Apriori knowledge about the weather from a metaphysical Naturalist perspective

[DoubtingThomas29]

Hello El Capitain,

I feel that there are facts that are impossible tonot be facts. I feel that logic works because, contradictions cannot happen, and logic is a brute fact if the fact that contradictions cannot happen. I feel that someday in the future, with the advancement of theoritical physics, and biology we will know to the finest details how everything works.

That is just me being optimistix, I base this belief on how far the human race has come over the centuries, and feel that we just might be capable of gaining apriori knowledge about nature. Which would be cool you bet.

I have noticed when I tell people I feel this way on internet forums, they don't agree with me, and really feel that I am using logic to say nothing about the weather. Which I believe is wrong. I have presented an either or case about the weather which is true, it isn't saying much of anything useful, but it is saying something. And when it comes to human knowledge that is a good start. It is just like a baby step, but t still is something to add to the realm of human knowledge that is absolutely true. We can be certain of things, which is just how I feel about it.

 

[elcapitan]

I feel that there are facts that are impossible tonot be facts.

Sure. Those are called tautologies, but they don't give you any new information.

I feel that logic works because, contradictions cannot happen, and logic is a brute fact if the fact that contradictions cannot happen. I feel that someday in the future, with the advancement of theoritical physics, and biology we will know to the finest details how everything works.

That is just me being optimistix, I base this belief on how far the human race has come over the centuries, and feel that we just might be capable of gaining apriori knowledge about nature. Which would be cool you bet.

Just because a fact doesn't contradict other facts doesn't mean that contradictions can not happen. You seem to think that mathematics and science are the same, even though science is built upon observation.

For example lets compare two quantities, pi and the speed of light.

Pi can be calculated a priori. Even though no absolutely perfect circles exist, you can imagine one. You could, without observing any actual circles, calculate pi. The value of pi is a natural result of mathematics. Even if the laws of physics were changed, pi would still be the same; pi is independent of the universe.

However, the speed of light is not the natural result of mathematics. Some aspects of light, such as the relationship between frequency, wavelength and speed, can be described mathematically, but these only apply generally to waves, not to light specifically; mathematics can't tell you what the speed of light actually is. You can't derive the speed of light without making some sort of observation or measurement (in fact, centuries ago people thought light was instant and had no speed since no measurements could be made).

I have noticed when I tell people I feel this way on internet forums, they don't agree with me, and really feel that I am using logic to say nothing about the weather. Which I believe is wrong. I have presented an either or case about the weather which is true, it isn't saying much of anything useful, but it is saying something. And when it comes to human knowledge that is a good start. It is just like a baby step, but t still is something to add to the realm of human knowledge that is absolutely true. We can be certain of things, which is just how I feel about it.

Your "baby step" is more like running in place.

 

[funyun]

Yes, it's true. You're using logic to say nothing about the weather. You're using a concept related to weather to say something about logic. But more to the point you're using a concept related to weather to say something about language.

The proposition is analytic. What's the big deal?

 

[DoubtingThomas29]

We are allowed to disagree here, and I think I am going to have to disagree. I feel we are saying something about the weather, but you and I will never agree on that.

 

[quatona]

We are allowed to disagree here, and I think I am going to have to disagree. I feel we are saying something about the weather, but you and I will never agree on that.

Maybe you could help everyone by telling us what information about the weather is given with this statement.
At best it communicates the notion that rain counts as a phenomenon of weather (and that would neither be a statement about the weather nor a statement about logic, but a statement about semantics).
Out of interest: Is the statement "It´s either raining apples or it isn´t" also a statement about the weather, in your opinion?

 

[funyun]

I'd like to clarify my position that the proposition says something about logic. I think the form of the proposition itself ("Either it is X or it is not X") is an important species of statement because it conveys some of the nuances of analytic propositions. The content of this particular proposition, however, is not important in the sense that it doesn't tell us anything about logic.

 

[DoubtingThomas29]

To quotana,

I really feel that I am going to keep repeating myself a lot here, so I really don't think it will be too fun to talk about, but we can talk about it a little bit. When I say it is either raining or not raining we are tlking about the weather, we are not talking about apples, it never rains apples. However with the weather it is either raining or not raining. This is a fact about the weather which is impossible to not be a fact.

