Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That does nothing to clarify Putnam's position. And you are ignoring other, more cogent, questions about your position.substances have been taken to to be
note nu 3 it does say essence i think
http://www.answers.com/topic/substance?cat=biz-fin
and from
i gave you a proof of the illogicality of logic due to the notuion of essence u said logic does not have essence -to show if our very logic we use in arguments is meaningless then all our arguments have no epistemic worth be cause the loguc we use is meaningless ie self contradictory - and in terms of loguics own standards is not trueThat does nothing to clarify Putnam's position. And you are ignoring other, more cogent, questions about your position.
Ok, but where´s the problem? I give it meaning and this meaning is good enough for me.that is fine but intellectually the univere is a meaningless self contradictory chaos even though u can make a pc THE UNIVERSE IS CHAOS MEANINGLESSNESS
This idea seems to be of great meaning and importance to you.WITH EVERY THING BEING MEANINGLESS THEN EVERY THING HAS EQUAL EPISTEMIC WORTH
so yes just thriow a dart at a idea and it will be as good as any one else-EPISTEMOLOGIALLY
There are gaps, but I'm tired of arguing the petty points. Let us suppose that you are correct and 'everything is meaningless'. How does the practical application of this philosophy differ from the practical application of existentialism? You are still left with 2 options that I can see. Make you own meaning or give in to the despair that the universe is meaningless.i gave you a proof of the illogicality of logic due to the notuion of essence u said logic does not have essence -to show if our very logic we use in arguments is meaningless then all our arguments have no epistemic worth be cause the loguc we use is meaningless ie self contradictory - and in terms of loguics own standards is not true
i have given u 3 people who say logic has an ontology ie essence u did not know what substance was i quote a definition and aristotle to show substance = essence
if u dont get it now then that is you problem of understanding
both solutions end in meaninglessnessMake you own meaning or give in to the despair that the universe is meaningless.
Last time I checked there was but one logic.just use another logic -simple
I don´t, but to tell from your posts you seem to try to use logic just as much as everyone else.why do u assume the logic u use is a tool for truth any way
there is paraconsitent logicLast time I checked there was but one logic
I am talking about the most basic logic here. The mere fact that you write down words and expect them to be - more or less - understood tells me that you find it useful, too. Alternatively we could agree to abandon it for purposes of this thread, and then everyone could talk nonsense as they please.there is paraconsitent logic
quantum logic
3 value logic
symbolic logic
propostional logic
etc
It is not my logic, it is the logic that everyone - including you and this Dean fellow - axiomatically and nolens volens accepts for a standard as soon as they open their mouthes. Logic doesn´t make the world meaningless. Your definition of "meaning" makes the world meaningless.if your logic majkes your world meaningless try another logic
Or get rid of these obscure ideas of "truth" and "meaning" (in your definition) altogether.u see the existentialist when they say the world was meaningless still thought that the logic they used to arrive at that idea had meaning and was a tool for truth -thus they fell into self contradiction
all they had to do instead of comiting sucide was just change there logic hahaha
meaningless = self contradictionOr get rid of these obscure ideas of "truth" and "meaning" (in your definition) altogether.
Illogical. If something has no meaning it can´t be self-contradictory.meaningless = self contradiction
That´s basically a repetition of your previous post.everything evenn the existentialist end in self contradiction
to escape from that
just get rid of the logic that generated the self-contradiction of EVERYTHING
u see the existentialist when they say the world was meaningless still thought that the logic they used to arrive at that idea had meaning and was a tool for truth -thus they fell into self contradiction
all they had to do instead of comiting sucide was just change there logic hahaha
You are missing the whole point I am trying to make. How you arrive at the idea that the universe is meaningless is not important. What you do once that conclusion is arrived at is important. That is where I do not see the difference in the idea you are proposing and existentialism.there is paraconsitent logic
quantum logic
3 value logic
symbolic logic
propostional logic
etc
if your logic majkes your world meaningless try another logic
u see the existentialist when they say the world was meaningless still thought that the logic they used to arrive at that idea had meaning and was a tool for truth -thus they fell into self contradiction
all they had to do instead of comiting sucide was just change there logic hahaha
These are models of logic. Binary logic, tertiary logic, etc, are all equivalent logical models. 100 and 4 may look different at face value, but when one understands that the latter is binary and the latter is decimal, it is clear that they are equivalent.there is paraconsitent logic
quantum logic
3 value logic
symbolic logic
propostional logic
etc
You are confusing terminology. Meaningless, to the existentialist, does not mean 'self-contradictory', as you strangely define it.if your logic majkes your world meaningless try another logic
u see the existentialist when they say the world was meaningless still thought that the logic they used to arrive at that idea had meaning and was a tool for truth -thus they fell into self contradiction
all they had to do instead of comiting sucide was just change there logic hahaha
dean is saying self-contradiction is the same as meaninglessnessIllogical. If something has no meaning it can´t be self-contradictory
dean is saying the existentalist notion of meaninglesness wil end in self contradictionMeaningless, to the existentialist, does not mean 'self-contradictory', as you strangely define it.
Just because the self-contradictory has no meaning, does not mean the meaningless is self-contradictory.dean is saying self-contradiction is the same as meaninglessness
for if something is self contradictory it is nonses or meaningless
Dean can say what he wants. However, can he demonstrate that existential nihilism is ultimately self-contradictory? Indeed, I fail to see how it could possibly be, because it is merely taking existential thought to it's logical conclusion.dean is saying the existentalist notion of meaninglesness wil end in self contradiction
and self contradiction for dean is the samre as meaningless
he is useing meaningless in a diiif sense to them
sureDean can say what he wants. However, can he demonstrate that existential nihilism is ultimately self-contradictory?
Correct, but I would be careful about how you use the words 'all' and 'meaningless'.sure
they use logic to arrive at the idea all is meaningless
How so? Logic is the way sentient beings should think. It is rational, and unbiased.but the one thing that is not meaningless is the logic they use
No, they do not. The existentialist sees meaningless as equivalent to purposeless, not senseless.to say the world is meaningless in their sense they need something which is not meanigless to make that truth claim
See above. You are confusing three different definitions of meaningless:but if logic is not meaningless - in their sense then the world is not meaningless in their sense thus self contradiction
I question whether you actually believe this, or are playing the Devil's advocate.they are like all sceptics and nihlists they say their views based upon the beleife that the logic they use is a tool for truth
same for the existentalist
they commited sucide because their logic told them the worl was meaningless based upon the view that their logic was a tool for truth and thus the world could not be meangless since logic had meaning so the idoits killed themselves all over their belife that logic had meaning HAHAHAHASHAHA
yes i do and so does deanthey are like all sceptics and nihlists they say their views based upon the beleife that the logic they use is a tool for truth
same for the existentalist
they commited sucide because their logic told them the worl was meaningless based upon the view that their logic was a tool for truth and thus the world could not be meangless since logic had meaning so the idoits killed themselves all over their belife that logic had meaning HAHAHAHASHAHA
How so? Logic is the way sentient beings should think. It is rational, and unbiased.
But it is ultimately meaningless. It has no purpose.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?