DrWho wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Pay close attention. Most of us use logic as it is intended. That is to solve certain riddles within the domain where logic actually yields a result. You OTH are trying to use logic to justify logic. Big problem there and you should stop down to the circularity department and get the proper forms.

No. You are the one who insists that reason grounds itself not I. Can you prove the axioms of logic? Nobody can. It's impossible. Your reasoning is circular not mine. I can 'just admit' that I believe certain things but cannot prove them logically. That sort of assertion makes you uncomfortable so you want to say that it's just 'non-sense' to question the axioms of reason which is really just to trust that your brain understands correctly. That's faith brother.

You are not comprehending. I insist that reason can be rationally justified not proven with your silly syllogisms and ideas about logic.

SpeedOfSound wrote:
You are not comprehending. I insist that reason can be rationally justified not proven with your silly syllogisms and ideas about logic.

Anyway, I don't see this discussion going much further. I have said everything I have to say. I re-entered the discussion only to finish a discussion with you and it seems like its run its course. So, you people, will have to manage without me now. Have fun.

Dr. Who. Are you talking about the Faith with a capital F as in blind faith or the one I use which means deep trust in what you have rationally justified?

DrWho wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:
You are not comprehending. I insist that reason can be rationally justified not proven with your silly syllogisms and ideas about logic.

Anyway, I don't see this discussion going much further. I have said everything I have to say. I re-entered the discussion only to finish a discussion with you and it seems like its run its course. So, you people, will have to manage without me now. Have fun.

Yeah my brain seizes up like that too now and then. But I think if we just got back to some clarity on what you really mean by faith and rationally justify we could straighten this out a little. I suspect you may just have one or two thin clouds hovering over the truth of the matter that need to clear.

SpeedOfSound wrote:Dr. Who. Are you talking about the Faith with a capital F as in blind faith or the one I use which means deep trust in what you have rationally justified?

I'll try to answer this...

I am a supreme advocate of logic. Science, for example, requires logic. I tend to believe well-tested scientific propostions. I require lots of evidence that scientfic propositions are true. That's one reason why I think string theory is just speculative metaphysics - there is not one shred of evidence to support it.

But if one keeps demanding reasons, if one keeps asking 'why' something is true, then one eventually gets to some ground level propositions that I cannot prove by means of logic. Somethings are ridiculous to question like "how i know that I am not crazy?'.

I think we are on the same page so far...

So, for most of what I believe, I demand exacting evidence. In fact, I demand evidence in every case where evidence is possible. But, again, when I push the questions back far enough I run into a wall - there are some deep ground level propostions that seem impossible to prove and where the domain of evidence and reason does not extend. for example, the following propostions seem to be impossible to prove:

(1) The principle of suffifient reason
(2) Objects exist when not being percieved
(3) Our minds grasp reality
(4) The future will resemble the past
(5) I am not crazy

Now, I would love really love to be able to prove these propostions are true, but, after many years of sincere reflection, I find that I cannot. And yet, I seem believe them anyway. Somethings I can't prove to be true but seem absured to doubt and I am unable to disbelieve anyway. And what is more, I must accept these propostions as true in order to prove the truths of science and expose theism as falsely grounded.

These propostions strike me as pre-requisites to being rational and so naturally stand outside the possibility of proofs.

You might say that these propositions are absurd to doubt.

I agree. But then, like a good rationalist I look inisde myself and ask if I can prove it. The answer is No. Thus, I seem to be just trusting my brain to supply a foundation for rational discourse.

Now, you tell me whether that is an upper case "F" or a lower case "f".

But those few propositions are the only ones I accept on trust (or faith). And I take them on trust begrudgingly.

But I have found that what appeared to be a huge concession, is really not much of a concession at all. In fact, I think the rationalist gains more credibility by being honest about the limitations of logic than trying to make logic appear to have unlimited godlike powers.

If you think these things have no rational justification and you are relying on just the way your brain is then it seems like we have a capital F here.

Your mistake is that you want to use the methods used for the particulars to ground these universals. You need another method. A more transcendent method. If you look at each question and carefully understand the nature of the question you can find your grounding even if that ground comes from clarifying that the question itself makes no sense. Sometimes you will find the grounding in the very fact that you can ask the question at all.

So. You need to switch up your methodology and stop having such a narrow view of how things are rationally justified.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

So. You need to switch up your methodology and stop having such a narrow view of how things are rationally justified.

Gosh, it's so nice of you to tell me what I need.

And on that note, I am done. I've said all I have to say and I haven't heard any substantial objection to my thesis. I have heard alot of immaturity. I don't think many people even understand the issue. But that's OK few are as brilliant (or educated) as myself. But I must not hold other people to an unfair standard; I need to be kind to people less smart and less informed than me.

...see, I'm a nice guy too

DrWho wrote:And I understand Hume better than anyone here, but I have no time to teach philiosphopy.

