Exclude to Affirm

[quatona]

Reread your above post; you have effectively excluded by affectively counting.

Yes, sure, that´s what I said. All exclusive affirmations exclude other options. Just like all red objects are red. That´s how language works.
That doesn´t mean that the method that leads to affirmation is necessarily exclusion. Exclusion can be the result of other affirmative methods.
Example: counting.

Again, I do not contend that we affectively exclude all other possibilities;
I contend that we effectively do it.

Ok. I thought your point were less trivial. Of course an exclusive affirmation is, well, exclusive.
I thought you were saying that an exclusive affirmation was always the effect/result of exclusion.

 

[bricklayer]

Yes, sure, that´s what I said. All exclusive affirmations exclude other options. Just like all red objects are red. That´s how language works.
That doesn´t mean that the method that leads to affirmation is necessarily exclusion. Exclusion can be the result of other affirmative methods.
Example: counting.

Ok. I thought your point were less trivial. Of course an exclusive affirmation is, well, exclusive.
I thought you were saying that an exclusive affirmation was always the effect/result of exclusion.

One small step at a time.
Small step = "trivial"? Sure, I can see that.

There are significant implications to the first-principle of exclusion beyond its exclusive nature and our inclusive ways to short cut that process.
I was addressing some posts regarding that one "trivial" point, yours among them. I will take note to disregard in the future.

 

[quatona]

One small step at a time.
Small step = "trivial"? Sure, I can see that.

Personally, I don´t consider a mere tautology a step or any sort of progress.

There are significant implications to the first-principle of exclusion beyond its exclusive nature and our inclusive ways to short cut that process.
I was addressing some posts regarding that one "trivial" point, yours among them. I will take note to disregard in the future.

Ok. I guess I was mislead by your thread title "exclude to affirm".

 

[bricklayer]

Personally, I don´t consider a mere tautology a step or any sort of progress.


Ok. I guess I was mislead by your thread title "exclude to affirm".

A perfect philosophical proof (beyond me) is a logical sequence of tautologies premised on truth.

My title was to draw attention to the fact that we do indeed EFFECTIVELY exhaustively exclude. The fact that we do not affectively exhaustively exclude is rather common knowledge. i did not find it as interesting.

 

[quatona]

A perfect philosophical proof (beyond me) is a logical sequence of tautologies premised on truth.

I guess that explains our differences. To me, a tautology is merely confirming semantics and has no epistemological value or epistemological implications beyond that.

 

[bricklayer]

I guess that explains our differences. To me, a tautology is merely confirming semantics and has no epistemological value or epistemological implications beyond that.

Glad I could help.
I can see where that would seem odd.

In philosophy, each "step" should be self-evident, follow and lead logically.

 

[quatona]

In philosophy, each "step" should be self-evident, follow and lead logically.

No disagreement there.