Paradox and the Dogma of Common and Good Sense:

One of the interesting things that has come up in my study of Deleuze is that he considers paradox to be philosophy’s main claim to fame and dominion as compared to its delegation to the role of science’s bitch we tend to get from a lot of materialists on these boards. And he bases this on paradox’s ability to undercut common sense and the dogma that tends to hijack it.

My argument, however, is that paradox tends to work by only utilizing 2 of the 3 ways we can reach understanding:

Through the syntactic which is defined by logical formulas: A is B, B is C, therefore A is C. And we can see the limits of this.

The next is the semantic which seeks understanding through the meaning of what we say about reality: All mammals reproduce without external eggs; platypuses reproduce through external eggs; therefore, platypuses are not mammals. Once again, we see the failure language, and semantics, in its failure to fully represent the reality it is faced with.

Finally, there is the existential approach that deals with reality as a whole but is not as concise as the syntactic or the semantic.

It just seems to me that paradox, such as Zeno’s arrow, is the product of an emphasis on the first 2 while completely neglecting the existential. Plus that, paradox seems to be the one thing that science can’t seem to deal with whereas the poetic aspect of philosophy can.

Therefore, isn’t there every reason to utilize the poetic aspect of philosophy as the scientific? Shouldn’t philosophy focus as much on the speculative (such as metaphysics) as on that which can be demonstrated? The predictability of good sense?

Meh, I wouldn’t call it science’s bitch. More like, science’s old, mentally declining grandfather, sometimes unable to adapt its ancient ideas to the new discoveries in the world and frequently asking silly questions and telling silly stories of how people used to do it in the old times.

That’s a false premise. It’s true that MOST mammals reproduce without external eggs, but not all and the platypus isn’t the only one mammal which doesn’t lay eggs. You’d be better off rewriting it in a form of an inductive argument:

Most mammals reproduce without external eggs.
Platypus reproduces with external eggs.
Platypus is not a mammal.

That’s a cogent inductive argument, but nevertheless its still untrue.

Can’t deal with? That’s a perfect example of basic physics right there. I hope you’re not being serious. I don’t find transparent attempts at verbal manipulations such as Zeno’s arrow paradox impressive, at all.

I get diarrhea as soon as I hear the word “metaphysics”, but whatever floats your boat. The thing about philosophy is that you can talk about whatever you want, literally, if you at least try to back it up with decent arguments or even just make it look like it’s backed up with decent arguments.

When I first came up with Paradox and the Dogma of Common Sense, the idea was to extract something from my study on Deleuze that was more suitable to the format that people tend to use on these boards and see if I got more responses –that is as compared to the responses I have gotten to my studies. The results were in the positive. And I bring this up not in the negative sense of “see how stupid people are”, but in the understanding that many people’s agenda here is one of flirtation with philosophy not because they’re dumb or lazy, but because they have lives and have to adjust their expectations from this according to the time they have for it. Hence: the popularity of the drive-by style of philosophizing we tend to do here and why most people don’t respond to my studies. And I take no issue with that and, in fact, encourage it. As I have often said: I don’t need every worker in the world to study Das Capital to understand that they’re being exploited; I just need them to think about it. What is interesting to me though is how many so-called “serious philosophers” (the ones who are above it all) responded and how I have never seen anyone of them responding to one of my more serious studies.

That said, I want to give a general survey of the dialogues that came out of this and some my own thoughts on them. First I want to cover some of the more positive and thoughtful such as that of John:

“An admirable defense of the softer side of being and thinking which is so vehemently rejected by the hard core science and logic crowd who pontificate here-about.”

And Jerry:

“it’s all a matter of taste, until the winds of fad and funding flow this way or that, then it’s a matter of survival, and the tasks of survival ruins all quality in the nascent beginnings of any set of thought.”

To which I responded:

“ Good points, Guys. It is as if philosophy has taken on the same kind player mentality that one might expect from rock stars while expecting more from philosophy. I mean how productive can philosophy truly be when it has gotten so narcissistic?”

