Sasun Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 I'm not arguing with you, I'm arguing around you, so no need to get defensive. Well, I have to defend my point, don't I? OK, it doesn't matter really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Likewise, God's existence can be taken as premise and a solid philosophy can be made based on that. I don't see it less valid as other philosophies since they are all based on certain premises without proof. That's my point. Yes - just like they did in te Middle Ages - BEORE the Age of Enlightenment! Yes - we could also just assume that the Earth is the center of the Universe..I mean who needs proof - we can base all of our knowledge on these assumptions...please... Soon we wil be back to never again questioning the edicts of the Catholic Church...I mean who needs science anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 And so that to say something ON topic, I find Spinoza's language hard to read (or maybe it is the translation) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 9, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Is there a universal law or some kind of a mathematical rule to guide us what can be taken as premise and what cannot? I don't think there is, so premises are somewhat arbitrary and subjective. Likewise, God's existence can be taken as premise and a solid philosophy can be made based on that. I don't see it less valid as other philosophies since they are all based on certain premises without proof. That's my point. In order for philosophy to be universal, one must base one's premises on claims, observations, or EVEN assumptions that are UNIVERSAL. You cannot create a universal philosophy from local assumptions. You can only create a localised philosophy based on localised assumptions. Let's see: my premises: -God exists (1) -if God exists, human beings must exist (2) my conclusion: -therefore human beings exist. (let's say this is my proof, not saying that the process is true). (3) If (1) is true and (2) is true, then (3) is true. But if (1) is false OR (2) is false, (3) does not follow, since by "Zero of ^", p ^ false =* false. * where "=" here is the triple bar symbol of equivalence. And to add to THOTH's points, how about the argument that the Earth is flat? I mean, can we really prove it without relying on the basic things such as A = A, which CAN be proven or observed (whereas God's existence cannot) [hence why EVERYONE accepts that A = A, no matter which culture they live in, whereas not everyone accepts the idea of God, hence why you cannot use it for a universal philosophy]. I find Spinoza's language hard to read Haha, that is the language of a lot of philosophers. It could be the translation from Latin, as a lot of them wrote in the language. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 I will post an answer later, but I wanted to say that in my thinking the degree of cultural acceptance of any line of thought has nothing to do with its validity. One example - at some point the earth was widely thought to be flat, yet it was wrong. There are so many other examples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 9, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 (edited) the degree of cultural acceptance of any line of thought has nothing to do with its validity. You are quite right. but note that you said "degree of cultural acceptance." I am not talking about acceptance of conclusions, but rather the very premises on which the entire philosophy is based. And if by that you meant that the degree of a culture's acceptance has nothing to do with the validity of these premises, then you are correct again. The fact that there are different cultural views and belief systems doesn't mean that there are no absolute truths. But at the same time, if you assimilate something into your thought and proof process without proving, observing, or recording it, then I am afraid you are hanging by the thread of cultural relativism. One example - at some point the earth was widely thought to be flat, yet it was wrong. There are so many other examples. Yes, so, are the proofs that relied on the assumption that the Earth was flat still valid? The earth was far from proven to be flat. It was only thought so by the Church, and all those who said otherwise were considered heretics. And another good example of "it was widely thought to be X, yet it was wrong" could be God, no? Are you telling me that we should make the same mistake as they did in assuming that the earth was flat? Edited February 9, 2004 by den_wolf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Yeah Den_wolf, I think I am in agreement with your last post. I agree that there are absolute truths, and by cultural aceptance I meant both premises and conclusions. BTW, did I mention that I am not catching up with your questions? I am trying to formulate more or less satisfying answers to your questions. As far as the concept of God and philosophy pertaining to it are concerned, to give you a heads up I am a believer of soul reincarnation, the immortality of soul, that everything that there is is a manifestation of God while God himself is a transcendental being, and similar concepts. There is more to that but I thought to tell you this much so you have a better idea of what I am arguing about Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 And another good example of "it was widely thought to be X, yet it was wrong" could be God, no? Are you telling me that we should make the same mistake as they did in assuming that the earth was flat? Oh, I posted before you added this part. The earth was proven to be round, therefore