Source(s) of Knowledge
Do you believe that the fundamental logical relations and the categories of thought and action are the ultimate source of all human knowledge? Are they adequate to the structure of reality? Do they reveal this structure to the human mind and, in this sense, are for man basic ontological facts?
Quote:
Do you believe that the fundamental logical relations and the categories of thought and action are the ultimate source of all human knowledge? Are they adequate to the structure of reality? Do they reveal this structure to the human mind and, in this sense, are for man basic ontological facts?
"A fool has more questions than a wise man can answer" Confucius.
What are 'the fundamental logical relations and categories of thought and action'?
No, no and no.
This hasn't stopped engineers from designing better bridges and other useful stuff.
Quote:
"A fool has more questions than a wise man can answer" Confucius.
Excuse me but I thought IO Learning was the proper place to ask questions.
Quote:
What are 'the fundamental logical relations and categories of thought and action'?
At their foundations the principles of identity and contradiction—Aristotle’s “laws of thought” which if construed realistically must be seen not just as laws of correct thought but of reality.
Quote:
Excuse me but I thought IO Learning was the proper place to ask questions..
I suppose it is but given your long and persistent track record of obfuscation I view your questions as meaningless exercises in mental masturbation. I've read several of your
protagonistic threads and the only illumination they provide is on your own state of mind.
Quote:
I suppose it is but given your long and persistent track record of obfuscation I view your questions as meaningless exercises in mental masturbation. I've read several of your protagonistic threads and the only illumination they provide is on your own state of mind.
Excuse me (again) but may I suggest that you simply not respond to meaningless exercises in mental masturbation. Your allegiance to a failed idea is enough for me to surmise your state of mind.
Quote:
Excuse me (again) but may I suggest that you simply not respond to meaningless exercises in mental masturbation. Your allegiance to a failed idea is enough for me to surmise your state of mind.
I like that you skip someone legitimately asking you to further elaborate, only to trade one jab for another. 2 wrongs make a right in formal logic, then? Telling...
Quote:
Excuse me (again) but may I suggest that you simply not respond to meaningless exercises in mental masturbation. Your allegiance to a failed idea is enough for me to surmise your state of mind.
Which is one of unconditional hostility to capitalism and its defenders. Thank you.
Quote:
Excuse me (again) but may I suggest that you simply not respond to meaningless exercises in mental masturbation. Your allegiance to a failed idea is enough for me to surmise your state of mind.
is capitalism a success ??
HINT : look at black Africa
Quote:
Do you believe that the fundamental logical relations and the categories of thought and action are the ultimate source of all human knowledge? Are they adequate to the structure of reality? Do they reveal this structure to the human mind and, in this sense, are for man basic ontological facts?
It seems you are trying to talk of Plato's Law of Forms, but the way that you asked the question was incomprehensible. What I think that you are asking is whether or not Idealism is the source of knowledge, or that ideas exist outside of reality. In that case, no.
Reality exists objectively and devoid of human thought and consciousnesses. All human thought, consciousnesses and experience are a reflection of this objective reality, and not a cause of it. To say otherwise is a stepping stone to obscure Solipsism.
Quote:
Do you believe that the fundamental logical relations and the categories of thought and action are the ultimate source of all human knowledge?
There ain't no such animal as "the ultimate source of all human knowledge." I'm not saying that the intellectual Rube Goldberg machines that we run our empirical observations through don't leave a big mark, but such a general and absolute claim is uncalled for. Good question though.