It just seems to me that Jerry was approaching something important here in pointing out the role that fashion plays in TlBs (Troll-like Behaviors) in that what they tend to depend on, that is to validate their own smug dismissal (the pontification of the science and logic crowd), of contrary views is the strength of repetition as concerns a popular notion. In other words, the TlB puts itself above the common crowd by appealing to common notions –or what seem to be common notions among the academics. And that is when, if you read the academics they think they’re referring to, you find them to actually be a little less arrogant in their assertions and fully aware that the consensus that the TlB argues to exist does not actually exist. Yet, this is exactly the assertion (the fantasy) that the TlB tends to work from. I present as evidence one 3sum who responded to:

“….the role of science’s bitch we tend to get from a lot of materialists on these boards.”

with:

“Meh, I wouldn’t call it science’s bitch. More like, science’s old, mentally declining grandfather, sometimes unable to adapt its ancient ideas to the new discoveries in the world and frequently asking silly questions and telling silly stories of how people used to do it in the old times.”

First of all, we have to ask how it was that 3sum was able to even able to type this in between patting himself on the back. Secondly, we have to ask, if they have so much contempt for philosophy, why they’re on a philosophy board in the first place. And we should note here the kind of rock-star non-chalance that makes self indulgence seem a little more rational than it actually is. Furthermore, later in this post, they argue:

“I get diarrhea as soon as I hear the word “metaphysics”, but whatever floats your boat. The thing about philosophy is that you can talk about whatever you want, literally, if you at least try to back it up with decent arguments or even just make it look like it’s backed up with decent arguments.”

Well, thank you, Mr. Capote! I mean you have to wonder if these people don’t imagine some kind personal entourage laughing at every clever thing they say. They must, because it is the only way I see justifying the assertion that everyone else should back their assertions with “decent arguments” when all we can see in what 3sum is doing is a lot of snide remarks and sloganeering. Granted, continental approaches, such as that of Deleuze, do as much. But at least they admit it and try to overcome it by pushing the art of philosophy to a creative level most others haven’t. And this requires they take enough of a consideration of reality (and the observations made on it by science) to not offend our sense of reality. And that requires a lot more than 3sum’s little collages of what are basically clichés. Even when they do show a little integrity, they’re basically appealing to common notions. For instance, 3sum does a little showboating by pointing to the syllogism I referred to:

“The next is the semantic which seeks understanding through the meaning of what we say about reality: All mammals reproduce without external eggs; platypuses reproduce through external eggs; therefore, platypuses are not mammals. Once again, we see the failure of language, and semantics, in its failure to fully represent the reality it is faced with.”

With:

“That’s a false premise. It’s true that MOST mammals reproduce without external eggs, but not all and the platypus isn’t the only one mammal which doesn’t lay eggs. You’d be better off rewriting it in a form of an inductive argument:

Most mammals reproduce without external eggs.
Platypus reproduces with external eggs.
Platypus is not a mammal.

That’s a cogent inductive argument, but nevertheless its still untrue.”

Now granted, his syllogism is a little more accurate. I admit that. But that is only because it is included in every Logic 101 book there is. But then they could not resist the opportunity to pump up their supposed “above the fray” intellect at my expense. Of course, they pull this off for themselves by completely neglecting the point I was making: that such semantic arguments, being formal in nature, are limited in that they are dependent on how the terms are defined, not reality. It has to do with the failure of language in the face of the reality that always overflows it.

At another point, 3sum seems to get so wrapped up in their ego as to become incoherent which is supposedly below their criteria of “backed up with decent arguments”.

I wrote:

“Plus that, paradox seems to be the one thing that science can’t seem to deal with”

To which 3sum responds:

“Can’t deal with? That’s a perfect example of basic physics right there. I hope you’re not being serious. I don’t find transparent attempts at verbal manipulations such as Zeno’s arrow paradox impressive, at all.”

Huh?

How, exactly, is it an example of basic physics? And how is 3sum not finding “verbal manipulations”, such as Zeno’s arrow, impressive prove his point? That seems to be more a matter of taste than truth. Is that what they want to impress us with? And wasn’t “verbal manipulation”, as compared to the existential, my point in the paragraph concerning the limit of logic in the face of reality -mind you, the logic and scientific method that 3sum is asserting is the answer to it all? And how do we trust their assertions when they can’t even seem to get strait on what it is they’re asserting? How do we follow them when all they do is talk about what they should be demonstrating? When they can’t even “just make it look like it’s backed up with decent arguments”?