About the weather we are saying it is either raining or not raining, that counts as something. It is absolutely true, and doesn't need to say something useful, but it still says something. It is not much but it is something.

 

[quatona]

To quotana,

I really feel that I am going to keep repeating myself a lot here, so I really don't think it will be too fun to talk about, but we can talk about it a little bit. When I say it is either raining or not raining we are tlking about the weather, we are not talking about apples, it never rains apples.

Still "it rains apples or it doesn´t" is a statement about the weather, and at no point in time it is inaccurate.

However with the weather it is either raining or not raining. This is a fact about the weather which is impossible to not be a fact.

So is "it rains apples or it doesn´t".

About the weather we are saying it is either raining or not raining, that counts as something.

As what does it count, if I may ask?

It is absolutely true,

So would be "it rains apples or it doesn´t"

and doesn't need to say something useful, but it still says something. It is not much but it is something.

So does my statement.
Wo what does it tell me, and which situation are we thinking of here?

 

[DoubtingThomas29]

Well with Apples I reckon a tornado could sweep over an orcharid and drop some apples out of the sky onto a community. However if we are talking about just rain, and the weather in a traditional sense, it is either raining or it is not raining, is a statement about the weather that is absolutely true. That counts as something, that in the relme of human knowledge is a start towards, absolute knowledge, which maybe attainable about all sorts of certain things with enough progress in philosophy, art and science.

I feel that when we are talking about rain we are being more accurate about what the weather usually does as opposed to something unusual like raining apples.

Are we having fun yet?

 

[quatona]

Well with Apples I reckon a tornado could sweep over an orcharid and drop some apples out of the sky onto a community.

Let´s say this never happens.

However if we are talking about just rain, and the weather in a traditional sense, it is either raining or it is not raining, is a statement about the weather that is absolutely true.

Even if it never rains apples the statement "it either rains apples or it doesn´t" is absolutely true, too.

That counts as something, that in the relme of human knowledge is a start towards, absolute knowledge, which maybe attainable about all sorts of certain things with enough progress in philosophy, art and science.

The question, however, is whether this statement communicates any knowledge.

I feel that when we are talking about rain we are being more accurate about what the weather usually does as opposed to something unusual like raining apples.

...but your statement does not come with any implications as to what´s usual or not.
The statement "either it rains or it doesn´t" would be true even if it never rained or never would not rain (Compare: "Either there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster or there isn´t". Even if (or in this case: even though) there is no FSM (i.e. if one of the options never applies and is made up out of thin air) the statement is still true. The statement "either - or" does not imply that both options "usually" or even only ever happen.)
What is missing to make your statement a statement about the weather is the addition "...and indeed it sometimes rains and sometimes doesn´t". In fact that is all that is needed to give the information, and your statement would be redundant.
"Either X or not X" is - by virtue of logic - always true, not matter what you insert for X. Therefore your statement doesn´t contain any information beyond describing what logic dictates.

Are we having fun yet?

My only motivation for partaking in pointless mind games is having fun.

 

[DoubtingThomas29]

That to me is what it is all about, talking about pointless mental exercises. That is philosophy and that is good for the brain.

I feel that you may say it is either x or it is not x can fall apart at one crucial aspect, given a certain frame of reference. Follow me on this, I don't drink alcohol, I drink a lot of soda pop, but not alcohol.

Because to say either Thomas will drink an alcholic beverage, or a non-alcoholic beverage is misleading, really I'll never drink an alcholic beverage. So constantly I never drink alcohol, I am american indian,Irish and scottish, I know better don't drink that.

My whole point about this statement, is we can use logic to say stuff about nature and the real world. We merely need a frame of reference to talk about "It is x or it is not x" to make sense of the situation.

By the way I am glad you are having fun, the guys at the other forum, started calling me a troll when I was talking about this, they do that a lot the second they disagree about something, both sides start calling each other a troll, and that is a pity. This stuff don't matter, and makes me think of star trek really.

 

[quatona]

I feel that you may say it is either x or it is not x can fall apart at one crucial aspect, given a certain frame of reference. Follow me on this, I don't drink alcohol, I drink a lot of soda pop, but not alcohol.

Because to say either Thomas will drink an alcholic beverage, or a non-alcoholic beverage is misleading, really I'll never drink an alcholic beverage. So constantly I never drink alcohol, I am american indian,Irish and scottish, I know better don't drink that.

