A thought that is true is a thought that corresponds with what it represents. ~Spinoza
Causality is the way in which we understand the noumena as phenomena.
Since causality conflicts with the first one I vote against it every time.
On the ‘shit’ question I have several ideas though:
Taoism - Shit Happens.
Buddhism - If shit happens, it’s not really shit.
Zen - What is the sound of shit happening?
Hinduism - This shit happened before.
Protestant - Shit won’t happen if we work harder.
Catholic - If shit happens, I deserve it.
Voo Doo - Shit doesn’t just happen; somebody dumped it on you.
@Xunzian:
Do you mean ‘cynic’ tradition? And could you elaborate on the parallels?
I think what I disagree on is the following:
Tutelage is the reason for not being economically independent.
What we do agree on is the idea that things can be learned from others (by means of critical thought) and not by simply parroting it. From my perspective Kant was too mild in this by the way. Have you read ‘Wass heisst sich im denken Orientieren’?
Concerning the ice: I know it fits in a bigger picture, I was just giving an example on parroting. You, obviously need no lesson in this. You examine the facts, as do I. We cannot know what things are because we are dependent on information of third parties and that information is limited to say the least. Anyway, the coldest winter for the last 100 years has been predicted, Eskimo’s say there are more polar bears now then ever before, facts say the ice mass has been increasing, all contrary to popular media. Strangest global warming I ever heard of, that is for sure. But, as said: it is a fragment of the total picture, which we know nothing of…neither do we know anything of the future.
objet, I understand you but, causality is one of the most infinitive questions in the universe. It is never ending. At some point you have to stop. A decent example is how many people does it take to make a cake? You buy the cake mix, the eggs, the milk, the Icing that you are going to put into that cake. Now how many people are involved in making that cake you are going to eat? From the beginning to the end when it leaves your body. I can just about guarantee if we tried to name them all we would still miss some. And that is a simple question in causality.
Ummm, were we trying to disprove causality? Or prove that its only in the mind? I ammmm sooo confused… Because cause and effect has to exist outside the mind otherwise how would we get cake? Or that cornedbeef I am cooking.
Yes I am hungry.
Nope not a taoist , not anything, I accept truths from many beliefs. Every system has truth, every sytem has lies. Religion and beliefs are no different. I told you earlier I am a pure mutt, that goes for my mind as well
There might be another explanation for this that we do not know of. Is it not true that if you apply your mind to the proper creating of your corned beef meal it comes to be?
But is it not true that once you accept one thing as true it automatically excludes certain other things, making that concluding to more and more truths you force yourself to one ‘system’?
Sure but, if the ingredients were not available and someone had not taught me that meal could not happen. All of that occurs outside the mind.
No, you do not eat the seed of the fruit do you? You don’t eat just one type of food do you? Do you wear just one color of shirt or type of shirt? We are designed to have variety in things we use or need. When you accept something as the truth it does not have to lock you into one mindset. True many people do. But that is not always the case. I listen to a wide variety of music from rap to opera to rock to country and all in between, some of each genre appeals to me, not all. The same with books. Ok not romance novels those things just suck. Beliefs are based upon some truth and some false, it is up to each to decide which is which or how they believe. Religious text are guidlines for living as a human and together in a community not just about gods. Out of the 10 commandments how many do you agree with on a secular level? And are not laws based upon those common sense ones?
So I just imagine my husband farts under the covers on a cold night while I am snuggled up under those covers? I kick him for no reason? Don’t ever tell him that its all in my head. He will use it.
Alright, I will try to find something I wrote some time ago and I will see what I can do with it here.
Until then:
Kant’s example is a really great one. Let us take the example of arithmetic. We invent numbers and ‘operators’ (+,-, etc), but which came first? Can we invent numbers without having the slightest thought on what to do with them? And can we invent adding things together without first having a general conception of numbers? The answer is no! We cannot do so. We can only invent such things as a closed system. We necessarily need both to ever fathom the outcome. Or must we investigate this the other way around? We knew what the outcome should be and subsequently invent a way to get there?
Well Ok does Kant take into account that other creatures make use of numbers and counting? I dislike the term invention when used in this context. It does not seem apropriate since other species use it in different ways. Numbers and counting are a natural occurance/process to middle to high level animals. Most lower order creatures do not have it. From squirrels on up there is a need to count for survival. Food caches, territory, infants, water. Forms of counting are used. We do not have the market cornered so to speak, on counting nor did we obviously invent it, we have just taken it to new levels. Counting= survival.
