Theological Opinions , PART II

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Then would "I agree with hectorberlioz" necessitate an opinion that hectorberlioz is true? Be still my heart.

Maybe "correct" is the word we're looking for.

That's purely sophistical. You are using agree in a different manner; you cannot both agree or disagree with a person and an idea in the same way. To agree with an idea means you think it is true. To agree with a person means you think they are correct; that is, that they idea in the particular matter is true.

I've been thinking about this, and it occurs to me that we're kind of stranded at the basis of geometry. Euclidian geometry has postulates that Lobachevskian geometry doesn't use. They equally are 'true', but you can't use one to prove or disprove the other.

For the record, I love Euclidean geometry.

Likewise, we're unlikely to get anywhere attempting to prove or disprove issues like the age of creation without shared postulates.

I absolutely agree. I think it's vital to find common principles in an argument before one proceeds; to not follow this order is, quite frankly, foolish.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Yet the fall of Satan is much more explicit in at least one other scripture, as I mentioned. The Protestant view on this, at least in modern times, comes from the Bible rather than from Catholic tradition.

The Protestant view of the passage from the prophet comes from Catholic tradition.

I, at any rate, accept this story as true because it's in the Bible and not because it's in Catholic tradition . Not that Catholic tradition is bad, at all, and it might be all true. Though there are some parts that I really doubt, because they seem to contradict scripture, such as Mary's never having had any sexual intercourse with Joseph after giving birth to Jesus.

But I would like to see a different example of something in Protestant beliefs that is really rooted in Catholic tradition and not in the Bible.

The books in the New Testament, for one thing.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

They're not assumed to be true. They're agreed to be true. Quite different.

From Websters: (bolding is mine)

postulate:
2. to assume without proof to be true, real, or necessary, esp. as a basis for argument.
3. to take as self-evident or axiomatic; assume.

axiom:
3. logic, match. a statement that needs no proof because its truth is obvious; self-evident proposition.

Maybe you can find a definition with "agreed" - I didn't see that word, though. But I can live with either "assume" or "agree" - the point, IMO, is that they're not formally "proved".

[Rían]

Sis - ps - I didn't mean "assume" in a casual sense; I meant it in a formal sense.


BB - when you said you were concerned about my "intellectual honesty", to me, that means you're concerned that I'm being intellectually dishonest. Maybe you use it a different way, though. Maybe you just meant that you thought I was intellectually inept, which I'm sure I am many times . But dishonest, I'm not. And when you use a word like "honest", and say you're concerned about it, then it just seemed very natural to think you meant I was being dishonest. Do you see where I was coming from? Anyway, from the rest of your post, it looks like you think my technique is at fault. I've never had any formal training so I"m not surprised at that! I just try to read people's posts, think about them and analyze them, and then respond honestly and thoughtfully.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

That's purely sophistical. You are using agree in a different manner; you cannot both agree or disagree with a person and an idea in the same way. To agree with an idea means you think it is true. To agree with a person means you think they are correct; that is, that they idea in the particular matter is true.

I agree with Gwai

[Nurvingiel]

Okay, I won't quibble about math!! *bows to your geekdom*

[Rían]

math iz fun! *geeky look*

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

To agree with an idea means you think it is true. To agree with a person means you think they are correct; that is, that they idea in the particular matter is true.

I don't think that is true, but I agree with the sentiment.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

formerly the Encylopedia Brittanica.
[QUOTE]AXIOM (Gr. &iwµa) , a See also:GENERAL GENERAL (Lat. generalis, of or relating to a genus, kind or class)general proposition or principle accepted as self-evident, either absolutely or within a particular See also:SPHERE (Gr. vclsa?pa, a ball or globe)sphere of thought . Each See also:SPECIALspecial See also:SCIENCE (Lat. scientia, from scire; to learn, know)science has its own axioms (cf. the Aristotelian &pxai, " first principles"), which, however, are sometimes susceptible of See also:PROOF (in M. Eng. preove, proeve, preve, &°c., from O. Fr . prueve, proeve, &c., mod. preuve, Late. Lat. proba, probate, to prove, to test the goodness of anything, probus, good)proof in another wider science . The See also:GREEK GREEK, ETRUSCAN ANDGreek word was probably confined by See also:PLATOPlato to mathematical axioms, but See also:ARISTOTLE ARISTOTLE (384-322 B.C.)Aristotle gave it also the wider significance of the ultimate principles of thought which are behind all special sciences (e.g. the principle of See also: CONTRADICTION, PRINCIPLE OF (principium contradictionis)contradiction) . These are apprehended solely by the mind, which may, however, be led to them by an inductive See also:PROCESS process . After Aristotle, the See also:TERMterm was used by the See also:STOICSStoics and the school of See also:RAMUS, PETRUS, or PIERRE DE LA RAMEE (1515-1572)Ramus for a proposition simply, and See also:BACON BACON (through the O. Fr. bacon, Low Lat. baco, from a Teutonic word cognate with " back," e.g. O. H. Ger. pacho, M. H. Ger. backe, buttock, flitch of bacon) BACON, FRANCIS (BARON VERULAM, VISCOUNT ST ALBANS) (1561-1626) BACON, JOHN (1740–1799) BACON, LEONARD (1802–1881)BACON, ROGER (c. 1214-c. 1294)BACON, SIR NICHOLAS (1509-1579) Bacon {Nov . See also:ORGAN Organ. i . 7) used it of any general proposition . The word was reintroduced in See also:MODERN modern See also:PHILOSOPHY (Gr. gthos, fond of, and vo4 (a, wisdom)philosophy probably by Rene See also: DESCARTES, RENE (1596-1650)Descartes (or by his followers)who, in the See also: SEARCH, or VISIT AND SEARCHsearch for a definite self-evident principle as the basis of a new philosophy, naturally turned to the See also:FAMILIAR (through the Fr. familier, from Lat. familiaris, of or belonging to the familia, family)familiar science of See also:MATHEMATICS (Gr. /saBnµar1Kil, Sc. vOcvn or E7rlQTt'µn; from p iN.La, "learning" or "science ")mathematics . The See also:AXIOM (Gr. &iwµa)axiom of See also:CARTESIANISM Cartesianism is, therefore, the Cogito ergo sum . See also: KANT, IMMANUEL (1724-1804)
Kant still further narrowed the meaning to include only self-evident (intuitive) synthetic propositions, i.e. of space and See also:TIME (0. Eng. Lima, cf. Icel. timi, Swed. timme, hour, Dan. time; from the root also seen in " tide," properly the time of between the flow and ebb of the sea, cf. O. Eng. getidan, to happen, " even-tide," &c.; it is not directly related to Lat. tempus)TIME, MEASUREMENT OF TIME, STANDARDtime .