Well, it doesn´t really matter that it can be misleading. It is not inaccurate (in that it will prove true 100% of the time). Noone who is told "either it´s raining or it´s not" knows whether this is meant to be merely an accurate statement, or whether it is meant to imply the meaning that you have silently been adding. Anyone who would be interested in being clear would have said "One phenomenon of the weather is occasional rain.", after all. This statement is shorter, it is to the point, and it communicates that which the "either - or" statement doesn´t communicate.
If someone gives your "either - or" statement I have no reason to assume he wants to communicate clearly (therefore I won´t give him credit that he wants me to understand that which the statement possibly could imply.)

My whole point about this statement, is we can use logic to say stuff about nature and the real world. We merely need a frame of reference to talk about "It is x or it is not x" to make sense of the situation.

And my point is: If we want to make a statement that makes sense of a situation "either x or not x" is about the poorest approach conceivable., and anyone who has more than linguistic games in mind won´t use it.
I´m not sure I understand what you are saying about the "frame of reference" in regards to the statement, the topic or my objection.
Would you mind clarifying?

By the way I am glad you are having fun, the guys at the other forum, started calling me a troll when I was talking about this, they do that a lot the second they disagree about something, both sides start calling each other a troll, and that is a pity. This stuff don't matter, and makes me think of star trek really.

Well, I guess many people here are used to defending their worldviews and easily interprete things as a threat to it.
Seeing how semantics trickery, logic fallacies and fake paradoxes are often used in arguments here I am very cautious myself. In other words: it is not uncommon that once an inaccurate (but seemingly not important) argument has been conceded we will soon see very funny conclusions based upon it in favour of a particular notion. (Don´t get me wrong: I am not insinuating that this is what you have in mind. Just explaining a problem.)
However, I don´t see any need to become personal or emtional over these things, and I always see the opportunity to abstain from participating in a thread that participating in is not fun.

On another note, the example you gave is not a good analogy to the "rain" statement. A more accurate analogy would be "Thomas will drink an alcoholic beverage or not."
The way you have put it it was different from the rain statement in that it did not merely consist of an option and its mere negation.
It also gave more information in that it excluded the option that you won´t drink anything at all.
"It is either raining or snowing" would be closer to your drinking statement, and indeed give information about the weather.

 

[DoubtingThomas29]

Well, it doesn´t really matter that it can be misleading. It is not inaccurate (in that it will prove true 100% of the time). Noone who is told "either it´s raining or it´s not" knows whether this is meant to be merely an accurate statement, or whether it is meant to imply the meaning that you have silently been adding. Anyone who would be interested in being clear would have said "One phenomenon of the weather is occasional rain.", after all. This statement is shorter, it is to the point, and it communicates that which the "either - or" statement doesn´t communicate.
If someone gives your "either - or" statement I have no reason to assume he wants to communicate clearly (therefore I won´t give him credit that he wants me to understand that which the statement possibly could imply.)

I feel that the statement does convey information, it is saying the weather cannot both rain and not rain at the same time. We know this to 100% certainity.

Thomas said something

And my point is: If we want to make a statement that makes sense of a situation "either x or not x" is about the poorest approach conceivable., and anyone who has more than linguistic games in mind won´t use it.
I´m not sure I understand what you are saying about the "frame of reference" in regards to the statement, the topic or my objection.
Would you mind clarifying?

To me it seems like for logic to work, you need a frame of reference to be set up so you can see what contradictions exist, and realize what cannot happen. When I say "It is either raining or not raining." The it refers to the weather outside in the general sense we talk about the weather. You just have to know the frame of reference you are refering to when you say "It."

Well, I guess many people here are used to defending their worldviews and easily interprete things as a threat to it.
Seeing how semantics trickery, logic fallacies and fake paradoxes are often used in arguments here I am very cautious myself. In other words: it is not uncommon that once an inaccurate (but seemingly not important) argument has been conceded we will soon see very funny conclusions based upon it in favour of a particular notion. (Don´t get me wrong: I am not insinuating that this is what you have in mind. Just explaining a problem.)
However, I don´t see any need to become personal or emtional over these things, and I always see the opportunity to abstain from participating in a thread that participating in is not fun.