That seems a fair assessment although I’m not sure the use of paradoxes is specific to philosophy as opposed to merely being one of the tools preferred by philosophers.

Seems a bit unfair do dismiss the transitivity of the implication like this. This is an essential prop of our ability to reason logically. The difficulty of assigning meaningful values to any A, B and C affects all our reasonings but that’s what being human does to us.

Clearly, this is no just the failure of language. Rather, it goes with being human, or indeed with having any kind of brain, and trying to hold mental representation of the material world. Language makes that more apparent if anything.

I doubt very much that anybody is going to stop any time soon philosophers from doing metaphysics, any kind of metaphysics. Equally, you’re not going to convince analytical philosophers to stop what they are doing. As I see it, it is philosophy that picks you out, not the reverse. We have different cultures, personalities, histories, training, and life is short. We all do what we can.

On the substance, I suspect that each brand of philosophy can play various roles, perhaps depending on the historical period. And science owes a lot to philosophy and that is because while induction is important in figuring out new theories, conceptual creativity comes first. And, it doesn’t seem that scientists have stopped reading philosophers (although philosophers may be running out of new interesting things to say). My guess is that what matters is not that philosophers should always support their claims with logic but that they should always provide new and compelling perspectives on reality and our place in it. What matters is, as you suggest, philosophical views that are capable of challenging our so-called common sense, which is probably the only way to be creative and to open new vistas for science to consider.
Paradoxes seem to be just one of the things you need to do to get there.
Eugene

Let’s play a little game called “Find the redundant word”. The goal of the game is, you’ve guessed it, to find the redundant word. Now, Jimmy, find the redundant word in that sentence you just wrote! You don’t mind if I call you Jimmy, right? Good.

I don’t have contempt for philosophy, I pity it because I see it ruined even though it has massive, unused potential. It could be reborn in a more practically useful form.

I’m the funniest guy in the world, why wouldn’t I laugh at my jokes? I’m the best and that’s it. If there was a like button on this shitty, maggot infested forum I’d like each and every one of my posts because they’re all awesome, just like me. And if you think otherwise you’re obviously wrong. Here’s me laughing at my funny jokes: :laughing:

How does it feel to fail at what every Logic 101 book includes? Dipshit. At least you admit it. And my syllogism isn’t a little more accurate, it’s perfect. Just like me.

Their ego? Have you been taking your medications lately? Are you hearing voices?

v=s/t. Looks familiar? I guess not, since you had to ask. To be ignorant ~2000 years ago and more, when Zeno came up with the paradox was excusable, but to be so awed by ignorance and verbal manipulations of people 2000 years ago when we know the answer… inexcusable.

What are you talking about? If science didn’t back up its assertions you wouldn’t be writing this to me. Think about that for a second. Let it sink in. Realize that you’re cutting the branch you’re sitting on. And stop cutting it or you’ll fall of.

So yeah, I think I won this one. Nice try, though, valiant effort. But you can’t beat me. I’m too awesome. Bye bye, see ya in some other thread, possibly. And try to make it harder for me the next time.

It’s not a cogent inductive argument. It’s a silly conclusion and a poor argument. Also it’s an odd use of an inductive argument since it deals with taxonomy, not say, the liklihood of an event. A better version would be to say that a platypus is not likely to be considered a mammal, but that would be in the situation where we just discovered them and were confused by their apparant mixed nature.

Do you call it “science” if you just make it “look like” experiments were done?
Philosophy is about the actual reasoning, not the rhetoric.

And Zeno’s “paradox” is resolvable. It just “looks like” a paradox. It is for people who love to hate logic (and philosophy).

A paradox is like magic. It only exists as ignorance.

Overview of responses to Paradox and the Dogma of Common and Good Sense:

First James S. Saint’s response to 3Sum:

“The thing about philosophy is that you can talk about whatever you want, literally, if you at least try to back it up with decent arguments or even just make it look like it’s backed up with decent arguments.”

“Do you call it “science” if you just make it “look like” experiments were done?
Philosophy is about the actual reasoning, not the rhetoric.

