This is related to my tiff about CC... namely that it doesn't have a practical application... it sounds more like it is just spelling out a certain diplomatic philosophical temperment, more than solving philosophical problems. I'm not saying it can't be made practical, but so far I don't see it. I'm sure nanikore has a lot to still work on with CC though... so, I'll give him time :-)
If I have my way, people would look at the word "criticism" and see not "opposition" but some kind of "co-thesis" (as differentiated from an "antithesis") that they could integrate into their theory to further clarify what they're trying to express.
When people see words, they should set the immediate emotions associated with them aside and dissect the meaning first.
Thanks for the help :)nanikoreNovember 13 2003, 18:39:43 UTC
I think you're still misunderstanding CC, and reading it as relativism.
weak stomach for declaring propositions to be true or false.
How about "declaring propositions to be universally true or false." I have no problems with declaring facts. I have repeatedly stress the distinction between systematic truth versus the particulars of fact in my debates. I guess you did not see those. Well, I have repeated the point here. The distinction between truth and fact and why we need such a distinction.
From Reiko's perspective on the reality of the mountain, she is right
Heh.
She is right as far as her science would carry her. She did the best she could with her scientific facts.
Say what you want about what people "should have done" or what this "implies about how we look at reality." Likely, I would agree. But that doesn't change facts.Of course that doesn't change facts. I don't disagree with the science
( ... )
Re: Thanks for the help :)risenapeNovember 14 2003, 11:22:08 UTC
How about "declaring propositions to be universally true or false."
So it is universally true that propositions are not universally true?
Taking nothing away from CC -- it appears to me that CC is a metaphilosophical thesis -- since it proposes how Philosophy should be done. It does not appear to be a Philosophy in itself.
Re: Thanks for the help :)nanikoreNovember 14 2003, 18:48:03 UTC
So it is universally true that propositions are not universally true?
I can not say, because I don't know and can not know. I could only treat it as true solely for the sake of discussion. Now if I do not treat the above as true then I can not enter a discussion.
I think my discussion with Synanimus has triggered an important point- the use of statements and entire systems as place-holders. As far as "this discussion A," I would have to "use systems X, Y, and Z, parameters alpha, beta, etc etc"
I will have to concentrate on the idea of ideological placeholders in order for people to understand what I'm doing.
Taking nothing away from CC -- it appears to me that CC is a metaphilosophical thesis -- since it proposes how Philosophy should be done. It does not appear to be a Philosophy in itself.I think you're one of the very few to actually understand what I'm trying to do with CC... I've been playing "the metaphilosophical game" this whole time. I am "engineering a framework" and not really philosophizing a de facto system (however
( ... )
How can I give you an example of something I don't think has been done? You tell me what you think can be absolutely right or absolutely wrong, because I've never heard it.
Then we kind of agree on the issue of absolute right and wrong then.
Unless you want to get into particular facts. However, I don't think we could speak of facts as being "right" or "wrong" because facts are just what they are. I think I might even have a deflationary impression of facts (i.e. I think I agree with the deflationary theory of truth as far as the particulars of fact are concerned).
Comments 12
Reply
Yes, good turn of phrase, I think.
I'm sure nanikore has a lot to still work on with CC though
Criticism always helps me sharpen my views :) Hopefully, it is the same for other people.
Reply
When people see words, they should set the immediate emotions associated with them aside and dissect the meaning first.
Reply
Reply
weak stomach for declaring propositions to be true or false.
How about "declaring propositions to be universally true or false." I have no problems with declaring facts. I have repeatedly stress the distinction between systematic truth versus the particulars of fact in my debates. I guess you did not see those. Well, I have repeated the point here. The distinction between truth and fact and why we need such a distinction.
From Reiko's perspective on the reality of the mountain, she is right
Heh.
She is right as far as her science would carry her. She did the best she could with her scientific facts.
Say what you want about what people "should have done" or what this "implies about how we look at reality." Likely, I would agree. But that doesn't change facts.Of course that doesn't change facts. I don't disagree with the science ( ... )
Reply
blah!
Reply
So it is universally true that propositions are not universally true?
Taking nothing away from CC -- it appears to me that CC is a metaphilosophical thesis -- since it proposes how Philosophy should be done. It does not appear to be a Philosophy in itself.
Reply
I can not say, because I don't know and can not know. I could only treat it as true solely for the sake of discussion. Now if I do not treat the above as true then I can not enter a discussion.
I think my discussion with Synanimus has triggered an important point- the use of statements and entire systems as place-holders. As far as "this discussion A," I would have to "use systems X, Y, and Z, parameters alpha, beta, etc etc"
I will have to concentrate on the idea of ideological placeholders in order for people to understand what I'm doing.
Taking nothing away from CC -- it appears to me that CC is a metaphilosophical thesis -- since it proposes how Philosophy should be done. It does not appear to be a Philosophy in itself.I think you're one of the very few to actually understand what I'm trying to do with CC... I've been playing "the metaphilosophical game" this whole time. I am "engineering a framework" and not really philosophizing a de facto system (however ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Please give me an example.
Reply
Reply
Unless you want to get into particular facts. However, I don't think we could speak of facts as being "right" or "wrong" because facts are just what they are. I think I might even have a deflationary impression of facts (i.e. I think I agree with the deflationary theory of truth as far as the particulars of fact are concerned).
Reply
Leave a comment