Definitively…invent is more accurate than discover.
They are indeed contrived things and require a given level of imagination in the process; invent.
Discovery just vaguely captures the idea of taking notice of something new.
An ant can discover food.
But an orangutan can invent numbers.
Stumps how does the antcolony know how big to make its hill?
The ape knows that one apple will not fill its stomach, The ant colony knows that it cannot survive with just one small corridor or room. So it makes an apropriate sized hill to fit the colony.( And they are awesomely complex, all done with out a calculator or ruler) They know when to expand. How can we claim to make something that already exists? We can only name it or discover more complex uses. Numbers counting and operators exist by themselves as a part of existence. Even quantum math exist, physics theories, algebraic formula exist, we just named them to suit our language and to be able to communicate knowledge. We as a species have learned to use these things as more complex tools than other species have. So how about we do discover rather than invent?
Its innate within creatures to seperate and count or to be able to know how to do a thing that requires counting. The proof about ants, well, dude, if they did not, then there would be either no anthill or ones that are mostly empty. Its all within and without waiting for names. Only humans can do that so far as we know. How does a mother dog or cat or any other animal that has litters know when one baby is missing?
There’s a difference.
You are not discussing our numerical system of mathematics that we have created as humans; I am.
Natural mathematics is obvious; just throw a basketball a few times and work out your geometry.
Same with walking; the calculus an infant is doing is sheerly off the scales if it were cognitive; it’s not.
Ah, btw…those ants:
Their hills are a byproduct of digging tunnels.
The hills aren’t the focus; they are as big as the garbage that they throw out from underneath.
They don’t care how big or small the hill is at all.
Stumps, the only thing we created were the words for it all. If it all did not exist in someway within and without we would not have needed to name it or learn it.
I know the hills are from digging underneath , have you ever taken a frozen cut of their nest and examined it? Rooms, tunnels, they are amazing in their perfection. Many insects working as one to create a colony just right for them. Those plastic toys that kids get does not even begin to show what a true natural ant colony does. Sorry i just find the littlest engineers interesting.
When an animal knows a baby is missing, how does she know? How does a gorilla know one apple won’t feed it? They always grab more than just one. There is a natural system that we tap into and find the more complex uses as tools. Again: we only named what already was there.
I didn’t say that animals cannot do mathematics.
Again, you seem to have me confused here.
What I am talking about is our invention of it.
Animals don’t appear to invent math; they inherently tune to it genetically as needed.
I have read papers on dogs that are effectively accomplishing high end calculus to find the fastest gain on a thrown ball with remarkable accuracy.
However, that is like me claiming that Magic Johnson, Michael Jordon, or Larry Bird were mathematical geniuses.
They weren’t at all.
There is a difference between cognitive mathematics and biological respondent mathematics.
The one we have invented is the cognitive mathematics.
We don’t actually have to work in base 10 common like we do.
We could work in base 2 just fine; computers do it every day and many marine life does as well.
We chose base 10 because of it’s return in output based on the basic rules of mathematics given.
That’s invention.
If mathematics, for instance, was discovery rather than invention; then we would not need physical verification of the mathematics as if the math checked itself out without error; then we would simply just need to declare it true from the discovery of the formula.
Thankfully, we don’t let Hawkings’ wondrous math equations dictate reality just on the equations alone.
I agree with you about everything except invent. You cannot invent what exists. You can on the otherhand invent names for it for communication purpose. If you called a tree a tree and noone else used that name then is it a tree or whatever else everyone says it is? What was its name before we all agreed to call it a tree? Look at the first line of my last post.
Names are for communication and identity. Mathematical processes are discovered/ understood , named then used by all that agree with the name. Somone who is adept with math processes has an ability to see more clearly that particular subject. Each creature or well lets stick with humans, has their own innate abilities that makes them superior in their chosen field ,( hopefully , nooo lets not involve politicians ).
Our brains are all similar but its obvious that everyone uses parts differently.There are those that seem to have no problems understanding certain subjects but they do struggle with others. Some people just plain struggle with everything. There are the rarest that comprehend many subjects to a T.
Math and all its glory exists, those that truly comprehend it, get the honor of naming its parts only and being able to fully utilize it. A surgeon did not make or name a level, an engineer probably did or a carpenter/builder. A surgeeon named the scalpel though. A surgeon understood the potentials of sharp edges for surgery.
](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}