|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Feb 9th, 2004 04:46 PM | ||
| kellychaos | The lubircation of my anal menstruation is a demonstration of my cranial constipation ... indeed and rightly so! | |
| Feb 8th, 2004 10:06 AM | ||
| mburbank | It's an apt comparison. In both cases you made absurd statements that showed you to be a tool. | |
| Feb 7th, 2004 09:45 PM | ||
| The One and Only... |
My family recovered from bankruptcy years ago. We're above-average economically at this point. Although I fail to see what that has to do with the Aristotle comparison. |
|
| Feb 7th, 2004 09:37 PM | ||
| AChimp | Yeah, but Shaq makes millions of dollars, so he's entitled to be a little eccentric. OAO, on the otherhand, is barely recovering from bankruptcy. | |
| Feb 7th, 2004 08:51 PM | ||
| theapportioner | Shaq did. | |
| Feb 7th, 2004 08:48 PM | ||
| mburbank | I'm still trying to process OAO comparing himself with Aristotle. | |
| Feb 7th, 2004 06:08 PM | ||
| Rez |
let me *restate* then, if it suits you  i know everything i want to know about OAO so i dont care for him to theorize to us nor go into any great detail about what he is as a person. k? |
|
| Feb 7th, 2004 05:45 PM | ||
| theapportioner | You just did, in more ways than one. | |
| Feb 7th, 2004 05:40 PM | ||
| Rez | you're a self-important cunt with verbal dysentry, *thus* i dont give a shit what you are. | |
| Feb 7th, 2004 05:08 PM | ||
| theapportioner |
That example confuses knowledge with truth. Deductively, you could come to that conclusion from certain premises. "The perception of them must exist" may be a valid conclusion - it may be true by definition, but this is distinct from R v E. How do we know that it is true - we don't know, or we can't validate something by the definitions alone. Es and Rs would say that you know by intuition, reason, experience, etc. I think that the Rs and/or Es don't give a satisfactory explanation of what it means to know. Take the expression "hail!". What does it mean? How does one know what it means, how does one know if its usage is correct or not? Obviously you need the ability to think and a familiarity of the English language, but something else is required - context. |
|
| Feb 7th, 2004 04:34 PM | ||
| kellychaos | SEE?! | |
| Feb 7th, 2004 04:32 PM | ||
| The One and Only... |
Quote:
|
|
| Feb 7th, 2004 04:25 PM | ||
| kellychaos |
Does anyone remember the jailhouse philosopher character that Damon Wayans used to portray on "In Living Color"? "The emancipation gesticulation of man ultimately leads to the lubrication of the menstuation of the female ... unecessarily." OAO in a nutshell. |
|
| Feb 7th, 2004 03:55 PM | ||
| theapportioner | Going by that, then I have no idea how practical knowledge is relevant either. It is my opinion that neither rationalism or empiricism, nor a synthesis, can deal with it. | |
| Feb 7th, 2004 01:48 PM | ||
| The One and Only... |
Quote:
Aside from that, knowing the alphabet does take thought. |
|
| Feb 7th, 2004 09:57 AM | ||
| Cosmo Electrolux | this board needs an enema icon for OAO | |
| Feb 7th, 2004 12:43 AM | ||
| theapportioner | This board needs a :tsunami emoticon for OAO. | |
| Feb 7th, 2004 12:38 AM | ||
| Brandon |
Quote:
|
|
| Feb 7th, 2004 12:29 AM | ||
| theapportioner | At any rate, I think your idea of knowledge is a narrow one. Knowing the alphabet, for instance, does not require an argument. | |
| Feb 7th, 2004 12:22 AM | ||
| theapportioner | Well, to give you a little insight as to where Aristotle's coming from, in De Anima, he lays out this whole hierarchy of soul. At the top is the active mind, the only aspect of soul that is immortal. The lower aspects (sensitive, nutritive) die when the body dies. The active mind, or the power to think, can't really do anything when it is separated from the body. | |
| Feb 6th, 2004 10:37 PM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore | Okay, I've changed my mind. His threads should be locked.... | |
| Feb 6th, 2004 09:57 PM | ||
| Brandon |
Quote:
And yes, the logical argument uses the data and finalizes the knowledge, but without the data, there wouldn't be anything with which to actually construct the argument in the first place. Like I said, both empirical data and reason are necessary to create "knowledge." |
|
| Feb 6th, 2004 09:47 PM | ||
| The One and Only... |
Rationalists have always admitted that sense experience can provide some knowledge. Aside from myself... Recall that I believe even though sense data is a necessary component, it does not provide knowledge. What provides knowledge - and practical knowledge, rather than absolute, mind you - is the logical argument which uses the data. Also note that we inherently know how to inductively reason. In other words, is Aristotle incorrectly labelled an empiricist? |
|
| Feb 6th, 2004 09:34 PM | ||
| Brandon |
Didn't we have this discussion a million times before? Without induction and sense data, reason has nothing to evaluate, and without reason, sense data is meaningless and random. Why do you have such a hard time accepting that both rationalism and empiricism are important? |
|
| Feb 6th, 2004 09:19 PM | ||
| The One and Only... |
Wait a second... I'm really an empiricist? After doing some reading in my textbook, I discovered that Aristotle's epistemological view is somewhat similar to my: that is, that ultimately, all logical arguments can be brought back to an inductive premise. Thus, Aristotle, much like myself, thought that everything which we initially learn without deductive processes was by virtue of induction, rather than intuition or the like. The thing that disturbs me is that Aristotle has been portrayed as a classical empiricist. But, you see, I just don't fit the empiricist's bill. I'll grant you that our initial existential knowledge is created via induction - but induction, regardless of the fact that it is based on experience, is still a logical process. And, thus, it is not experience itself which delivers knowledge. Or, perhaps I am misunderstanding what is meant by empiricism? |
|
