Meaninglessness of science mathematics religion- EVERYTHING

[David Gould]

But his statement that all views are self contradictory is either true or false.

If true, then his statement is itself self contradictory - and thus not true. If it is not true, we don't need to worry about it.

If false, then we don't need to worry about it.

 

[David Gould]

Eudaimonist beat me to it.

 

[Elspeth688]

You, however, are self-contradictory since you think that self-contradictory thought can actually prove that all thought is self-contradictory.

as dean says he and every one else is self contradictory
he has even shown science and maths are self contradictory
if u dont belive
go read his book

 

[Eudaimonist]

as dean says he and every one else is self contradictory
he has even shown science and maths are self contradictory
if u dont belive
go read his book

To read his self-contradictory, and therefore unjustified, conclusions?

I don't need to read his book. Anyone who tries to use thought to prove that thought is self-contradictory has already enbroiled himself in a contradiction. The project is, and must be, doomed from the start. Dean cannot prove himself correct, even with the I.Q. of ten thousand Aristotles.

What if I were to say: "I have seen clear evidence that the power of sight is in all cases invalid as an epistemological tool"?

If sight is in all cases invalid as an epistemological tool, how could I have "seen" this evidence? How could whatever it is I thought I saw be taken as evidence? Such a claim could never be successful.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[IzzyPop]

sorrry einstein
the law of idenity deals withis essence
go read aristoles metapghysics

You gave me 3 quotes. Not a one of them dealt with 'essence'. They did deal with existence. There is a difference.

 

[IzzyPop]

sorry u have not
u thought meaninglessness =existentialism
untill i showed you that for dean even existentialism = meaninglesness
so dean has taken u to a completly new place -a place one step beyound existentialism
where everything is meaningless or self-contradictory

so you have a complelty new thing to think about and end up some thoughts that will be meaniglessnes

you have not been hear before
as you thinking meaningless of the universe was what dean was on about
but the view" the universe is meaningless" it self ends in self contradiction or meaninglessnes SO YOU R AT A COMPLELTY NEWWWWWWWWWW PLACE

So this is a step beyond existentialism, but it lands you in the same place? The whole starting point of existentialism is the the universe is meaningless. If something has no meaning, how can it contradict anything?

 

[Eudaimonist]

So this is a step beyond existentialism, but it lands you in the same place? The whole starting point of existentialism is the the universe is meaningless. If something has no meaning, how can it contradict anything?

I think that's an equivocation on the word "meaningless". When the existentialists use it, they mean "devoid of unchosen purpose". When Dean uses it, he means "incomprehensible". Those are two different concepts.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[IzzyPop]

I think that's an equivocation on the word "meaningless". When the existentialists use it, they mean "devoid of unchosen purpose". When Dean uses it, he means "incomprehensible". Those are two different concepts.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Either way you still arrive at the same end point, though. You either assign some arbitrary, subjective meaning to your life, or succumb to agnst and off yourself.

 

[Elspeth688]

But his statement that all views are self contradictory is either true or false.

If true, then his statement is itself self contradictory - and thus not true. If it is not true, we don't need to worry about it.

If false, then we don't need to worry about it.

nevertheless hey dean has shown the most rational of human indevours ie maths is meaningless ie self contradictory

and it is no god [pointing out dean is meaningles since that is what he would say
but you r still left with the meaninglesness of EVERYTHING ELSE
ie maths and science for a start

 

[Elspeth688]

You gave me 3 quotes. Not a one of them dealt with 'essence'. They did deal with existence. There is a difference.

einstien what exactly is not clear with the folowing quote
u obviously dont understand essence ontology at all or the laws of logic or the law of non- contradiction

a horse is not a cow because they have diiferent defining chracteristics ie essence- they are ontologicaly differenbt - thus if you say that thing is both a horse and cow you violate the law of non contradiction by breaking the law of idenity

[FONT=&quot]Thus as O’ Hear notes, logic is not ontologically neutral it implies an ontology. Again as he notes “[l]ogic, indeed is not metaphysically neutral but may well reveal the types of things various forms of thought and argument commit us to.”[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT] Putnam similarly claims that logic derives from metaphysics the belief in substances. As he notes, “[w]e get at the very beginning of logic, a metaphysics accompanying it and conditioning it.”[FONT=&quot][2][/FONT] Heidegger argued that “logic [is to ] be investigated on the ontological level. Symbolic logic also requires such a “founding” or ontological interpretation.”[FONT=&quot][3][/FONT] [/FONT]

 

[Tynan]

and it is no god [pointing out dean is meaningles since that is what he would say

Why can we not point out that Dean is meaningless ?