On another note, the example you gave is not a good analogy to the "rain" statement. A more accurate analogy would be "Thomas will drink an alcoholic beverage or not."
The way you have put it it was different from the rain statement in that it did not merely consist of an option and its mere negation.
It also gave more information in that it excluded the option that you won´t drink anything at all.

Probably a better statement to analyze is When Thomas drinks it will either be an alcholic drink or a nonalcoholic drink. Which is misleading because when I drink it will always be a nonalcoholic drink. So I am arguing for when thomas dinks it will always be a nonalcoholic drink.

"It is either raining or snowing" would be closer to your drinking statement, and indeed give information about the weather.

I hope you like my message.

 

[quatona]

I hope you like my message.

No sorry, Thomas, I don´t like it too much.
Two main reasons:
1. A technical one: Please use the quote function properly. The way you did it (including your answers in my quotes) makes quoting you in my response a mess. I have to copy/paste your statements from your post into my response.
IOW: The convenience you have gained is on my expense, and and on top it creates a more effort for me than it spared you.
2. I am a bit disappointed, since you actually just repeated what you had said already. It´s not like I hadn´t read your previous posts. I have given arguments against your claims, and I would have expected you to address these arguments rather than merely repeating your statements.

I feel that the statement does convey information, it is saying the weather cannot both rain and not rain at the same time. We know this to 100% certainity.

We have been there already: This is what logic dictates anyways. I wouldn´t even need to know what rain is: The structure of the sentence (either X or not X) makes it necessarily accurate, by virtue of logic. The statement confirms a logical axiom - that´s all.

To me it seems like for logic to work, you need a frame of reference to be set up so you can see what contradictions exist, and realize what cannot happen.

I sense that you are using the term "frame of reference" here in a very unusual way. What I understand you saying is that logic is useless unless it is practically applied.
This would make logic the "frame of reference" to its application rather than the other way round.

When I say "It is either raining or not raining." The it refers to the weather outside in the general sense we talk about the weather. You just have to know the frame of reference you are refering to when you say "It."

I have problems seeing the relevance of this for the issue at hand.
It seems to me that you are saying "we need to know that the frame of reference for this statement is 'the weather' in order to know that it is a statement about the weather".
However, that would be shooting your own foot: It would mean that the assumed premise (this is a statement about the weather) is the same as the conclusion (this is a statement about the weather).

But maybe I am misunderstanding you here.

Whatever - that´s not my point anyways. My point is that this statement doesn´t communicate anything beyond that which logic dictates anyways, and that every potential additional information requires me to make assumptions.

Probably a better statement to analyze is When Thomas drinks it will either be an alcholic drink or a nonalcoholic drink. Which is misleading because when I drink it will always be a nonalcoholic drink. So I am arguing for when thomas dinks it will always be a nonalcoholic drink.

1. Note how this statement already comes with quite a few specifications and qualifications - specifications and qualifications of the sort the "either x or not x" statement is lacking, and which indeed might make it communicate something.
2. Note also how anything that your statement above could be about (the "frame of reference" , is already explicitly mentioned in the statement (presumably "Thomas" or "Thomas´ drinking habits"), whilst there is no mentioning of "the weather" in the rain statement.
3. The "misleading" argument has already been addressed: it requires additional assumptions beyond that which has been explicitly said. The statement as it is is 100% accurate in 100% of all situations. The consideration: "Well, as it reads it is utterly trivial (in that it communicates nothing but a logical axiom), so I am going to assume that the author intends to communicate something beyond this, and this could be...." doesn´t have a place when it comes to the question "Is this a statement about...?"
The assumption that the author wants to exclude misunderstandings (the premise for your conclusion as to what the statement might communicate beyond that which it actually says) is not reasonable - particularly in view of the fact that the information you conclude he actually intended to give could have been given in a clear and straightforward manner - which he didn´t do. Thus, the assumption he put value in not being misleading is not warranted.
But this part of your argument already rests on mind-reading anyways, which is not the proper approach when trying to answer the question "Is this a statement about...?"

 

[DoubtingThomas29]

I am sorry to hear you didn't like my message. I see what you are saying about repeating myself, instead of addressing your arguments against my claims. This is why this happens, to me when I say "It is either raining or not raining." And I say this is a fact that is known to humans to 100% certainity, I just think it is obvious, I don't see why in the world, this wouldn't be a true statement about the weather. I have tried to understand your claims, about things, such as "It is either raining apples or it is not raining apples." However, it just goes over my head, I can't see the issue at all, so I end up repeating myself, because I can't think of what else to say.