And Zeno’s “paradox” is resolvable. It just “looks like” a paradox. It is for people who love to hate logic (and philosophy).

A paradox is like magic. It only exists as ignorance.”

There are several erroneous assumptions in Jame’s argument. First of all, who here is talking about “science”? The assumption here, of course, is that philosophy should be little more than a sub-division of science when, that is in many circles, the primary role (or the one that distinguishes it) of philosophy must be as check and balance to the excesses and dogma science can fall into especially given its dependent and intimate relationship to Capitalism. There is a role for science in the systems of control and hegemony involved in our present powerstructure.

The second erroneous assumption comes from the question of what constitutes “actual reasoning”. I mean psychopaths do a lot of reasoning. Everyone reasons for that matter. This, once again, is one of those abstract buzz terms (like objectivity and the scientific method) that, when actually scrutinized, turn out to be little more than sloganeering: a way of just talking about something without actually showing what they mean.

Plus that, I’m a little perplexed as to how it is that Zeno’s paradox has been resolved outside of the point I made about it:

“My argument, however, is that paradox tends to work by only utilizing 2 of the 3 ways we can reach understanding:

Through the syntactic which is defined by logical formulas: A is B, B is C, therefore A is C. And we can see the limits of this.

The next is the semantic which seeks understanding through the meaning of what we say about reality: All mammals reproduce without external eggs; platypuses reproduce through external eggs; therefore, platypuses are not mammals. Once again, we see the failure language, and semantics, in its failure to fully represent the reality it is faced with.

Finally, there is the existential approach that deals with reality as a whole but is not as concise as the syntactic or the semantic. “

In other words, in order to resolve the problem, the only thing we can do is stay within the syntactic and semantic and stay completely away from the fuzzy existential. It only fails when it gets out of the domain of logic, that which James claims is why paradox is only for people who “hate logic”. And as logical as this would seem to be, it fails to get out the realm of mental concepts in that it rests on the falsehood of assuming just because people question Logic, and recognize its limits, they somehow hate it. And we can assume that James makes this accusation based on an assumption that the reason they “hate it” is because they’re too lazy, or stupid, to understand it. And the presumptions behind this can be seen in this clip:

“It is for people who love to hate logic (and philosophy).”

Really? The last I heard, Logic was only one field of exploration in philosophy along with metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, epistemology, and politics. Once again, all I’m seeing here is a lot of sloganeering and buzz-phrases: a lot of talk with no show.

That said, we can move beyond the first 2 approaches to understanding (the syntactic and semantic) with a discourse that emerged between 3Sum, who has gotten so ridiculous as to warrant ignoring with statements such as:

“I don’t have contempt for philosophy, I pity it because I see it ruined even though it has massive, unused potential. It could be reborn in a more practically useful form.”

And:

“I’m the funniest guy in the world, why wouldn’t I laugh at my jokes? I’m the best and that’s it. If there was a like button on this shitty, maggot infested forum I’d like each and every one of my posts because they’re all awesome, just like me. And if you think otherwise you’re obviously wrong. Here’s me laughing at my funny jokes:”

(I think the self indulgence speaks for itself.)

And my respected peer, Moreno (an important influence on my process and jam mate). I start w/ 3sum:

“That’s a false premise. It’s true that MOST mammals reproduce without external eggs, but not all and the platypus isn’t the only one mammal which doesn’t lay eggs. You’d be better off rewriting it in a form of an inductive argument:

Most mammals reproduce without external eggs.
Platypus reproduces with external eggs.
Platypus is not a mammal.

That’s a cogent inductive argument, but nevertheless its still untrue.”

To which Moreno responds:

“It’s not a cogent inductive argument. It’s a silly conclusion and a poor argument. Also it’s an odd use of an inductive argument since it deals with taxonomy, not say, the liklihood of an event. A better version would be to say that a platypus is not likely to be considered a mammal, but that would be in the situation where we just discovered them and were confused by their apparant mixed nature.”

