject: Re: Soup's Philosophy Wed Nov 17, 2010 9:32 pm | |
| :7 this is what I wanted to happen when I first posted this Your saying reason is relies on experience? Thats where id have to disagree with you. Yes, our lOgic is mainly formed through the trial and error and therefore experience, but I would say its a trait with us from birth, and experience just helps develops it.Also, the difference between science and rationalism is that science validifies its reason and vice versa while rationalism only uses reason, since it doesnt believe experience is reliable | |
| | | littlehero
Posts : 1294 Join date : 2010-07-04 Age : 29 Location : New Jersey.....and beyond
| Subject: Re: Soup's Philosophy Wed Nov 17, 2010 9:40 pm | |
| What I don't understand is. You have a baby, he/she is not going to be able to reason from what is right and what is wrong. As the baby progresses through life, he/she will gain experience and be able to reason and use logic. You can't have any logic with a blank slate. You can't reason with a blank slate. A baby will see someone die and say "What?". He/she wont know why the they perono died how the person died or even know what death is.So he/she can't reason what happened. He/she wont be able to know anything unless someone tell she/he what happened. Thus someone tell the baby what just happened was an experience for the baby and the death of that someone was an experience. So you can't use logic with out any knowledge of anything. You need something to start with, that is experience. | |
| | | Supersteve
Posts : 122 Join date : 2010-08-11 Age : 30 Location : IL
| Subject: Re: Soup's Philosophy Thu Nov 18, 2010 3:20 pm | |
| First off, I totally see your point, and I partially agree with it. Experience helps make our logic. Scientifically its the explanation for events. How about I just go with an example. Descartes proved his own existance by rationalizing that since he thought he must exist. He didnt use his experience of existing to validify this, just his reasoning.Reason was taught to him from his experience, but it doesnt rely on the experience to prove it to him. Also, in the end I just end up rejecting logic anyways, so the argument wether or not reason is an organization of experience isnt relevant, but still a very interesting thing to discuss. | |
| | | MoarCoathangers~<2
Posts : 488 Join date : 2010-06-05 Age : 30 Location : Somewhere between self-consciousness and insanity.
| Subject: Re: Soup's Philosophy Thu Nov 18, 2010 3:42 pm | |
| I dunno who this Descartes guy is, but I know for sure you can't prove your own existence with reason alone. If one were to just poof into existence, just like that, I assure you that person would...be very confused, for one. Descartes had to prove his existence using experience. He used everything he had done during his life to prove to himself he was very much real. As Salt said, as soon as one person is born, they're a blank slate. Experience is kind of like the nail that writes on the slate. I'm sure you've heard of tabula rasa, right? | |
| | | Supersteve
Posts : 122 Join date : 2010-08-11 Age : 30 Location : IL
| Subject: Re: Soup's Philosophy Thu Nov 18, 2010 3:58 pm | |
| Can I just say again that this argument isn't relevant to my philosophies? I'm just trying to defend the rationalists right now. And yes, I know of tabula rasa and the nature vs. nurture argument, and I personally take the nurture side of it, as both of you seem to as well What the rationalists were trying to say (and I agree with) is that reason is independent of experience and that experience can't be trusted. And you can prove you exist using logic alone. You think, therefore you exist. You aren't saying that you've lived, therefore you exist, because living is an experience which the rationalists dont trust. Is thinking an experience? Well yes, but it's one we can trust because logically it makes sense and you can't really dispute it logically. Thats a little summary of rationalism, which maybe is better stated than the one in the original post. | |
| | | littlehero
Posts : 1294 Join date : 2010-07-04 Age : 29 Location : New Jersey.....and beyond
| Subject: Re: Soup's Philosophy Thu Nov 18, 2010 4:51 pm | |
| Rationalism is something you just know. No reason to explain it, I now get what your saying.
I will keep arguing on this subject. People have their different views. Some people want everything proved validated and show that this is this, because of this(sorry if weird to read). And some people will just accept what is in front of them and keeping living on with reason or logic. You can't just live on reason and logic you need experience to do things, which I can't see as possible. Without something happening you can't go back and say Well this is what I did wrong, maybe I should do this next time. Logic is what that is. This is a very broad subject. You can't prove why we are hear. There is scientifically proofs and Religion proofs. As for many things you can prove, "Why, when a human is shot he/she is hurt". This reminds me of things or answers that cannot be proved at all, what ever there is. | |
| | | Supersteve
Posts : 122 Join date : 2010-08-11 Age : 30 Location : IL
| Subject: Re: Soup's Philosophy Thu Nov 18, 2010 6:06 pm | |
| This is epistomology, and is trying to degibitevly prove something, Im not totally sure what your trying to say there :S There arent scientific proofs, theyre disproved by methodological skepticism and the antirational proof. Now religion, that claims to prove nothing. Like.... thats why its called a faith, lol. | |
| | | littlehero
Posts : 1294 Join date : 2010-07-04 Age : 29 Location : New Jersey.....and beyond
| Subject: Re: Soup's Philosophy Thu Nov 18, 2010 6:26 pm | |
| I'm kinda tying in a bunch of stuff. I don't just look towards one thing, I look around everything. Some of the Philosophy you have, I agree with, almost everything but the rationalism. | |
| | | Supersteve
Posts : 122 Join date : 2010-08-11 Age : 30 Location : IL
| Subject: Re: Soup's Philosophy Thu Nov 18, 2010 7:12 pm | |
| Well, I dont agree with rationalism. I used to, now Im just explaining there point of view to you. Im branching out to different philosophy too, its just this branch interested me the most as ive just started. Im planning on utopian/political philophy next, but im certainly not going to post a political flame war thread on the forums xD | |
| | | littlehero
Posts : 1294 Join date : 2010-07-04 Age : 29 Location : New Jersey.....and beyond
| Subject: Re: Soup's Philosophy Thu Nov 18, 2010 9:21 pm | |
| To me philosophy is like a type of religion and following of rules. I really don't follow anyone, I kinda see what people do and just branch a little off from what people do. Which is kinda what your doing, I think?
Also this guy Rene Descartes is vaguely familiar. Before what I was saying about religion, it has ways of explaining or saying why things are here, I can't really say what they are. I do not have a religion either.
To me it always seem like a flame war will arise from something. Not giving any Suggestions(Mabi). | |
| | | Sponsored content
| Subject: Re: Soup's Philosophy | |
| |
| | | | Soup's Philosophy | |
|
| Permissions in this forum: | You cannot reply to topics in this forum
| |
| |
| |