the assumption that it was flat proved to be false. God has not been proven to not exist, so this cannot be a good example of "it was widely thought to be X, yet it was wrong" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 9, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Well, how was it proven to be round? You are contradicting yourself here. First you're saying that the root of all scientific proof is A = A and other such axioms, then you claim that the proof that the Earth is round can be used to prove other things. How can something based on "assumptions" (according to you), be used to prove something else? BTW, did I mention that I am not catching up with your questions? Oh, I am not asking questions. I am simply making observations. And if I put the question mark at the end of a sentence, it doesn't necessarily mean that I'm asking you directly. A lot of the time I ask rhetorical questions. I suppose I am doing what people call "loud-thinking." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Well, how was it proven to be round? You are contradicting yourself here. First you're saying that the root of all scientific proof is A = A and other such axioms, then you claim that the proof that the Earth is round can be used to prove other things. How can something based on "assumptions" (according to you), be used to prove something else? OK, now I don't know what you mean. Until a certain point in time it was assumed that the earth was flat. Then it was discovered that the earth was round. Is there any contradiction here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Oh, I am not asking questions. I am simply making observations. And if I put the question mark at the end of a sentence, it doesn't necessarily mean that I'm asking you directly. A lot of the time I ask rhetorical questions. I suppose I am doing what people call "loud-thinking." Its no clear to me. Do you have questions to me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 10, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 What isn't clear, Sasun? I am confused. I thought we were discussing, not asking each other questions. Don't feel obliged to reply if you're busy right now. It can wait. Although I'd love other members to try to get into this discussion too, but I suppose they are not interested, or Spinoza scared them off with his language. Discovery and proof are two different things, unless, of course, you are talking about satellite imagery of the earth, in which case, it would be proof. I am simply stating that a while back, they assumed that the earth was flat and made certain proofs about other things using that assumption. I am not comparing the flat earth theory to the round earth theory. I am comparing the situation of the flat earth theory with the assumption of the existence of God. Those who believed that the earth was flat believed in it and defended it as if they REALLY knew it was flat. Because they could not imagine otherwise. Because the church told them so. If you view the issue of God and his [/her/its?] existence from the perspective of someone who is not prejudiced about the existence of God in any way (I have received a Christian education, but I have transcended all that, to have an objective view of religion, belief, and spirituality), it's a whole different realm of questions and situations. It's true that one views something differently when one views it with the glasses of an insider. Those who believed the earth was flat believed in it TRULY. Their stubbornness was not due to their inability to admit that they might be wrong. I am simply saying that if there is as much chance that there would be a proof that God does not exist, as there was in the case of the flat earth theory, it would be pointless, illogical, and wrong to create and base an entire philosophy on that assumption. It would be like basing all of science on 1 = 1,000,000. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 10, 2004 Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 Its OK Den_wolf... seems like we are both confused. I have been educated in Soviet Union so I was taught atheism, and I have been an atheist. Becoming a believer for me perhaps means the same thing as for you moving from religious education to atheism (or agnosticism, I am not sure where you belong to in this regard). At any rate, here is what I was trying to say. Case A Fact 1. The earth was believed to be flat by many in the past. Fact 2. The earth has been discovered and proven to be round as of present. Case B Fact 1. God was believed to exist by many in the past. Fact 2. God is believed to exist by many at present. Fact 3. There has not been proof that God exists. Fact 4. There has not been proof that God doesn't exist. Conclusion: Case A is different from Case B. If you agree with these simple facts and my conclusion then we can move further debating. If not, then we should make a stop and clarify before we indulge ourselves in off-topic ideas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 10, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 (edited) I disagree. Fact 1. The earth was believed to be flat by many in the past. Fact 2. The earth has been discovered and proven to be round as of present. Does not imply that using "Fact" 1 is correct. And it being proven and developed into FACT 2 does not imply that if we did not know how to prove the flatness or roundness of the earth, that we can use one or the other as an assumption. Like I said, you can use it, but you cannot arrive at a universal philosophy by using an assumption like that, because once it doesn't hold true in one culture, it