In a sense, Moreno, 3sum argues against their selves. It took me several readings before I actually understood this particular argument (starting with my point):

“Plus that, paradox seems to be the one thing that science can’t seem to deal with”

To which 3sum responds:

“Can’t deal with? That’s a perfect example of basic physics right there. I hope you’re not being serious. I don’t find transparent attempts at verbal manipulations such as Zeno’s arrow paradox impressive, at all.”

Once again, it took several readings before I realized what it was that 3sum was getting at: basically the same point I was trying to make. He was basically saying that once you move into the 3rd realm of understanding (the existential) the paradox starts to fail. Of course, the inclusion of the phrase “Can’t deal with it?” threw me off. And that is because 3sum was more interested in debasing me than they were a real or cogent argument. Plus that, they can’t seem to distinguish between a logical and inductive argument. I’m not sure either him or James can since, for them, both logic and induction have that scientific aura about them.

And I came up short by focusing mainly on the science of logic when we can see how problems emerge for philosophy when we get into the inductive. You rightly move the argument a little more to the existential and, in the process, recognize the limits involved. But let’s (hopefully) push a little further into the limits of the scientific method, that these guys flash like a badge of authority, and explore the limits of their restrictive assumptions about philosophy.

It mainly has to do with the inductive limit. One could easily argue:

In order for something to exist, it must be observed.
No unicorns have been observed.
Therefore, unicorns must not exist.

Of course, this argument is based on the assumption that every corner of the universe has been explored. Therefore, the above argument can be countered with:

There is every possibility that a unicorn exists in some unobserved corner of the earth or universe.

And this argument, because of the semantics involved and the phrasing, would be just as logical (if not more so) than the more dogmatically empirical and logical argument above. This is because it plays with the limits of the syntactic and semantic while appealing to the existential as well –that is in terms of the inductive limit. And in this sense, we see the limits of all three and the import of, in the face of these shortcomings, of looking at all three as tools and not some dominate mode of inquiry. We can play around with all 3 all we want. But no one alone will give us full understanding of the reality we face.

I was, perhaps wrong, in just quoting the book I was reading in arguing that paradox is the domain of philosophy. It would have been better to argue that paradox is only a part of the bigger project of philosophy: to deal with the existential overflow: what Lacan referred to as the Real or that which overflows the symbolic order of what we do here.

3sum puts way too much faith in the provability of the premise based on their faith in the inductive method while abusing the formality of the rational one.

That all said, TalkyDucky, good post and way to disagree w/ me: respectful, but holding your own ground. Not to condescend (since I am in no position to), but it was impressive. I look forward to responding to it tomorrow where I can commit my whole window.

Hopefully, James and 3sum will learn something from you.

Admittedly, the above post was somewhat muddled due to my trying to do too many things in what little time I had. So I should, at least, attempt to redeem it with a few a few revisions, expansions, and clarifications:

“There is every possibility that a unicorn exists in some unobserved corner of the earth or universe.”

Actually, the correct phrasing (looking at it in hindsight) would be:

“There is no way of knowing that a unicorn doesn’t exist in some unobserved corner of the universe.”

Still, the point remains the same: this statement is more valid than the former argument against the existence of unicorns since the argument for the “possibility” makes no claims to certainty while the other makes the non sequitor of jumping from the premise of not having been observed so far to never possibly being observed. However, if the conclusion of the realist tact was changed to “It is not likely that unicorns exist”, then we get a more solid argument based on the same absence of a claim to certainty as the non-realist proposal. The problem is, for the realists at least, is that it leaves little solid ground for any smug dismissal of more continental approaches to philosophy and the conceptual play and poetic methods they use.

Another problem is that the scientific method, as well as Logic, must by necessity, work with isolated systems in order to get demonstrable results which it can then use to form theories about how reality works in general. However, this ability is always limited to systems that are tangible enough to be testable. And this leaves out a lot of reality as we experience it -most notably the experience of reality itself. There is always the poetic overflow. And while philosophy must also work with isolated systems, to the extent that it is limited to a finite human reach, it still seems better equipped, given its license to embrace creativity, to at least approach the infinite and the poetic overflow that science either cannot or is simply not interested in dealing with. While there is value in analytic approaches and working on the more scientific side of the spectrum (much as Russell did), what truly distinguishes philosophy is its openness to creativity.