The funny thing is this fact was first brought to my attention by a metaphysician in the philosophy class I was taking, it was metaphysics. He had a Ph.D. in philosophy from Stanford, a prestigious university, and he said, this is a fact that is impossible to not be a fact, "It is either raining or not raining." We know this Apriori, and we agreed with it, the whole class agreed with it, and when I try to share this experience with people, they don't agree it is a fact about the weather. It is really weird. I mean I try following what arguments people will say, why we are saying nothing about the weather, and I can't follow it.

Now really, my only suspicion is that only ten to twenty percent of the population are evolved far enough along the line to understand how logic works. I feel that logic, is something that works, because contradictions cannot happen, it is a brute fact, that is impossible to not be a fact. Why people come up with these elaborate arguments against this statement is something I don't understand. I mean I am serious if your right about what you are saying, it goes right over my head, and I can't believe it takes a Ph.D. from Stanford, to see this is a fact about the weather, it can't both rain ad not rain at the same time. I don't get it, I tried to get it, but either it is to advanced for me to see what your objection is, which honestly is what I suspect, or for some odd reason a person couldn't grasp the fact that we can use logic to find neccessairy conditions about nature, and life in general.

I don't get it, I mean every time I talk about this, I just repeat what I am saying, and cannot understand how this could be wrong, when my philosophy professor agreed with it, and the students agreed with it. If it is good enough for them it is good enough for me.

I hope to talk to you later about something else, I think this just goes over my head really.

 

[billwald]

Your statement a non sequitur because there are other options that water in the air and get stuff wet. For example, where does rain stop and fog start?

 

[quatona]

I am sorry to hear you didn't like my message. I see what you are saying about repeating myself, instead of addressing your arguments against my claims. This is why this happens, to me when I say "It is either raining or not raining." And I say this is a fact that is known to humans to 100% certainity, I just think it is obvious, I don't see why in the world, this wouldn't be a true statement about the weather. I have tried to understand your claims, about things, such as "It is either raining apples or it is not raining apples." However, it just goes over my head, I can't see the issue at all, so I end up repeating myself, because I can't think of what else to say.

No sweat, brother!
After all, I am the one trying to communicate something to you, and it is my job to do it in a way that makes you understand the reasoning. So it´s me who failed, not you.

The funny thing is this fact was first brought to my attention by a metaphysician in the philosophy class I was taking, it was metaphysics. He had a Ph.D. in philosophy from Stanford, a prestigious university, and he said, this is a fact that is impossible to not be a fact, "It is either raining or not raining." We know this Apriori,

Yes, and this "a priori" is the crucial point. We know this beforehand exactly because that is what logic dictates. The statement adds no information to this logical axiom. It doens´t explain rain, it doesn´t even say anything about "weather", and for knowing that it is 100% of the time accurate there is no need to know anything beyond the structure of the sentence "either X or not X". This solely is what makes it "true". In order for it to become a statement about the weather it would have to give information about the weather, beyond the mere logical axiom that something cannot be and not be simultaneously.
But it doesn´t.
Btw. calling an "either X or not X" statement a "fact" is abuse of language, anyways. A "fact" would be "it rains" or "it doesn´t rain". "It either rains or it doesn´t" exactly avoids giving a fact about the weather. However, it does state a logical axiom.

and we agreed with it, the whole class agreed with it, and when I try to share this experience with people, they don't agree it is a fact about the weather. It is really weird.

I can feel your amazement and frustration.
Well, firstly philosophy professors have a way with words. They can make almost everything appear spontaneously plausible to people who don´t have their intellectual guards fully up.
Secondly, there´s always group phenomena.

I mean I try following what arguments people will say, why we are saying nothing about the weather, and I can't follow it.

Don´t forget that this is merely a semantics issue, in the first place. It is about words rather than about logic or facts.
The question whether "it rains or it doesn´t" is a "statement about the weather" is of no relevance for anything whatsoever.
The down to earth fact is: There is no situation conceivable in which this statement is useful, in which it gives anyone an information (that is not "a priori" known about logic, that is).