doesn't hold true at all, since p ^ false = false. Then we all go back to cultural relativism and who thinks what, and unless you have a proof that either one or the other is correct (by absolute TRUTH), then you cannot claim that your philosophy is universally true. Btw, you can call me Serge if it's shorter (or more convenient) for you to type. Edited February 10, 2004 by den_wolf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 10, 2004 Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 Eh Serge (can i call you wofie? )... what do you disagree with? With my philosophy? but I am not developing any philosophy, I tried to be as simple as possible by stating simple facts and a simple logical conclusion... what the hell are you talking about, cultures? did I mention any cultures? .... ....damn these philosophers.... .... OK pal, I am just kidding, don't worry, in time we will get there :lol: good night for now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 10, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 :blink: I disagree with your derivation, that's what I disagree with!!! That is what I am saying. I don't disagree with your philosophy. Your philosophy is yours, and you can use any assumptions you want. I am talking about universal philosophy, like the one Spinoza is trying to develop. No you did not mention any cultures, but the question of relativism comes into play when you want to prove something by assuming that the existence of God is a premise. A = A is accepted in all cultures, but the idea of God is not. Which is where these differ. :blink: can i call you wofie? Yeah, that's what I prefer being called, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 10, 2004 Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 Conclusion: Case A is different from Case B. Is this what you disagree with? By the way, I can have a (personal) philosophy, but here I am not (yet) trying to bring any philosophy, just simple thoughts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 10, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 Sasun, I disagree with your process, not necessarily with your conclusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 10, 2004 Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 Sasun, I disagree with your process, not necessarily with your conclusion. I disagree with your disagreeing my process But - what process are you talking about? I am not aware of any process of mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 10, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 I disagree with your disagreeing my process You like entangling yourself in philosophica loops, don't you? But - what process are you talking about? I am not aware of any process of mine. Case A Fact 1. The earth was believed to be flat by many in the past. Fact 2. The earth has been discovered and proven to be round as of present. Case B Fact 1. God was believed to exist by many in the past. Fact 2. God is believed to exist by many at present. Fact 3. There has not been proof that God exists. Fact 4. There has not been proof that God doesn't exist. Conclusion: Case A is different from Case B. ^^^^^^ the above process. reason for disagreement: Does not imply that using "Fact" 1 is correct. And it being proven and developed into FACT 2 does not imply that if we did not know how to prove the flatness or roundness of the earth, that we can use one or the other as an assumption. Like I said, you can use it, but you cannot arrive at a universal philosophy by using an assumption like that, because once it doesn't hold true in one culture, it doesn't hold true at all, since p ^ false = false. Then we all go back to cultural relativism and who thinks what, and unless you have a proof that either one or the other is correct (by absolute TRUTH), then you cannot claim that your philosophy is universally true. And the fact that Case A and B are different doesn't mean that it would be OK for Case B to be used in proofs. Damn, philosophy needs something better than language, to ease communication. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 10, 2004 Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 Wolfie, when I brought Case A and Case B I was merely restating what I had said before. I was not going to use Case B in any proof. I have said that I am not going to prove that God exists. I don't believe anyone can prove it to the satisfaction of everyone. And it is the truth that many people believed in flat earth. When I said "Fact 1" I didn't mean that the earth was flat, but that there was such a belief. I don't know why you brought cultures into debate - I don't really care about cultural perceptions or beliefs. What I care is the truth. So now am I to understand that you believe in absolute TRUTH? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 11, 2004 Report Share Posted February 11, 2004 You like entangling yourself in philosophica loops, don't you? I like to avoid loops (philosophical or otherwise) them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 11, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2004 I believe in truth that can be observed. And I believe in proofs that are based on such truths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 11, 2004 Report Share Posted February 11, 2004 I believe in truth that can be observed. What do you mean by "observed"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 11, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2004 What do you mean by "observed"? Observed, such as, an apple is an apple is an apple is an apple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.