My entire store of knowledge regarding philosophy was from reading some textbooks purchased from the clearance table at the used college textbook store when I was in college 1975-78. I buried all of that stuff and dogma long ago as nonessential baggage, so I can't intelligently discuss and pick at the topic of philosophical classification of thought processes with an entomologist's accuracy as you seem to be capable of doing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_reality I "live in a world of my own" as a characteristic of my "insanity", rejecting commonly held beliefs of society in favor of my own hypothetical truisms. I accept that society has a right to defend itself from persons like me (up to a certain point), because otherwise we would have anarchy. I even accept that some of my own preferred notions regarding reality are so odious to those who live "normal" lives that they recoil in horror and strike back at me in various ways when I am sufficiently incautious as to attempt sharing my thoughts. What I despise and loathe is the assumption of authority by mental health professions to DICTATE what I am permitted to think in the sanctity of my own mind. So... The question arises of the marginal utility of communicating my own world view's characteristics to others. Specifically, why should I even BOTHER to tell anyone at all what I might have discovered, due to the potential for retaliatory punishment by those whose only goal in life is enforcing conformity? I clung to that viewpoint for most of my life, but having reached one apparent minimum of acceptable life quality after another, only to find that it was indeed possible to be even worse off, I now ask myself a different question. That question is why I should even give a damn regarding the antagonistic responses of others because about the only thing worse that they could do to me is to put me in a straightjacket bound to a bed and force me to soil myself rather than give me the freedom to use a toilet. I had two trips to the psych ward at the VA hospital this year in which I explored the freedom which I could exercise as a patient, and have come to the conclusion that other than losing my ability to communicate on the internet (BFD,WGAD?), I actually am more free to influence others in the ward than I am when under house arrest at home. That raises the question once again of why bother spewing my "nonsense" such as : 1) All taxation should be voluntary, tax wealth not economic activity. 2) All representation should be by transferrable and revocable proxy, eliminate elections and districts 3) Abolish fiat money and forbid government issuance of debt instruments. etc etc etc With views like those, you can see why I have been under house arrest in the U.S.A. since 1997, certified cuckoo from cloud cuckoo land. Lonnie Courtney Clay On Wednesday, June 8, 2011 1:44:12 PM UTC-7, nominal9 wrote: > > So far as universals are concerned regarding the supposed opinions of > Nominalists, I claim that universals are convenient for categorizing > specifics into sets of similar observables. To the extent that every > observation (regardless of how focused) includes the context in which > the > observation occurs, and the mental status of the observer, there > exists a > diminishing probability that any observation can be duplicated, even > if the > observer's attention remains fixed upon an inanimate object. The > appearance > of duplicated observations is due to insufficient precision of the > observation, creating the appearance of identical results. > > Nominalism is a bit "shy" about granting any actual standing to > "universals".... beginning Scholasticism dealt in "universals"... then > came along William of Ockham... the "first" nominalist....(more or > less... mostly more).... > Anyway, Ockham says tht Universals do not actually "exist" in > reality... but that they are, at best, "abstracted thoughts" regarding > very similar (in many Physical senses "clone" identical) particular > things..... Ockhams' greatest contribution to Nominalism (to my > thinking) was distinguishing between levels of "Intention"... First > and Second.... > http://www.thefreedictionary.com/First+intention > First intention > (Logic) a conception of a thing formed by the first or direct > application of the mind to the individual object; an idea or image; > as, man, stone. > > http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Second+intention > Second Intention (Logic) a conception generalized from first > intuition or apprehension already formed by the mind; an abstract > notion; especially, a classified notion, as species, genus, whiteness. > > Universals are... second intentions.... > > As to your observations about "appearance"... that smacks of what I > used to hear was called the "fallibilist" argument... which pretty > much amounts to the assertion that "one" can't trust one's own > senses.... > > http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Fallibilist > Fallibilism (from medieval Latin fallibilis, "liable to err") is the > philosophical doctrine that all claims of knowledge could, in > principle, be mistaken. Some fallibilists go further, arguing that > absolute certainty about knowledge is impossible. As a formal > doctrine, it is most strongly associated with Charles Sanders Peirce, > John Dewey, and other pragmatists, who use it in their attacks on > foundationalism. > > However, it is already present in the views of some ancient > philosophers, including Xenophanes, Socrates, and Plato. > > In fact, it had a such a direct philosphical relationship with > Pyrrhonistic Skepticism, that Pyrrhonists of history are sometimes > referred to as fallibilists, and modern fallibilists as Pyrrhonists.