Now really, my only suspicion is that only ten to twenty percent of the population are evolved far enough along the line to understand how logic works. I feel that logic, is something that works, because contradictions cannot happen, it is a brute fact, that is impossible to not be a fact.

This is undisputed. That´s why it is accepted axiomatically and "a priori".

Why people come up with these elaborate arguments against this statement is something I don't understand.

I have nothing at all against this statement. It just isn´t a statement about the weather.

I mean I am serious if your right about what you are saying, it goes right over my head, and I can't believe it takes a Ph.D. from Stanford, to see this is a fact about the weather, it can't both rain ad not rain at the same time.

Yes, I understand that you are between a rock and a hard place. There is this professor who claims authority, and there´s me who claims expertise. And we say contradictory things.
Do you realize that philosophers through all times have vehemently disagreed upon most everything?
I´d surely like to discuss with your professor, and - who knows - maybe we could find out what´s the reason is for our seemingly contradicting conclusions. Usually, it´s a semantics issue.
Anyways, I encourage you not to stop questioning and doubting my elaborations, unless you find them convincing. Think for yourself. Don´t rely on self-proclaimed authorities.

I don't get it, I tried to get it, but either it is to advanced for me to see what your objection is, which honestly is what I suspect, or for some odd reason a person couldn't grasp the fact that we can use logic to find neccessairy conditions about nature, and life in general.

You have a quirk in your logic here. Above you said that logic is deduced from reality, now you would like logic to be the arbiter of reality. That´s circular, isn´t it?

I don't get it, I mean every time I talk about this, I just repeat what I am saying, and cannot understand how this could be wrong, when my philosophy professor agreed with it, and the students agreed with it. If it is good enough for them it is good enough for me.

I must say that I don´t find that a particularly good reason to adopt a view. That you find my arguments unconvincing, however, is a very good reason not to adopt my position.

Out of interest: Is this professor still your professor? What do you think of printing out our conversation and asking him to give his objections to my arguments?

I hope to talk to you later about something else, I think this just goes over my head really.

Sorry for causing you so much confusion and frustration!
Later!

 

[quatona]

Your statement a non sequitur

No matter what his statement is - it certainly isn´t a non-sequitur.

because there are other options that water in the air and get stuff wet. For example, where does rain stop and fog start?

That´s irrelevant for the accuracy of the statement. At the moment when it´s fog (whenever that might be) it isn´t rain. If, however, you count fog as rain, it is rain.

 

[DoubtingThomas29]

Hello Quotana,

I have to remeber that different philosophers disagree about different things. I find it strange, yet interesting to think about, that we can say apriori, we know it cannot both rain and not rain at the same time, when talking about weather in the usual sense. I kind of wish I could understand your objections to this knowledge, and why it says nothing about the weather. To me, as a person who only had one semester of phiolosohy, I feel that we are saying something about the weather, we are giving a necessairy condition about the weather. I see this as a fact that is impossible to not be a fact. I think of it like that. I wouldn't mind trying to understand your objections, but sadly, I feel that I probably couldn't even come close to understanding your objection, because I am so convinced, it is a true statement about the weather.

I don't know why so many people would even want to protest it, why not say, "hey I agree with that?"

I don't get it.

Some other notes for you about my professor, he was a metaphysician, which I find fascinating, because metaphysics, just about died out in the 1920's and has seen some revival in the english speaking world.

Now I know that Imanuel Kant, said that the problems of metaphysics are unknowable. So people are arguing about things that really are unknowable, but if there ever was a philosopher who said we can have no absolute knowledge about the world we live in, I feel that philosopher is wrong, because in a most seductive way, I think of how "It is either raining or not raining, and realize, that we know that about nature. However even so, that should fall more under epistemolgy, that barely touches anything from metaphysics.

Can you believe that I had a bonefide metaphysician, for a philosophy professor. He would talk about really strange stuff, that I couldn't follow really. I wouldn't mind trying that class again, I think I could apprecaiate it more the second time around. I remember he kept talking about red, the color red, for weeks. I can't remeber a thing about it, but I might want to try learning that again.

You see when I went through the class the first time, I was suffering from my mental illness, and I couldn't concentrate in class like I could when I was 19, soit was hard to follow much of anything, and I had to go to the professor after class and have them explain the whole thing to me again, where I would listen because they were right in front of me, which got my ruminations to clear up enough to do mental exercises, but in class, I was out of it, only half listening really.