Finally, one of the main problems I’m seeing with all the talk of terms we can associate with what Deleuze refers to as a philosophy of identity (objectivity, reason, the scientific method, etc.) is that they seem like redundant and superfluous abstractions. And this is because, as far as I can tell, everyone uses them anyway. As TalkyDucky rightly points out concerning the syntactic approach to understanding:

“Seems a bit unfair to dismiss the transitivity of the implication like this. This is an essential prop of our ability to reason logically. The difficulty of assigning meaningful values to any A, B and C affects all our reasoning but that’s what being human does to us.”

This seemed a major oversight in 3sum’s and Jame’s talk of logic in that they failed to recognize that a lot of logic concerns itself with the underlying structures of how we think, regardless of the empirical truth of the premises (once again: an isolated system). This is why it is assumed that formal logic can obtain clear and certain truths (much like mathematics), while informal logic cannot.

Take, for instance, the scientific method. I mean who doesn’t form theories about how things work then test them against reality? Then, going by what doesn’t work, either discards the theory or revises it? This would seem to be a part of our evolutionary wiring in that theories that didn’t work could mean the end of a genetic line. Unfortunately, what works or doesn’t work is relative to ends of the individual. And who doesn’t try to make their argument by pointing to the world of objects? And everyone is engaging in some form of reasoning or rationality -even schizophrenics and psychopaths.

Beyond that, all there is is the pragmatic criteria of discourse and the arguments that survive: a sort of ideological natural selection if you will. Granted, this doesn’t give us much solace since it doesn’t give us much protection against bad arguments that win through external factors such as power. But it’s all we have to work with.

TalkyDucky, having read your points a little more thoroughly, I realized there wasn’t as much disagreement as I previously thought. There were some misunderstandings (which could have been a miscommunication on my part) such as your take on my view concerning the analytic approach. I’m not opposed to it. I’m just opposed to its smug dismissals of non-analytic approaches.

I would also point to a rather profound point you made:

“As I see it, it is [a] philosophy that picks you out, not the reverse.” (Brackets and contents: my addition).

I can testify to this given my current fixation on Deleuze’s Difference and Repetition: or what I like to call that God Damn book by that God Damn Frenchman. Clearly, that philosophy found me –may have even been stalking me.

(I mean it: fuck the French and their weird obscure philosophies anyway.)

Beyond that, in ideological terms, it is like we were parted at birth. So I see no point in commenting on it. But I look forward to the jam that may come from it.

And Moreno: rock on brother!

Anyway, now that I got my internet working right, I want to go a little deeper into the model provided by the 3 modes of understanding in the hope that they may give us means of analyzing the issue at hand and, simultaneously, allow the more creative among us to beat the realist prudes at their own game. And if I seem a little hostile throughout this, I apologize. It is likely a residual effect from coming home and finding my internet not working and wasting the large part of a beer and a jager fixing it.

That said, it seems to that the triad of syntactic, semantic, and the existential act as a kind of spectrum with the semantic in the middle acting as a kind of mediator. On one side, it has the syntactic which, as TalkyDucky pointed out, maps out the underlying structures of how we reason. And like mathematics, it is content free and therefore free of any existential considerations. And it may well be rooted in the physiological structures of the brain as described by Pinker in The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature. For instance, going by the model of syntactic logic, one could argue:

All things blue are cucumbers.
The thing in front of me is blue.
Therefore, it must be a cucumber.

Which is the equivalent of:

A=B
C=B
Therefore
C=A

In this instance, going strictly by the rules of syntax, it doesn’t matter whether the primary or secondary premises are true. All that matters is that both premises lead to the conclusion.

However, it gets a little trickier as we move into the semantic. Here, we have to consider the meaning of the statements which must take into consideration their relationship to the existential or reality. At this point we come up against the inductive limit:

All swans I have seen are white.

I have not seen a pink swan.

Therefore, all swans are white.

Now it doesn’t take much to see the falsity of this statement. This is because it has to mess with the messy world of the existential as compared to the precision of the syntactical which, mind you, is the cornerstone of Logic as an isolated system.

So couldn’t we reasonably argue here that logic, at its very heart, is ultimately illogical? And isn’t this the ultimate paradox?