Let the spoon-bending begin.

DrWho wrote:I have said everything I have to say.

He said, for perhaps the fifth time.

DrWho wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:Dr. Who. Are you talking about the Faith with a capital F as in blind faith or the one I use which means deep trust in what you have rationally justified?

I'll try to answer this...

I am a supreme advocate of logic.

the following propostions seem to be impossible to prove:

(1) The principle of suffifient reason
(2) Objects exist when not being percieved
(3) Our minds grasp reality
(4) The future will resemble the past
(5) I am not crazy

Now, I would love really love to be able to prove these propostions are true, but, after many years of sincere reflection, I find that I cannot. And yet, I seem believe them anyway.

Maybe they're false! As you imply by having only faith in them! Did you ever stop to consider that your probative talents are lacking?

DrWho wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

So. You need to switch up your methodology and stop having such a narrow view of how things are rationally justified.

Gosh, it's so nice of you to tell me what I need.

And on that note, I am done. I've said all I have to say and I haven't heard any substantial objection to my thesis. I have heard alot of immaturity. I don't think many people even understand the issue. But that's OK few are as brilliant (or educated) as myself. But I must not hold other people to an unfair standard; I need to be kind to people less smart and less informed than me.

...see, I'm a nice guy too

I acknowledge that it appears you are far too smart to learn from someone like myself.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

I acknowledge that it appears you are far too smart to learn from someone like myself.

Thanks

I didn't really expect such a humble response. You are definitely the bigger person. I am humbled by your refreshing humility.

DrWho wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

I acknowledge that it appears you are far too smart to learn from someone like myself.

Thanks

I didn't really expect such a humble response. You are definitely the bigger person. I am humbled by your refreshing humility.

Don't let it go to your head.

Well shit. Let's say we all chew on james for awhile. Where is he?

SpeedOfSound wrote:Well shit. Let's say we all chew on james for awhile. Where is he?

I've been writing my acceptance speech for the next nobel prize. Be prepared, as they say.

Cito di Pense wrote:

DrWho wrote:And I understand Hume better than anyone here, but I have no time to teach philiosphopy.

Let the spoon-bending begin.

Remember, all of the Doc's statements are grounded in faith, as proclaimed by himself. There's no reason to take anything he says seriously, then.

I understand Hume better than anyone. Living in cold & rainy Edinburgh (albeit a beautiful and interesting city), he was bound to doubt whether the sun would make an appearance the next day.

jamest wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:Well shit. Let's say we all chew on james for awhile. Where is he?

I've been writing my acceptance speech for the next nobel prize. Be prepared, as they say.

They have a prize for obfuscation?

SpeedOfSound wrote:

jamest wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:Well shit. Let's say we all chew on james for awhile. Where is he?

I've been writing my acceptance speech for the next nobel prize. Be prepared, as they say.

They have a prize for obfuscation?

Don't knock obfuscation. Look what it did for Nietzsche in atheist circles.

jamest wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

DrWho wrote:And I understand Hume better than anyone here, but I have no time to teach philiosphopy.

Let the spoon-bending begin.

Remember, all of the Doc's statements are grounded in faith, as proclaimed by himself. There's no reason to take anything he says seriously, then.

I understand Hume better than anyone. Living in cold & rainy Edinburgh (albeit a beautiful and interesting city), he was bound to doubt whether the sun would make an appearance the next day.

Hear! Hear! I, too, live in a cold & and rainy city, much like Edinburgh, perhaps a bit less stony. I even have a firth or two nearby, at least within several hours by automobile. If only I lived in the 18th Century, or whenever the fuck it was. It would have taken me all fucking day to get to the coast.

What's next for you, Jimbo, with your incisive understanding of Hume? Induction into the Hall of Fame?

DrWho wrote:I've said all I have to say and I haven't heard any substantial objection to my thesis.

This has a chance of being truthful. Of course, it could be uttered by anyone also busy saying "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEARRRR YOU!"

Cito di Pense wrote:

jamest wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Let the spoon-bending begin.

Remember, all of the Doc's statements are grounded in faith, as proclaimed by himself. There's no reason to take anything he says seriously, then.

I understand Hume better than anyone. Living in cold & rainy Edinburgh (albeit a beautiful and interesting city), he was bound to doubt whether the sun would make an appearance the next day.

Hear! Hear! I, too, live in a cold & and rainy city, much like Edinburgh, perhaps a bit less stony. I even have a firth or two nearby, at least within several hours by automobile. If only I lived in the 18th Century, or whenever the fuck it was. It would have taken me all fucking day to get to the coast.

If my suspicions about your placement are correct, then you'd have spent all day wondering where the fuck your city had gone.

What's next for you, Jimbo, with your incisive understanding of Hume? Induction into the Hall of Fame?

No, it's too hot and dry there.