I want to go back to school though I feel that I am recovered from my mental illness, and well rested, and I got a good attention span now, and my ruminations, have cleared up, I am not overly worried about any delusion, or problem for tha matter. So I think I will be able to enjoy school more the second time around, I hope to get a degree in computer science, I hope to take some philosophy while I am in school again, that would be nice to participate in the debates the second time around, with a healthier happier brain. Who would of thunk it? I miss school.

 

[quatona]

Hello Quotana,

I have to remeber that different philosophers disagree about different things. I find it strange, yet interesting to think about, that we can say apriori, we know it cannot both rain and not rain at the same time, when talking about weather in the usual sense. I kind of wish I could understand your objections to this knowledge, and why it says nothing about the weather.

Well, I do not object to this knowledge. The only thing I object to is that it is a statement about the weather. The term "a priori" (saying that we know it to be accurate already before we start thinking about the subject, here: the weather) gives it away.

To me, as a person who only had one semester of phiolosohy, I feel that we are saying something about the weather, we are giving a necessairy condition about the weather. I see this as a fact that is impossible to not be a fact. I think of it like that.

Well, the statement is undoubtedly accurate 100% of the time - if that´s any consolace.

I wouldn't mind trying to understand your objections, but sadly, I feel that I probably couldn't even come close to understanding your objection, because I am so convinced, it is a true statement about the weather.

That´s fine with me. However, you brought up the question and I gave you my opinion and put a lot of effort in giving my reasoning and explanations. The fact that you simply sit there and say "but I feel you are wrong" poses a problem for the discussion (I don´t say this to blame you or something) from my perspective. I am willing to put my reasoning and explanations to the test, I am willing to have it skeptically examined, and I am willing to reconsider in case someone points out a flaw in it.
But: that must happen, in the first place. It must at least be challenged, before I can defend it further.

So, we have the situation where what I say goes right over your head (either because it´s nonsense, or because I explain it poorly, or because you don´t have the capacities to get it), and I get no constructive feedback that would help me to improve my explanations.

I don't know why so many people would even want to protest it, why not say, "hey I agree with that?"

I wonder why and how - out of two different opinions - we can determine that one is the "prostesting" one. I don´t feel I protest anything. You asked a question and gave a poll, and I gave you my opinion and try to explain it.

I don't get it.

Some other notes for you about my professor, he was a metaphysician, which I find fascinating, because metaphysics, just about died out in the 1920's and has seen some revival in the english speaking world.

Now I know that Imanuel Kant, said that the problems of metaphysics are unknowable. So people are arguing about things that really are unknowable, but if there ever was a philosopher who said we can have no absolute knowledge about the world we live in, I feel that philosopher is wrong, because in a most seductive way, I think of how "It is either raining or not raining, and realize, that we know that about nature. However even so, that should fall more under epistemolgy, that barely touches anything from metaphysics.

My point is: It falls under "basic rules of logic" which are the ground on which both epistemology and metaphysics operate (hopefully! ).

Can you believe that I had a bonefide metaphysician, for a philosophy professor. He would talk about really strange stuff, that I couldn't follow really. I wouldn't mind trying that class again, I think I could apprecaiate it more the second time around. I remember he kept talking about red, the color red, for weeks. I can't remeber a thing about it, but I might want to try learning that again.

I could talk about red for a long time also.

You see when I went through the class the first time, I was suffering from my mental illness, and I couldn't concentrate in class like I could when I was 19, soit was hard to follow much of anything, and I had to go to the professor after class and have them explain the whole thing to me again, where I would listen because they were right in front of me, which got my ruminations to clear up enough to do mental exercises, but in class, I was out of it, only half listening really.

I want to go back to school though I feel that I am recovered from my mental illness, and well rested, and I got a good attention span now, and my ruminations, have cleared up, I am not overly worried about any delusion, or problem for tha matter. So I think I will be able to enjoy school more the second time around, I hope to get a degree in computer science, I hope to take some philosophy while I am in school again, that would be nice to participate in the debates the second time around, with a healthier happier brain. Who would of thunk it? I miss school.

I´m glad you have recovered and feel so much better now!
I´m not in the position to give you advice - but I certainly would encourage you to take advantage of education whereever there´s an opportunity.
All the best to you!