All systems rest on the non-demonstrable, including scientific empiricism. The whole idea of natural laws, which has been very useful, is now meeting counterevidence. Laws and constants can change. So an intuition - axiom - that laws are not merely local, time bound patterns - has been very useful, but no one demanded it be demonstrated since there is only so far one can get from the local in time and space. There are other axioms in realism - which empiricism in science is a part of - that also seem very effective, but have not been demonstrated - even the subject object split or the falsity of idealism have not been demonstrated. Parallel to this there is a myth that metaphysics is the over there with the religious people and science/realism/reasonism are immaculate. Nope. They work with metaphysical ideas - like assumptions above and like things like physicalism - also. Perhaps they are the right ones. Metaphysical ideas do not have to be wrong. This would mean that any ontological statement was mere speculation or wrong. Hard to get from waking up to Learning something if you cannot asssume anything, even if, several centuries later they, nevertheless grateful you made this assumption given all the knowledge it produced, realize you were wrong.

“All systems rest on the non-demonstrable, including scientific empiricism. The whole idea of natural laws, which has been very useful, is now meeting counterevidence. Laws and constants can change. So an intuition - axiom - that laws are not merely local, time bound patterns - has been very useful, but no one demanded it be demonstrated since there is only so far one can get from the local in time and space. There are other axioms in realism - which empiricism in science is a part of - that also seem very effective, but have not been demonstrated - even the subject object split or the falsity of idealism have not been demonstrated. Parallel to this there is a myth that metaphysics is the over there with the religious people and science/realism/reasonism are immaculate. Nope. They work with metaphysical ideas - like assumptions above and like things like physicalism - also. Perhaps they are the right ones. Metaphysical ideas do not have to be wrong. This would mean that any ontological statement was mere speculation or wrong. Hard to get from waking up to Learning something if you cannot asssume anything, even if, several centuries later they, nevertheless grateful you made this assumption given all the knowledge it produced, realize you were wrong.”

“All systems rest on the non-demonstrable, including scientific empiricism.”

Exactly! The very concept of a system would seem to be non-demonstrable. Poetic even. Yet by thinking in terms of systems we arrive at a lot of understandings. The concept of Memes has a similar effect. And that is what it is about (the domain of philosophy), right? The poetic overflow? That which can’t be experienced directly, but only through its effects? And we can say as much about energy, a ghostly entity, which the pure atheists (nothing transcendent, only what is in front our faces) and materialist/realists talk about, all the time, as if it was as observable and as objective as the screen in front of our faces.

“Laws and constants can change. So an intuition - axiom - that laws are not merely local, time bound patterns - has been very useful, but no one demanded it be demonstrated since there is only so far one can get from the local in time and space. There are other axioms in realism - which empiricism in science is a part of - that also seem very effective, but have not been demonstrated - even the subject object split or the falsity of idealism have not been demonstrated.”

Hard to comment on this one since…. well, not sure I have anything to add. And excuse the opportunism of it (the forced segway), but I have to respond to the riff of it with one of my favorite and latest riffs:

Focusing on:

“Laws and constants can change.”

: the metaphysical core of Deleuze’s Difference and Repetition is an almost semantic and transcendentally intimate relationship between difference and repetition. Repetition, @ its purest, must be a different instance of the same thing which means that difference must be eternally repeated.

One of the footsteps towards it is thinking of a rock formation and the way it has changed throughout its millions of years existence. Yet, it stands still for you.

In other words: change (that which defines time) can exist at a level well below detection (the subjective(

Even this screen, as you’ve been looking at it, has seemed to stand still ( in fact: does stand still( while always seeming different.

“even the subject object split or the falsity of idealism have not been demonstrated.”

Even realism has to explain how it is that things can just be “out there” when, for us, they have to register in the brain.

PS: Maybe it’s just my wiring:
But we can see the archetypes of the masculine in repetition and the feminine in difference.

Revision on a previous post as pointed out by a poster on another board. The the actual syntactic model for:

All things blue are cucumbers.
The thing in front of me is blue.
Therefore, it must be a cucumber.

Would actually be:

A=B
C=A
Therefore, C=B