Don’t listen to these fools, SM. The Vienna Circle were straight philosophical gangstas; all those other schools were chump change compared to these dudes. They had continental philosophy on lock-down like a power posse of positivist pimps, and Bert ran that shit kingpin style.
These niggas got beef with Bert?
Aw shucks Armi……
[size=50]I hope you don’t call yourself a philosopher[/size]
I was not talking about the Vienna Circle (Wiener Kreis).
Is there anything you can interpret correctly?
I also did not say anything against Bertrand Russell. I merely said where he philosophically came from.
If you want to put dirt on Russell’s philosophically biography, then it is your flaw.
The German philosopher, logician, mathematician Friedrich Ludwig Gottlob Frege (1848-1925), the father of analytic philosophy, thus the philosophical father of Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) and all other analytic philosophers.
If it’s philosophical, no, absolutely not.
Armi wrote:
This is where the pre-1900 German philosophers (granted excluding Frege) diverge from the likes of Bertrand Russell and Einstein (German, but firstly a scientist); men who DID excel in science yet still were able to discuss avowedly philosophical subjects from an intelligent and respected point of view.
and from your ‘just for example’…….
In a famous episode, Bertrand Russell wrote to Frege, just as Vol. 2 of the Grundgesetze was about to go to press in 1903, showing that Russell’s paradox could be derived from Frege’s Basic Law V. It is easy to define the relation of membership of a set or extension in Frege’s system; Russell then drew attention to “the set of things x that are such that x is not a member of x”. The system of the Grundgesetze entails that the set thus characterised both isand is not a member of itself, and is thus inconsistent. Frege wrote a hasty, last-minute Appendix to Vol. 2, deriving the contradiction and proposing to eliminate it by modifying Basic Law V. Frege opened the Appendix with the exceptionally honest comment: “Hardly anything more unfortunate can befall a scientific writer than to have one of the foundations of his edifice shaken after the work is finished. This was the position I was placed in by a letter of Mr. Bertrand Russell, just when the printing of this volume was nearing its completion.” (This letter and Frege’s reply are translated in Jean van Heijenoort 1967.)
Again: Frege is the father of analytic philosophy, thus the philosophical father of Russell and all other analytic philosophers.
And Jean van Heijenoort was a personal secretary to Trotsky from 1932 to 1939, and from then an Trotskyist activist. While living with Trotsky in Coyoacán, now a neighborhood of Mexico City, van Heijenoort’s first wife left him after clashing with Trotsky’s spouse. Having parted company with Trotsky in 1939 for personal reasons, van Heijenoort was innocent of all circumstances leading to Trotsky’s 1940 murder. Van Heijenoort himself was likewise murdered in Mexico City, 46 years later, by his estranged fourth spouse whom he was visiting at the time. She then took her own life.
Einstein had even two scientifical fathers who were also German: Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866) as the precursor of Einstein’s relativity theory and David Hilbert (1862-1943) who submitted the theory of the general realativiy five days before Einstein did it.
The German philosopher, mathematician, inventor, engineer, technologist, historian, diplomat, and policy adviser Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1713) was probably the greatest universal genius of all times - besides Leonardo da Vinci. Leibniz invented the infinitesimal calculus in 1665 (published 1684 - 3 years before Newton published it, 1867); Leibniz also invented and engineered the first calculating machine in the world (the earliest form of a computer), in 1673 - 268 years before the German inventor and engineer Konrad Zuse invented and engineered the first real computer in the world. Leibniz invented and originated more tham the said things, and he founded the academy of sciences in Berlin and became the first president of it.
Only because he was 24 years older. Unfair advantage.
None of that is relevant because I never said that bodily sensations are the only viable source of information. I was talking about drinking soda and in the case of soda all you have is bodily sensations. In the case of vaccines you have more than just bodily sensations, you have scientific observations. You are too quick to exploit every little imprecision and every little lack of detail.
Just because I don’t say something does not mean I deny it. Just because I didn’t say that women have vagina does not mean I deny that women have vagina.
Let me remind you of our topic, our topic is hedonism, or what makes a decision making process “genuine” and what makes it “fake”, not whether decision making is purely about bodily sensations or not, for christsake! And what makes decision making process “fake” is psychological denial, which is to say, when certain automatisms/reactions/drives are banned from entering consciousness, whether these drives are bodily sensations or scientific observations.
Stick to topic, for christsake.
