Posted: Apr 15, 2012 2:27 am
by jamest
asdfjkl wrote:OK I am tired of people criticizing the way I post (no one on other forums does it) so I'll talk normally.

It's annoying to know that you can write like this. This is a philosophy forum, not facebook. Please respect that fact and continue to make the maximum amount of effort to make yourself as intelligible as possible, especially when you've got serious points to make or questions to ask. Now we know you are actually capable of communicating properly (I suspect, like me, many of us thought you were just uneducated or somehow impaired), please do not backslide.

Then I realized that there are paradoxes that are self-evident.

What paradoxes? You cannot make a comment like this without explaining yourself.

That would mean that logic is not a universal absolute and that self-evidence trumps it.

What? Fuck me, no thing can be 'evident' to the self which has not been rationally assessed. Do you think that the observation of [say] 'a tree', requires no thought in order to comprehend that it is a tree?

Without thought/judgement, observations would be meaningless, since you wouldn't have a clue about anything you were witnessing. You wouldn't even have a clue about your [relational] self.

... So, saying self-evidence trumps logic/reason, is akin to saying that guns trump weapons.

Then I realized that self-evident things (the ones you directly perceive) are irrefutable; eg no matter how you put it, when you're observing a computer you're not observing a goose.

When I'm observing Tom, I'm not observing Jerry. Does this mean that Tom & Jerry exist? No. So, of what relevance to metaphysics (and yes, every one of your threads is essentially an exploration into the metaphysical) is the term 'self evident', as you use it? It's of no relevance at all.

I tried explaining this to you in the other thread, but you don't appear to understand.

Self-evident things exist for sure

That's bollocks. You're not taking into account that the reality of something must be independent of your observation of it. That is, observing something is not synonymous with the thing's actual existence.

and self-evidence and existence sort of became synonymous in my mind, with logic becoming a flawed process.

:ill: