|
|
| Page 2 of 2 |
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14201
|
 Posted: Fri, 23rd May 2025 14:11 Post subject: |
|
 |
Russells book is a more popular (meaning more accessible) philosophical work and an introduction into classic philosophical problems from his point of view. And the sentence "In one sense it must be admitted that we can never prove the existence of things other than ourselves and our experiences."is part of his critique of cartesian rationalism. Just the next sentence:
"There is no logical impossibility in the supposition that the whole of life is a dream, in which we ourselves create all the objects that come before us. But although this is not logically impossible, there is no reason whatever to suppose that it is true; and it is, in fact, a less simple hypothesis, viewed as a means of accounting for the facts of our own life, than the common-sense hypothesis that there really are objects independent of us, whose action on us causes our sensations. "
Russell being an empiricist.
Context is important.
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 23rd May 2025 14:29 Post subject: |
|
|
Good point,
But the context as a whole I have a problem with enjoying. Its saying a thing, then countering that thing, then agreeing that it's possible the first thing we pondered, that seemed absurd, still seems absurd. When just stopping at 'that is absurd' would have given the same result.
It contradicts the first argument it puts forth:
We must admit we cannot prove anything. Then goes on to give probabilities of how true one or the other is. Well we cannot prove either...so those probabilities now are "From the dept of out of the ass' based on the first statement. Because both are equally unprovable.
I guess a lot of it is (as on the nose for ME to be saying this) that it seems to say a lot to usually, end up at: It goes without saying.
Like I said, most philosophy sounds like listening to Jordan Peterson talk to me. A lot of shaving the sharp edges off conclusions when you bump into one, for the sake of being able to slide off or around them and say a lot of something, that has no tangible usefulness in what is said.
Democracy Dies in Dumbness.
-Officially sanctioned Libcuck of NFOHump, proudly appointed by the SIS (Stromwolf Identity Society). Not only do I enjoy Libbing around all libtard like, I enjoy a good cuckolding too.
Since I like my sex like I like my politics: Liberal and gay-friendly. With lot of Trans pedos involved, and me and my wife don't involve each other much when we engage in it with strangers.
Last edited by SumZero on Fri, 23rd May 2025 14:39; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14201
|
| Posted: Fri, 23rd May 2025 14:36 Post subject: |
|
|
Well, thats because you seem to agree with Russell philosophically.
But if I were to write a book about the problems of philosophy, I would probably at one point talk about cartesianism and rationalism, since they were/are major currents of philosophy I'd have to account for, if I were to write such a book for interested readers.
Showing how you tackle classic philosophical problems in your own way is part of what philosophers often do. And Descartes solipsism is such a problem. Not all of them, not all the time, not necessarily etc. But sometimes they do. Especially if the book is called: Problems of philosophy.
Then again, you may just not like Russells style. Which is also ok.
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
Last edited by couleur on Fri, 23rd May 2025 14:55; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 23rd May 2025 14:46 Post subject: |
|
|
I get what your saying. 
Just I have problems with his explanation of problems of philosophy.
I'm more an Auguste Comte, if the "Everything humans think is really some form of philosophy in the end" is the argument.
(Which I have a problem with, philosophy used to describe any type of thinking people do comes off a bit like using the word "Smurf" like the Smurfs do)
But say that is the agreed viewpoint that its true. And I had to pick a type of philosopher I align more with, he would be it: The metaphysical phase is a transitional phase that arises from the inability of the human mind to pass directly from theological to positive [ empirical - my added context to explain 'positive'] thinking.
Now I don't agree with all of his Positivism system. But I'd say I agree with slightly more of it, than I disagree. (I don't even agree that's a good name for it, it conveys a sense by the name, that isn't applicable to it. It isn't wrong, or right. its not even applicable)
Edit: Mayyyybe 'Scientism' is the right term now. But that's just a sort, of kind of, branch with Logical Positivism as the trunk. So Positivism is the better root system to mention.
Democracy Dies in Dumbness.
-Officially sanctioned Libcuck of NFOHump, proudly appointed by the SIS (Stromwolf Identity Society). Not only do I enjoy Libbing around all libtard like, I enjoy a good cuckolding too.
Since I like my sex like I like my politics: Liberal and gay-friendly. With lot of Trans pedos involved, and me and my wife don't involve each other much when we engage in it with strangers.
Last edited by SumZero on Fri, 23rd May 2025 15:06; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14201
|
| Posted: Fri, 23rd May 2025 15:06 Post subject: |
|
|
What don't you like about the name?
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 23rd May 2025 15:16 Post subject: |
|
|
It can to the unfamiliar give a totally different sense of intent or its ideals by having the word "Positive" in it. as is Positivity, or Positive outlook, 'Glass 1/2 full' vibe. When it has nothing to do with optimism or pessimism in its system. It only applies to 'positive verifiable facts'.
It's just a badly formed named to convey anything it's about, without needing explaining: positive doesn't mean a positive mindset, it means positively provable.
. Compared to like Imperialism, or Socialism, Constructivism (or a lot of isms). They all give you a rough idea of what the start point is in the name.
Like my other "makes my technical autistic brain have feels goods" system: Technocracies. It says right in the name enough to assume what its about.
Democracy Dies in Dumbness.
-Officially sanctioned Libcuck of NFOHump, proudly appointed by the SIS (Stromwolf Identity Society). Not only do I enjoy Libbing around all libtard like, I enjoy a good cuckolding too.
Since I like my sex like I like my politics: Liberal and gay-friendly. With lot of Trans pedos involved, and me and my wife don't involve each other much when we engage in it with strangers.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14201
|
| Posted: Fri, 23rd May 2025 15:33 Post subject: |
|
|
Who cares about the unfamiliar though? Certainly not someone like Auguste Comte for whom the name fits perfectly.
I found a source that explains it better than I would be able to:
| Quote: | The word “positivism” has a long history. It derives from the Latin ponere, meaning “to lay”, “to deposit”. The past participle of ponere is positus. Since the 13th century, “positive” has meant “established”, generally by divine or human institution. In the 16th century, the term came to designate knowledge based on facts and therefore characterized by its certainty [3]. Angèle Kremer-Marietti, a commentator on Comte, reveals the first occurrence of the expression “sciences positives” in Juvenel de Carlencas's Essais sur l'histoire des belles-lettres, des sciences et des arts, published in 1740, when he writes: “Under this name [Histoire Naturelle] are understood all the sciences that are positive and founded on experience” [4]. The object of the sciences is to make us admire “the greatness, goodness and wisdom of the Author of nature”, in other words, God [5]; but this didn't stop anti-clerical philosophers from using the word “positive” with a very different intention. Thus, Jacques-André Naigeon, in his Encyclopédie méthodique, defined “positive” as something “incontestable”, based on induction and verification. He states: “It is obvious that nothing would be more ridiculous than to treat Christian theology as a positive science” [6].
Translated with DeepL.com (free version) |
https://droit.cairn.info/revue-interdisciplinaire-d-etudes-juridiques-2011-2-page-49?lang=fr
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14201
|
| Posted: Fri, 23rd May 2025 16:17 Post subject: |
|
|
Does the system advocate for that really?
It owes you nothing. Especially not centuries old writings by academics who knew exactly what they wrote about and what their academic readers would know too.
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14201
|
| Posted: Fri, 23rd May 2025 17:24 Post subject: |
|
|
I don’t really see the point of it but ok.
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 23rd May 2025 17:29 Post subject: |
|
|
It's just me, I am weird with object/concept names. One of my ticks
Im one of those people that will point out: Its not a Hot Water heater..its a Water Heater. Hot water heater makes no sense to say. Why would it heat hot water? It's already hot. To say you have a hot water heater comes off as if you have a water heater, then another after it, that heats THAT hot water.
Or better example: Pair of glasses. It's not a pair of glasses, glasses is its own term. If we are calling it a pair, it should be a "pair of monocles".
Because someone can say they are wearing a "pair of glasses" or just "Wearing glasses". if both can be true. One would mean twice as many as the other, and they have two separate pairs of glasses. To say "I am wearing two pairs of glasses" could mean either, 2 or 4 depending on if you consider "glasses" to mean two lens and one frames? Or, two pairs, of two glasses? So you are wearing 4 glasses?
Or pair of pants. Never seen anyone wearing one 'pant'. Sure it came from pantloons that was two separate unattached items. But jeans are not pantaloons, you cannot buy and wear seperate halves. So there is not a pair of jeans. I mean if I ever see someone wearing one side of a 'pant' then I will agree jeans is a wearing a pair of them.
Democracy Dies in Dumbness.
-Officially sanctioned Libcuck of NFOHump, proudly appointed by the SIS (Stromwolf Identity Society). Not only do I enjoy Libbing around all libtard like, I enjoy a good cuckolding too.
Since I like my sex like I like my politics: Liberal and gay-friendly. With lot of Trans pedos involved, and me and my wife don't involve each other much when we engage in it with strangers.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14201
|
| Posted: Fri, 23rd May 2025 19:29 Post subject: |
|
|
Yes but positivism fits what it is pretty well.
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 2 of 2 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