The nature of axiomatic certainty is See also:PARTpart of the fundamental problem of See also:LOGIC (Xoy1K7, sc. rixvrt, the art of reasoning)logic and See also:METAPHYSICS METAPHYSICS, or METAPHYSIC (from Gr. /sera, after, d v med, things of nature, lots, i.e. the natural universe)metaphysics . Those who deny the possibility of all non-empirical knowledge naturally hold that every axiom is ultimately based on observation . For the Euclidian axioms see See also:
GEOMETRYGEOMETRY .

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Maybe you can find a definition with "agreed" - I didn't see that word, though. But I can live with either "assume" or "agree" - the point, IMO, is that they're not formally "proved".

Gwai, sophistry? Of course. What would be more appropriate to this discussion? Without shared referent, it's sophistical by its very nature. I was mostly just thinking it was funny.

[brownjenkins]

If it wasn't for Plato, sophistry would still be a compliment.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

If it wasn't for Plato, sophistry would still be a compliment.

the challenge when the winners set the definitions.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by sis

Rian, from the online encyclopedia, ...

I searched the definition you provided and didn't find "agree" or "agreed", so it looks like I'm still correct since I hope everyone here would certainly accept Websters as a valid source

Anyway, I'm guessing we agree about the general idea of the word's meaning, though, right?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

the challenge when the winners set the definitions.

The thing is: they WON. They won for a reason, because their arguements (talking about Plato here...) were better. Not all trash is priceless...

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

"A general proposition or principle accepted as self evident" would be "agreed upon" as self-evident, particularly with a further clarification as "either absolutely or within a particular sphere of thought."

generally approved or compelling recognition; "several accepted techniques for treating the condition"; "his recognized superiority in this kind of work"
generally agreed upon; not subject to dispute; "the accepted interpretation of the poem"; "an accepted theory"; "the undisputed fact"
generally accepted or used; "accepted methods of harmony and melody"; "three accepted types of pump"
acceptable: judged to be in conformity with approved usage; "acceptable English usage"
widely or permanently accepted; "an accepted precedent"
widely accepted as true or worthy; "the accepted wisdom about old age"; "a received moral idea"; "Received political wisdom says not; surveys show otherwise"- Economist
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

The idea being, that unless all present start from the same basis, the argument will always be "unprovable", which is not identical to "untrue."

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

The thing is: they WON. They won for a reason, because their arguements (talking about Plato here...) were better. Not all trash is priceless...

Go ahead and argue in favor of Plato's approach to reality. I wait with bated breath.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Go ahead and argue in favor of Plato's approach to reality. I wait with bated breath.

Thats not my point...I'm just saying that the "you just won cuz yer famous" arguement is stupid, because the people who are the "winners" won for a reason, whether their ideas were/are "true" or not is not my point, though I will say they were/are compelling. Even Martin Luther.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

that "you won cause you're famous." I don't know where you'd even insert that in the conversation.

brown jenkins and I were just agreeing, as is historically accurate, that the negative picture most people have of sophistry is due largely to Plato's biased version of it.@@

"The people who won", in various venues, have won due to a number of causes, most of them only marginally related to the rigor of their relationship with TRUTH, or that "their arguments were better".

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

that "you won cause you're famous." I don't know where you'd even insert that in the conversation.

It the same brand of fine whine as "the winners write history".

EDIT: slight misreading

[Rían]

Originally Posted by sis

Rian, you didn't read carefully enough.

I did read it carefully, Sis. And I searched for the words "accept" and "accepted", and they weren't there. How is that not reading carefully enough? Maybe you didn't read carefully enough! If you want to say that "accepted" can mean "agreed upon", and provide a definition of "accepted" that uses the word "agreed", then that's up to you, but don't claim I didn't read carefully enough when the word you're talking about isn't there. (I'm guessing your latest quote is a definition for "accepted", although it doesn't say).

I said I was fine with "agreed", anyway, so what's the big deal? You started this by nitpicked my use of the word "assumed" in my casual definition of axiom/postulate, and you said I was wrong. I provided a dictionary definition from a respected source that used "assume" several times right in the definition, which proved I was right. You never acknowledged that I was right and that you were wrong over this word, and you still haven't provided a defintion of axiom or postulate that uses your word ("agreed"). And even though you still haven't provided a definition of axiom or postulate with "agreed" in it, I was gracious enough to concede its use to you, yet you still haven't conceded I'm right about "assumed", even though I provided a dictionary definition that used it. What's up? You were wrong about "assume" - so what? :shrug: We're all wrong sometimes. 'Fess up and let's keep the conversation going

What's your background in math, btw?

Originally Posted by sis

The idea being, that unless all present start from the same basis, the argument will always be "unprovable", which is not identical to "untrue."

Who used "untrue"?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Then find me where I said you were "wrong."