I totaly agree about Leibnitz. Discussed this with a mathematician, and i submitted the proposal that his philosophical reseach lead to the infinitessimal calculus, and not the other way around, to which
the sought after agreement was granted. Leibnitz was a watershed, pivotal moment in the history of both studies.
I will do NOTHING for Christ’s sake. He got himself in that mess so he deserved what he got. Did he really think claiming to be the son of God wouldn’t piss some people off? The dude drew a lot of bad attention to himself and he shoulda known better.
THERE IS NO FAKE DECISION MAKING PROCESS. Wtf is a fake decision? I’m not really deciding to do this? I’ve decided I shouldn’t do this but I’m gonna decide to decide that my decision wasn’t really decided?
You are such a stupid person, Zoot. I’m going to call you Zoolander from now on. You know who Zoolander is, right?
You are being too literal, you imbecile. “Fake” refers to denial, do you know what denial is? oh wait, you don’t. In fact, you are so full of denial you deny the existence of denial.
I’ve been talking to retards such as yourself for years and the pattern is always the same: as soon as you realize you are incapable of figuring out what is hiding behind the words, the concept that is to say and not mere symbols used to represent it, you try to guess what is hiding behind the symbols by interpreting them in a literal manner.
I guess this is somewhat related to Satyr’s noumenonz and phenomenonz.
Basically, retard, the lesson is that you start with reality and then use symbols – words – to describe the observed as best as you can. Words are never to be taken literally, they are merely there to help the reader, or listener, to quickly mentally locate the appropriate concept. That said, no amount of literal interpretation will ever help you in trying to understand, or refute the existence of, any concept imaginable.
There is a metric fuckton of books written on the subject of psychological denial. What are you trying to tell me, that no such thing as psychological denial exists? Are you fucking serious? Are you so fucking stupid and pathetic, you goddamn worm of the worms of the planet of the ultimate worms of the stupidest worms? Did that even make any sense to you, you stomped worm?
Let me know and I’ll get back at you.
If you don’t know what denial is this simply means you are lacking self-consciousness. No amount of logical acrobatics will ever allow you to eliminate the possibility of its existence.
The choice of desire is not free, you cretin, we are not free to choose what we want, what we want is already chosen, we can only become aware of it. Of course, our wants change, but this is also chosen for us, we do not choose how and when we’re going to change our wants.
For example, you can never choose what is beautiful and what is ugly to you. No such choice exists. But! you can deny your feelings and replace them with artificial (the so-called “memetic”) feelings which probably shouldn’t even be called feelings. This isn’t genuine change, you imbecile.
You are so stupid even an average imbecile, with zero training in philosophy, will laugh at your constatations. It’s common-sense that there is a difference between genuine behavior and fake behavior. Even children know this.
Um…hello. We don’t use the metric system to measure the weight of our books on the subject of psychology in America. Duh!
We do in England.
Oh no you don’t. Last week you said I was above average trailer trash. If that’s true, it would take an above average imbecile to laugh at my constatations.
I’m gonna let you slide on this though because you’re an Englishman.
And what is a chap like you doing at ILP on a friday night, anyway? You should be at the pub eating fish and chips and listening to remixed eighties music.
I am already at the pub eating fish and chips and listening to remixed eighties music while, of course, using my laptop to shit on people like you, we have a free wifi here, don’t you know?
And yes, you are an above average TRAILER TRASH AMERICAN, but that does not mean an above average imbecile.
You’re ungrouping the negation of an inclusive disjunction, Andy. You either have to regroup with mixed operations or include an existential quantifier to avoid the order of an implication. As it stands, there is no interderivability here. Please review your truth tables and provide your proofs.
What exactly is a ‘chip’, by the way? Like an american potato chip or is it an english french fry?
The name is Max, Anderson Max. Not Andy, not Maggy, not this, not that, but Max. And chips are fries.
Now back on topic.
Now you got me all nostalgic about England so I can no longer stay on topic.
But you are an imbecile nonethless, that is not going anywhere.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hamKl-su8PE[/youtube]
Alright Maximus Anderson. I don’t know what denial is, so I don’t know if I can even do it. Is it like a subconscious thing or what? If it is, how can I be sure about it? All I know is what I’m thinking at the moment, and at the moment I’m thinking about fish and chips. Do I really want fish and chips? I dunno, how could I answer that question? What if I decided to believe I didn’t want the fish and chips, then I decided I didn’t want to decide I didn’t want the fish and chips… which one of these decisions is the denial part?