Theological Opinions , PART II

[Rían]

You said, "No, I disagree, Rian." and "They're not assumed to be true."

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

I think there's an important, if possibly subtle, distinction to be made between something that exists socially (such as agreement on axioms or postulates) and something that may exist independently (such as assumptions) when the point at issue is an inability to communicate, which is, in essence, a social issue. That's what I was originally pointing out, and THAT'S why your fluxuation between common and mathematical uses of the word "assume" has me using another term.

And, if I may ask, is there a reason you've been riding me so hard in this? Because I'm sure feeling that you're past the point where it looks necessary for contesting my statement, which is that, in some respects, we must all agree to disagree. Seems like an awful lot of energy expended in disagreeing with THAT.

[Rían]

I'm riding you hard because you've been riding me hard over "assumed". I'm NOT contesting your statement that "in some respects, we must all agree to disagree." I'm contesting your statement "They're [postulates/axioms] not assumed to be true." which was directly contradicting my statement that postulates/axioms ARE assumed to be true (you quoted my statement and then made yours).

You started the whole thing by picking at my use of the word "assumed". Fine - but back it up, and if I show I'm right, then admit it Then when I provide a dictionary definition to show that I was right in using "assumed", you never concede I was right - you just keep trying to show that you were right in using "agreed" (even though I said I was fine with using "agreed"!), and insult me by telling me that I didn't read your quote closely enough (and your word wasn't even there!). I just got to be curious to see if you would ever concede that I was right in my use of "assumed". You haven't. So I'm done.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

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

I don't know about that...in his dialogues, people he debates with tend to be pretty unfriendly to the Sophists. I'm thinking particularly of the Meno, but there are probably other examples.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

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.@@

Exactly.

Since all logic is relative (the truth is what you choose to believe), it's all sophistry when you get right down to it, which is not necessarily a bad thing if you are able to accept this fact. I don't think Plato ever wanted to.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Logic is not relative; that's even more absurd then saying truth is relative.

[Count Comfect]

Logic is based on premises.

These premises are at least negotiable, if not relative.

The process of logic FROM those premises is not relative. But the premises may be.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Logic is based on premises.

These premises are at least negotiable, if not relative.

The process of logic FROM those premises is not relative. But the premises may be.

Any logic, or at least the nonphysical kind based purely upon intellectual concepts, like theology, is relative by it's very nature because the premises themselves are arrived at not from observation, but from pure intellectual speculation.

We build the framework, like Plato and his forms, then make deductions based upon that framework. But things within that framework are only "logical" if we accept that particular framework at every step along the way. So it's really more what we call sophistry today than what we would call true logic.

For instance, we envision a loving god and thus make theological deductions from that premise, but we haven't observed god. There may be one, there may not be one. He may be loving, he may not be loving. And futhermore, what one person considers a loving act may be quite different from what another does. Each and every aspect we apply to this being, and his actions, are what we choose to make them. There is no logic, outside the relative kind, in any speculation about such a being.

Real logic, on the other hand, applies to things we can observe. Of course, observation in and of itself is also relative, so even that logic is suspect. Though, since all humans have the same powers of observation, more or less, we can call it real because those things are logical among all humans, as opposed to the logic that varies by the individual.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Real logic, on the other hand, applies to things we can observe.

!!!

Mr.a priori, meet Mr.a posteriori.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

!!!

Mr.a priori, meet Mr.a posteriori.

"Nothing is in the intellect which was not first in the senses."

[Lotesse]

The god is dead. Long live the god!!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Logic is based on premises.

These premises are at least negotiable, if not relative.

The process of logic FROM those premises is not relative. But the premises may be.

True enough. But logic is based on those premises; it is not the premises themselves, but the process of going from premises to conclusions.

Browns: see above.

[Count Comfect]

I was clarifying, not arguing.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Fair enough; I'll go with that.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

"Nothing is in the intellect which was not first in the senses."

Except that which was first perceived by the soul. The "senses" can't explain the supernatural gifts of the Spirit, and people have other experiences with the spiritual and supernatural that could not have come first from the senses.




I do intend to respond to the posts still waiting for me, here. I just don't have time yet . Bit of a school crunch. Plus, this weekend I've been distracted by what I think are some very cool insights into parts of the Bible I hadn't understood before.

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Exactly.

Since all logic is relative (the truth is what you choose to believe), it's all sophistry when you get right down to it, which is not necessarily a bad thing if you are able to accept this fact. I don't think Plato ever wanted to.

Balderdash! Scamper thee away into a pot of piddle thou piddling pooper!
I beleive this has been already covered -

... although, logically ... your statement (based on an untrue initial statement) and leading to an untrue conclusion might be said to be logically valid!

anyone got a mirror?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Except that which was first perceived by the soul. The "senses" can't explain the supernatural gifts of the Spirit, and people have other experiences with the spiritual and supernatural that could not have come first from the senses.

"You don't believe in me," observed the Ghost.

"I don't." said Scrooge.

"What evidence would you have of my reality, beyond that of your senses?"

"I don't know," said Scrooge.

"Why do you doubt your senses?"

"Because," said Scrooge, "a little thing affects them. A slight disorder of the stomach makes them cheats. You may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato. There's more of gravy than of grave about you, whatever you are!"

Charles Dickens, "A Christmas Carol"

[brownjenkins]

Myths which are believed in tend to become true. ~ George Orwell

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Myths which are believed in tend to become true. ~ George Orwell

My sophisticated, highly intellectual response:
Baloney .

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

My sophisticated, highly intellectual response:
Baloney .

Proof that he was right!