andrewcellini Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 i suggest getting a new operating system... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cladking Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 So if we accept your proclamations that language is universally inadequate, your use of it is just as useless as it is for the rest of us. But I guess you acceded to this when you replied to my pot-calls-kettle-black with , 'we all do it'. By your judgment, while we're all just pissing, you win because you're pissing into the wind. It's language that is confused. It's people who are confused. It's not nature. If nature were confused the pebble might roll up the hill. But being confused doesn't preclude the possibility of communication; it merely makes it more difficult. Likewise there are five fruit in the basket of apples. Fruit is a living thing. How do you know one of the apples wasn't irradiated? If five people each wanted an apple to create an orchard then there would be four orchards. There is simply no one to one correspondance between the construct of "five apples" and the bowl of apples. You can't change this by choosing to see reality in such a way. You are stepping away from the apples and describing their existence. If you view the apples from the perspective of an apple or the trees on which they grew they look very different. The ones on the sunny side are sweeter and riper and the ones at the top are harder to pick. Some are wormier and some are malformed. Each probably began life as the result of a bird or a bee but already existed in its nascent form in another bowl of apples long long ago. You are simply choosing to see reality from the perspective of a specialist and the models of reality created by experiment. Metaphysics insists on this being the case because metaphysics simply doesn't even postulate the existence of reality but only of language. As such we have a science based on language which works because reality affects experiment. It can be quantified by math because math is based on natural logic which is reality itself. If you use this perspective to see reality then you naturally understand everything you see. The more you learn the more you're likely to spot an anomaly that has never been seen before. I suppose this is getting toward what you call waffling. It just surprises me how so many people have only one perspective and can't see what they don't know and can't understand. I look out on the world and understand just about exactly nothing at all. Yet I can make predictions that are often accurate. People ask me to explain the anomalies they observe. Sometimes I can. i suggest getting a new operating system... Indeed. We need a new language to discuss philosophy. We need a language where many of the words have a single definition and without connotation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewcellini Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Indeed... i was kidding. it was to poke fun at your posts which is all over the place and are indeed consistent with waffling (perhaps the one thing you got right). Fruit is a living thing. How do you know one of the apples wasn't irradiated? how is that relevant to counting the members of some set? the set is "apples" not "golden delicious apples" or "rotten apples" or any subset that you can conceive of. if the task was to count the "irradiated apples" then that may be relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 I suppose this is getting toward what you call waffling Indeed we can agree on that. But I need to finish my supper, would you believe it - a bowl of dead friyut, otherwise known to the English as stewed fruit (and custard). On that note I also think it is time to call time on this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 On that note I also think it is time to call time on this thread. ! Moderator Note I thought about this for the same number of heartbeats as I have fingers on one hand, and decided you're right. Thread closed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts