Impenitent
September 20, 2005, 2:31am
21
north:
Impenitent:
define “Reason”…
-Imp
finally someone who asks.
to me Reason is thought that sees things as they really are, to see the truth of such and such thinking. the soundness and/or solidity of ones thinking. and logic is the ramifcations of this Reasoning.
how does one “see things as they really are”?
are you familiar with bishop berkeley’s primary and secondary qualities?
iep.utm.edu/b/berkeley.htm
-Imp
Impenitent
September 20, 2005, 3:19am
23
one can never get close enough
no.
he tried to see things as they “really” are too…
-Imp
north
September 20, 2005, 3:38am
24
and if he had the tools we have now, do you think he would think the same?
Impenitent
September 20, 2005, 4:44am
25
no, the depth is the same…
the names have been changed to confuse the innocent…
exactly the same…
the “tools” have nothing to do with anything…
the “magic” all seeing super actual really real truth seeing device does not exist.
-Imp
north
September 24, 2005, 12:38am
26
the problem with Berkeley is that he see’s things from a two dimension perspective.
three dimensions have depth so to follow a line “around” a circular object, either by sight or touch one would have to “reach” around a circle one would find no discontinuity. but if one could “reach” around a square one would not only find “reach” but find also an upward,downward, and back towards oneself direction(as would a circle, if gone around the full circumference direction of the circle).
so that if one were to either use sight or touch there is a continuity between the two perspectives.
exactly the same…
the “tools” have nothing to do with anything…
the “magic” all seeing super actual really real truth seeing device does not exist.
-Imp
and i’m sure if Berkeley was here now his perspective would be different simply because of the things we know, that work, just because we can “see and touch” in 3D.
we probe deeper and deeper into things since Berkeley. there is no "device" persay. but there are [b]devices [/b]
Impenitent
September 24, 2005, 3:28am
27
north:
and i’m sure if Berkeley was here now his perspective would be different simply because of the things we know, that work, just because we can “see and touch” in 3D.
we probe deeper and deeper into things since Berkeley. there is no "device" persay. but there are [b]devices [/b]
not at all, bishop berkeley would be just as blinded by his faith now as he was then… and probably moreso because even your “deeper” and deepest probing into things still leaves the “material substance” unseen…
-Imp
north
September 24, 2005, 3:38am
28
so his Reasoning and logic is no longer valid, obviously.
Impenitent
September 24, 2005, 3:45am
29
no, his reasoning and logic were quite valid for him… obviously…
and you have not presented an argument that refutes his arguments or his beliefs…
-Imp
north
September 24, 2005, 3:51am
30
Impenitent:
no, his reasoning and logic were quite valid for him… obviously…
and you have not presented an argument that refutes his arguments or his beliefs…
-Imp
yes i have. go back to my 3D argument.
Impenitent
September 24, 2005, 4:14am
31
no, you have not. you haven’t shown “material substance” and you cannot. berkeley’s argument remains unscathed…
-Imp
north
September 24, 2005, 4:20am
32
but i have. Berkeleys argument, is no longer valid.
refer again to my 3D argument.