Socrates philosophy and method

[JimL]

Well we don't know God's perspective, so we can't comment on that for sure. But from our perspective, it's physicality impossible for use to conceive of, for instance, something that exists and doesn't exist simultaneously. We can say the words, but we cannot truly create such a concept in our minds. Thus in this sense the descriptive laws of logic are universal and absolute.

Exactly.

[JimL]

The question was a foolish idiot question, and not worth an intelligent answer. Sounds like something seer would as as an example of 'absolute truth.'

<snipe>

This a 'Philosophy' thread section, not a First Grade class involving a tricycle race toward the precipice at the end of the sand box

It would help your case if you ask intelligent rational questions that relate to Philosophy concerning the nature of human knowledge, absolute truth, skepticism, agnosticism, and may be even teleology.

The issue is a simple one, whether or not we can know anything at all. I disagree with your claim that we can not know anything. Perhaps what you mean to question is whether or not we can know anything beyond our purview. If so, thats a different question. The Socratic method was just that, a method, a method used to investigate the unknown, because there are of course things that are unknown to us. There are also, of course, things that are known, like the nose on your face.

[shunyadragon]

Well we don't know God's perspective, so we can't comment on that for sure.

OK

But from our perspective, it's physicality impossible for use to conceive of, for instance, something that exists and doesn't exist simultaneously.

We can say the words, but we cannot truly create such a concept in our minds. Thus in this sense the descriptive laws of logic are universal and absolute.

Careful in the Quantum World things are not quite so clear and cut and dried in the Newtonian descriptive logic.

Source: http://www.iflscience.com/physics/measurement-rules-quantum-universe/

Experiment Provides Further Evidence That Reality Doesn't Exist Until We Measure It

© Copyright Original Source

There is also the problem of taking the relative certainty (questionable?) of descriptive logic claiming it can be extrapolated to the philosophical logic concerning theological arguments where some claim absolute truths of such arguments are possible. No such extrapolation is valid.

[siam]

Well we don't know God's perspective, so we can't comment on that for sure. But from our perspective, it's physicality impossible for use to conceive of, for instance, something that exists and doesn't exist simultaneously. We can say the words, but we cannot truly create such a concept in our minds. Thus in this sense the descriptive laws of logic are universal and absolute.

...an interesting statement coming from a Christian?!....Humans are creative and so have the capacity for imagination---that is why "beliefs"(principles and/or paradigms) are woven into myths/stories. While these stories/paradigms make sense of a confusing world and give a framework for envisioning/deriving ethical/moral principles---Logic (particularly the "absolute/universal" type) is not the strongest element....take Christianity as an example---3 "persons" that are one and same but different---might be considered a concept that requires much creative thinking?, or the idea that God "died"---as in, did he exist and not exist at the same time? Christians reply to such inquiries as "a mystery"---as well they should since logic in itself would be inadequate.....

I have a problem with the binary of universal or relative---I think our world is more complex than that....

[HumbleThinker]

OK



Careful in the Quantum World things are not quite so clear and cut and dried in the Newtonian descriptive logic.

Source: http://www.iflscience.com/physics/measurement-rules-quantum-universe/

Experiment Provides Further Evidence That Reality Doesn't Exist Until We Measure It

© Copyright Original Source

Even superposition actually doesn't break the law of non-contradiction to the best of my understanding. Until observed, a quantum object as a wave is indeed in all possible states, but when detected, it collapses into a particle that is only in one state. This would be like saying that a ripple on the water violates the law of non-contradiction because it is in two places at once when in reality each individual spot on the wave is in one and only one place. The only difference between this and a quantum wave is that a quantum wave collapses into a single point when detected whereas a macroscopic wave does not. This can most directly be seen by the double slit experiment.

I do agree that the quantum world is pretty crazy, though, particularly with the phenomena of uncaused events.

There is also the problem of taking the relative certainty (questionable?) of descriptive logic claiming it can be extrapolated to the philosophical logic concerning theological arguments where some claim absolute truths of such arguments are possible. No such extrapolation is valid.

I can agree with that. I've seen some pretty shaky theological arguments that try to rely on laws of logic. There's also a matter of these theological arguments utilizing deductive reasoning. Even if it could be shown that these arguments are sound, deductive reasoning has no requirement to reflect anything in reality. So not only would these arguments not point us to the Christian God in reality, it wouldn't point us to any god. This is why I've never seen much use in such theological arguments, them being unsound notwithstanding; proving God as a philosophical certainty doesn't seem particularly useful for saving our souls or having a relationship with Him.

[HumbleThinker]

...an interesting statement coming from a Christian?!....Humans are creative and so have the capacity for imagination---that is why "beliefs"(principles and/or paradigms) are woven into myths/stories. While these stories/paradigms make sense of a confusing world and give a framework for envisioning/deriving ethical/moral principles---Logic (particularly the "absolute/universal" type) is not the strongest element....take Christianity as an example---3 "persons" that are one and same but different---might be considered a concept that requires much creative thinking?, or the idea that God "died"---as in, did he exist and not exist at the same time? Christians reply to such inquiries as "a mystery"---as well they should since logic in itself would be inadequate.....