 

[Eudaimonist]

and it is no god [pointing out dean is meaningles since that is what he would say

Then it is GAME OVER for Dean. If his argument is meaningless, it doesn't have to mean anything to us either. It has no truth value. He has shot himself in the foot before even starting the race.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

yes but so is everything else
it is no use trying to refute dean by saying he is self-conytradictory becasuse every view including his is is self contradictory

even if u proved him to be self contradictory
yiou are stil left with every other view being self contradictory

he is not saying every view is self contradictory except his
he is saying ALLLLLLL VIEWS ARE SELF CONTRADICTORY

do you understand the word ALLLL

Yes, I think I understand the word "all", and I was explicitly referring to it. So what reason do I have to pay more attention to Dean´s self-contradictory and and meaningless view than to any other self-contradictory and meaningless view?

 

[quatona]

nevertheless hey dean has shown the most rational of human indevours ie maths is meaningless ie self contradictory

Come to think of it, something can not be meaningless and self-contradictory.

and it is no god [pointing out dean is meaningles since that is what he would say
but you r still left with the meaninglesness of EVERYTHING ELSE
ie maths and science for a start

Again: so what?
Science and mathematics are at least pragmatically useful and useable. That´s what I value and appreciate them for.

 

[Elspeth688]

Again: so what?
Science and mathematics are at least pragmatically useful and useable. That´s what I value and appreciate them for.

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

 

[Elspeth688]

So what reason do I have to pay more attention to Dean´s self-contradictory and and meaningless view than to any other self-contradictory and meaningless view?

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

 

[Elspeth688]

Then it is GAME OVER for Dean. If his argument is meaningless, it doesn't have to mean anything to us either. It has no truth value. He has shot himself in the foot before even starting the race.

YES
BUT U R STILL LEFT WITH EVERY THING ELSE AS SHOTTING ITSELF IN THE FOOT TO
ie maths and science as well

 

[IzzyPop]

einstien what exactly is not clear with the folowing quote

Well, Shakespeare, I'm going to have to say that the following statement is not clear:
[FONT=&quot]

Putnam similarly claims that logic derives from metaphysics the belief in substances. As he notes, “[w]e get at the very beginning of logic, a metaphysics accompanying it and conditioning it.”

It is either missing punctuation (did you write it?) or complete and utter hogwash in its current state. Either way it is pretty unclear.

[/FONT]

u obviously dont understand essence ontology at all or the laws of logic or the law of non- contradiction

I understand them pretty well. Well enough to poke holes in your precious Dean and his new-age existentialism.

a horse is not a cow because they have diiferent defining chracteristics ie essence- they are ontologicaly differenbt - thus if you say that thing is both a horse and cow you violate the law of non contradiction by breaking the law of idenity

Well, Shakespeare, the only thing you have proven is that you do not understand non contradiction. Something could be a cow and a horse at the same time. Something cannot be a cow and a 'not cow' at the same time.

All of this still does nothing to my original question: How does this leave you in any different spot then existentialism?

 

[Eudaimonist]

YES
BUT U R STILL LEFT WITH EVERY THING ELSE AS SHOTTING ITSELF IN THE FOOT TO
ie maths and science as well

You have not successfully shown this to be the case. Indeed, you can't. It is actually impossible for you to do so.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Elspeth688]

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

1. 1. That which has mass and occupies space; matter.
   2. A material of a particular kind or constitution.
2. 1. Essential nature; essence.

and from

plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/#SubEss

Aristotle's preliminary answer (Z.4) to the question “What is substance?” is that substance is essence,

Aristotle turns in Ζ.4 to a consideration of the next candidate for substance: essence. (‘Essence’ is the standard English translation of Aristotle's curious phrase to ti ên einai, literally “the what it was to be” for a thing. This phrase so boggled his Roman translators that they coined the word essentia to render the entire phrase, and it is from this Latin word that ours derives. Aristotle also sometimes uses the shorter phrase to ti esti, literally “the what it is,” for approximately the same idea.) In his logical works, Aristotle links the notion of essence to that of definition (horismos) — “a definition is an account (logos) that signifies an essence” (Topics 102a3) — and he links both of these notions to a certain kind of per se predication (kath’ hauto, literally, “in respect of itself&#8221 — “what belongs to a thing in respect of itself belongs to it in its essence (en tôi ti esti)” for we refer to it “in the account that states the essence” (Posterior Analytics, 73a34-5). He reiterates these ideas in Ζ.4: “there is an essence of just those things whose logos is a definition” (1030a6), “the essence of a thing is what it is said to be in respect of itself” (1029b14). It is important to remember that for Aristotle, one defines things, not words. The definition of tiger does not tell us the meaning of the word ‘tiger’; it tells us what it is to be a tiger, what a tiger is said to be in respect of itself. Thus, the definition of tiger states the essence — the “what it is to be” of a tiger, what is predicated of the tiger per se.