Re: Survival langauge


"Purl Gurl" <purlgurl@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:s4qdnUKoVt1MyiDenZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Chess One wrote:
>
>> Mike Lyle wrote:
>> > Chess One wrote:
>
>> >> I was interested in the use [the definition] of 'philosophy', and
>> >> what she writes /is/ of contemporary usage of the word, but
>
>> >> The Greek sense was to reflect upon what one [loved/Philo] to do.
>
>> > An unusual interpretation. You have evidence, of course?
>
> I find Phil's words to be a very practical application of meaning.
>
>
>> No sir. To provide evidence requires that one knows in advance what
>> consitutes a proof or a standard to whom would accept the evidence.
>
> Very much so. Mathematical proofs are well accepted by all because
> there is so little room for debate; numbers cannot be argued.

[ an aside: Do you have some math background too? I have a little
electro-optics, which is a physics discipline, but messes with very small
number like 10^-1 ]

> Philosophical debates, by very nature, invite debate. Adding to challenge
> is what Phil acknowledges, which is a foundation for understanding for
> each is not a shared common foundation; we do not all think alike.

Yes - you can't debate anything unless you define a few key terms. Otherwise
everything is assertion and an attempt to dominate rather than share. Its
not necessary to agree with the definitions [!] but it is necessary to
understand how anyone is choosing to use them. Anything is simply a stall
<laugh>

> Debate is enjoyable when all are open minded and all agree there
> will be differences in perspective with each based on fact and logic.
>
> Contrasting this, a debate will collapse before begin when a single
> attempts to introduce a baseless foundation. Teaching evolution
> opposing teaching creationism is a classic. Attempts to introduce
> God into a classroom collapse before begin because religion is
> based upon superstition, solely. Mixing philosophy and religion
> is to mix water and oil.
>
> In short, we cannot debate dogmatic narrow minded people.

Well - this is what frustrated the German fella - and why he spoke of pathic
discourses. The terms used in such a debate cannot even be potentially
considered universals, and thus evident from person to person, since the
pathic discourser never had the experience, and is just speculating. You can
grant a speculator everything but value it nothing!

> Adding to frustration, many simply want to argue rather than debate.
> For this case, a foundation for argument is ego, which lacks all logic.
>
>
>> For the sake of discussion, both Ideas can be entertained, regardless of
>> their past and present meanings. To wit; what do we name,
>
>> a) reflection upon experience
>> b) speculation absent experience
>
> This perfectly sums up Helen Vendler's article. She is writing a study of
> Venus de Milo via photographs is significantly different than a study of
> her beauty through a touch of Aphrodite's living hand.
>
> I do enjoy her point of view Americans need to focus more on our
> American art rather than European art.

Whenever it arrives, you will enjoy Dr E's Travels in hyper-reality. He has
much fun with this subject, and the real and certifyably genuine fake,
contrasted with the fake real...

The only point for me in this issue is (a) above. We do not have a term for
it if we ascribe 'Philosophy' to (b) above.

Cordially, Phil Innes

>
> Purl Gurl


.

Relevant Pages

  • Debates & Debating
    ... * The best place to do it is a debating chamber. ... Evidence: Quoting an authority is not evidence. ... attacks on your opponent are an admission of intellectual bankruptcy. ... conservative position was preferrable in a political debate. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: The nature of debates
    ... I think it's useful to debate subjective issues -- and here I don't ... and there's simply no evidence to be ... While you believe that Evolution is beyond dispute and you compare it ... Creationists would argue that the record does ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Debates & Debating
    ... > Evidence: Quoting an authority is not evidence. ... > attacks on your opponent are an admission of intellectual bankruptcy. ... > conservative position was preferrable in a political debate. ... > politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: The nature of debates
    ... I think it's useful to debate subjective issues -- and here I don't ... and there's simply no evidence to be ... While you believe that Evolution is beyond dispute and you compare it ... Creationists would argue that the record does ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Debates & Debating (2)
    ... > Evidence: Quoting an authority is not evidence. ... > attacks on your opponent are an admission of intellectual bankruptcy. ... > conservative position was preferrable in a political debate. ... > politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have ...
    (sci.logic)