I have a problem with the binary of universal or relative---I think our world is more complex than that....

We can't imagine something that is entirely unreal. Mystical creatures like dragons, unicorns, goblins, and devils are based on phenomena humans have observed, such as horses, wings, and horns. This is why gods are almost universally, if not universally, anthropomorphized in appearance and behavior. Take perfection as another example. We are imperfect beings. It is impossible for us to realistically conceptualize perfection. So we approximate it by taking any concept to its extreme. So while God may indeed love perfectly, our approximation of that, despite us using the words perfect, is that He loves us better and more than any being in the universe. We then bring up individual examples that we believe demonstrates His perfect love so we can explain the concept in piecemeal.

And relative can generally be replaced with the word "non-universal." So something either is universal or non-universal. If it can be said to be both, then the concept is too vague such that we can say "this part is universal, while this part is relative," thus eliminating the contradiction.

[shunyadragon]

The issue is a simple one, whether or not we can know anything at all. I disagree with your claim that we can not know anything. Perhaps what you mean to question is whether or not we can know anything beyond our purview. If so, that's a different question. The Socratic method was just that, a method, a method used to investigate the unknown, because there are of course things that are unknown to us. There are also, of course, things that are known, like the nose on your face.

It is a matter of knowing things in the 'absolute sense.' We can know things with certainty, but not ALL things absolutely, even in the descriptive world.

So what if we know some things as plain as the nose on our face, but we cannot know all things absolutely as plan as the nose on our face which we have to depend on the reliability of a mirror for our mose to be visible.

[siam]

We can't imagine something that is entirely unreal. Mystical creatures like dragons, unicorns, goblins, and devils are based on phenomena humans have observed, such as horses, wings, and horns. This is why gods are almost universally, if not universally, anthropomorphized in appearance and behavior. Take perfection as another example. We are imperfect beings. It is impossible for us to realistically conceptualize perfection. So we approximate it by taking any concept to its extreme. So while God may indeed love perfectly, our approximation of that, despite us using the words perfect, is that He loves us better and more than any being in the universe. We then bring up individual examples that we believe demonstrates His perfect love so we can explain the concept in piecemeal.

And relative can generally be replaced with the word "non-universal." So something either is universal or non-universal. If it can be said to be both, then the concept is too vague such that we can say "this part is universal, while this part is relative," thus eliminating the contradiction.

interesting observations---so how would you (personally) distinguish between superstition and dogma/belief?

extreme concepts---in its advice to Christians, the Quran requests that Christians not go to extremes---if anything, the Quran prefers the Buddhist notion of the "middle way"(balance/harmony)---be that as it may, is there not a contradiction in your observation?---that we "take to extreme" because it cannot be imagined?...the very act of taking to extreme (conceptually) presupposes imagination does it not?

dichotomous binaries--- are an important method for understanding and analyzing but falls short when used to represent "reality" because the complexity of reality cannot be contained in the narrowness of binaries......?.....

[HumbleThinker]

interesting observations---so how would you (personally) distinguish between superstition and dogma/belief?

One man's belief is another man's superstition. We can only go by what we think is right based on our experiences and reasoning.

extreme concepts---in its advice to Christians, the Quran requests that Christians not go to extremes---if anything, the Quran prefers the Buddhist notion of the "middle way"(balance/harmony)---be that as it may, is there not a contradiction in your observation?---that we "take to extreme" because it cannot be imagined?...the very act of taking to extreme (conceptually) presupposes imagination does it not?

dichotomous binaries--- are an important method for understanding and analyzing but falls short when used to represent "reality" because the complexity of reality cannot be contained in the narrowness of binaries......?.....

I can't speak to what the Quran says on this as I have not completed a full reading of it yet. But when I say "extreme" I mean taken to the highest potential we can imagine. So if we take math, for instance, we cannot imagine infinity; we cannot imagine a limitless set of numbers or something that has an unlimited height. The best we can do is imagine an extremely high or low number, yet infinity will always contain a number that is higher or lower than any number we can imagine. And just like my previous example we can approximate infinity with mathematical descriptors, and we can use numerals to represent very large numbers, such as 2.3x10^23, but we cannot physically imagine the concept of these numbers in our mind.

[shunyadragon]

We can't imagine something that is entirely unreal. Mystical creatures like dragons, unicorns, goblins, and devils are based on phenomena humans have observed, such as horses, wings, and horns. This is why gods are almost universally, if not universally, anthropomorphized in appearance and behavior.

This is fundamentally not true. Yes people imagine many things that are not true, and perceive them as very real, from ghosts, angels, and even mythical animal creatures. The entire Oriental mythology of their religion evolved around the Dragon as the ultimate 'known' God, which were considered very real for millennia. The alternative in the Orient in contrast is the Tao or the Brahman, an unknown totally non-anthropomorphic apophatic 'Divine Source.'

Take perfection as another example. We are imperfect beings. It is impossible for us to realistically conceptualize perfection. So we approximate it by taking any concept to its extreme. So while God may indeed love perfectly, our approximation of that, despite us using the words perfect, is that He loves us better and more than any being in the universe. We then bring up individual examples that we believe demonstrates His perfect love so we can explain the concept in piecemeal.

True, is the reason why I do not consider the fallible human view as universal and absolute. I believe it is a valid assumption that the ultimate perfection of the 'Source' is either Divine or Natural concerning the underlying logic and law. The common challenge from seer, sparko, and others that; 'Is this an absolute truth or relative belief?' is a violation of several fallacies including the fallacy of bifurcation that all beliefs must either be absolutely true or relative as what they will than accuse as 'opinion' only.

And relative can generally be replaced with the word "non-universal." So something either is universal or non-universal. If it can be said to be both, then the concept is too vague such that we can say "this part is universal, while this part is relative," thus eliminating the contradiction.

You are committing the fallacy of bifurcation. In reality the human view is neither universal nor non-universal. The reality of certainty from the fallible human perspective is practical, pragmatic and functional somewhere in between.

Your selective use of the descriptive laws of logic, and your assertion that something cannot exist and exist at the same time is too narrow an assertion to justify logic as universal and absolute from the human perspective. In reality the descriptive logic from the human perspective is too unreliable in the broader sense to be universal nor absolute.

The example I gave in Quantum Mechanics is indeed valid in this case from the human descriptive perspective, because the Quantum phenomenon does indeed not exist, and at the immediate moment when observed does exist. The fact that this can be explained by the theories concerning Quantum mechanics does negate the fact that, yes it is indeed a contradiction of observation from the fallible human perspective. The theoretical considerations of Quantum Mechanics cannot yet be confirmed by descriptive logic.

Actually Descriptive logic was developed more for application to 'artificial intelligence' and robotics where yes artificially it can be mechanically and electronically be developed in a universal consistent manner. But, if you try and apply this to fallible human perceptions this assertion of universal and absolute breaks down and fails.

[JimL]

It is a matter of knowing things in the 'absolute sense.' We can know things with certainty, but not ALL things absolutely, even in the descriptive world.

So what if we know some things as plain as the nose on our face, but we cannot know all things absolutely as plan as the nose on our face which we have to depend on the reliability of a mirror for our mose to be visible.

Are you certain about that? We don't "know" many things of course, but how do you "know" that we can't "know?"

[shunyadragon]

Are you certain about that? We don't "know" many things of course, but how do you "know" that we can't "know?"

You sound like the meme's seer and sparko. You are like them committing the fallacy of bifurcation or false-dilemma out frustration of the failure to present a coherent argument.

Source: http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/false-dilemma/

The fallacy of Bifurcation - The bifurcation fallacy is committed when a false dilemma is presented, i.e. when someone is asked to choose between two options when there is at least one other option available. Of course, arguments that restrict the options to more than two but less than there really are are similarly fallacious.

© Copyright Original Source

I call this the 'splinters in the butt' fallacy where the false-dilemma has the advocate sliding indecisively back and forth on the wood fence between two unrealistic extremes trying in futility to choose one or the other.

[seer]

It is a matter of knowing things in the 'absolute sense.' We can know things with certainty, but not ALL things absolutely, even in the descriptive world.

Well that is progress, at least we can know some things with certainty.

[shunyadragon]

One man's belief is another man's superstition. We can only go by what we think is right based on our experiences and reasoning.



I can't speak to what the Quran says on this as I have not completed a full reading of it yet. But when I say "extreme" I mean taken to the highest potential we can imagine. So if we take math, for instance, we cannot imagine infinity; we cannot imagine a limitless set of numbers or something that has an unlimited height. The best we can do is imagine an extremely high or low number, yet infinity will always contain a number that is higher or lower than any number we can imagine. And just like my previous example we can approximate infinity with mathematical descriptors, and we can use numerals to represent very large numbers, such as 2.3x10^23, but we cannot physically imagine the concept of these numbers in our mind.

I may comment more in the future, but I have no problem imagining infinities of different sorts. For example I can easily imagine no matter how large a number that can be imagined, I can easily imagine adding another number.

I do not believe math 'approximates' infinities. Math use infinities as a descriptive defined concept.

[shunyadragon]

Well that is progress, at least we can know some things with certainty.

No progress here, yet. Fallible humans knowing 'some' things with certainty does in no way conclude that humans can know things 'absolutely,' beyond 'maybe' simple descriptive logical observations.