[1] > [2] > > Another proponent of fallibilism is Karl Popper, who builds his theory > of knowledge, critical rationalism, on fallibilistic presuppositions. > Fallibilism has been employed by Willard Van Orman Quine to attack, > among other things, the distinction between analytic and synthetic > statements. > > Unlike scepticism, fallibilism does not imply the need to abandon our > knowledge - we needn't have logically conclusive justifications for > what we know. Rather, it is an admission that, because empirical > knowledge can be revised by further observation, any of the things we > take as knowledge might possibly turn out to be false. Some > fallibilists make an exception for things that are axiomatically true > (such as mathematical and logical knowledge). Others remain > fallibilists about these as well, on the basis that, even if these > axiomatic systems are in a sense infallible, we are still capable of > error when working with these systems. The critical rationalist Hans > Albert argues that it is impossible to prove any truth with certainty, > even in logic and mathematics. This argument is called the Münchhausen > Trilemma. > > Fallibilism will often discard absolute doctrines such as papal > infallibility, claiming that they are merely authority-based > arguments. > > > My quick reply to "fallibilism is.... That's what measurement or > other such observation "tools" are made for.....don't trust your > eyes?... get a telescope or a microscope... same goes for other > senses... can't remember right?... record it....In other words... you > can get around.... "apperances"....not a problem to actual > "knowledge"....But the Jack-ass Phenomenologists (like even Kant).... > make a big to-do about it..... > > > On Jun 8, 12:53 pm, Lonnie Clay <clayl...@comcast.net> wrote: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalism > > > > Hmm. I'm glad that we can agree to refrain from combat. Verbal jousting > > becomes tedious after repetition. > > > > So far as universals are concerned regarding the supposed opinions of > > Nominalists, I claim that universals are convenient for categorizing > > specifics into sets of similar observables. To the extent that every > > observation (regardless of how focused) includes the context in which the > > > observation occurs, and the mental status of the observer, there exists a > > > diminishing probability that any observation can be duplicated, even if > the > > observer's attention remains fixed upon an inanimate object. The > appearance > > of duplicated observations is due to insufficient precision of the > > observation, creating the appearance of identical results. However, the > need > > to go about one's business makes this irrelevant and a satisfactory > > performance of one's tasks can be attained by merely a casual glance at > most > > observables, with the observation filed away along with similar > inaccurate > > observations in one's memory. If some problem results due to that casual > > approach to life, then and only then do *I* take a closer look to see > what > > went awry... > > > > I guess that you could say that I am superciliously superficial, shallow > > even... > > > > Lonnie Courtney Clay > > > > On Wednesday, June 8, 2011 9:23:25 AM UTC-7, nominal9 wrote: > > > > > I don't like slinging mud or fighting wars with other posters.... I > > > prefer to reserve my bile and vitriol for "Public figures".... or > > > points of argument... > > > No need to get personal with me... unless you want to..... > > > I like Anarchists.... don't like Libertarians... some say Libertarians > > > are anarchists.... couldn't be farther from the truth....Libertarians > > > like the State, to protect their Contract Rights..... A true > > > Anarchist..... thinks a "contract" IS THE STATE..... I prefer > > > individual rights... political, human, whatever.... any encroachment > > > on individual rights.....I look at very suspiciously.... > > > Ever hear of "Nominalism"... as distinguished from Idealism... > > > Realism... or Phenomenology?... that's my take on > > > epistemologies....pretty much four branches to it (give or take > > > variations in all branches)... I prefer the Nominalist branch, but I > > > think I understand the others well enough.... at least to know what I > > > dislike about them.... > > > Nice to meet you, maybe "we" can discuss "things".... without getting > > > "personal".... > > > > > On Jun 8, 11:23 am, Lonnie Clay <clay...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lonnie-courtney-clay/sYe16Qq5iTA > > > > > > Perhaps you should read at the link above. I despise > authoritarianism. My > > > > > > desires for government power border upon anarchy. I have been on the > > > > internet since 1997, active in 2001, 2007, 2010 until now. I dropped > in > > > on > > > > epistemology early this year, where I have contributed my bombast > from > > > time > > > > to time. If we are to engage in a flame war, then let's confine it to > > > > this > > > > thread, since the pathetic sight of otherwise reasonable persons > slinging > > > > > > mud and feces will be in context... > > > > > > Lonnie Courtney Clay > > > > > > On Wednesday, June 8, 2011 7:56:37 AM UTC-7, nominal9 wrote: > > > > > > > Ah... a man "above" getting his hands dirty.....with measly > > > > > politics...even the "ethics" (or lack) thereof... a man perched in > a > > > > > gilded cage... in an ivory tower.... aloof.... elite.... superior > and > > > > > refined.... wagnerian.... perhaps nazi-esque.... > > > > > > > PS... I come here every so often.... to speak to some of the > > > > > locals.... don't recall seeing you here before....speaking of > taking a > > > > > hike.... > > > > > > > On Jun 7, 10:14 pm, Lonnie Clay <cla...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > Yep, she is a Titan, though definitely not of intellect. You on > the > > > other > > > > > > > > hand appear to be a mite, exerting all of your might (utterly > > > negligible) > > > > > in > > > > > > an attempt to derail clean (more or less) humor onto the tracks > of > > > > > political > > > > > > dissent. That won't work (because I consider politics beneath > notice) > > > due > > > > > to > > > > > > the entire topic being suffused with emotions which positively > ooze > > > > > > testosterone, with very little concealing perfume or deodorant. > Take > > > a > > > > > hike, > > > > > > or joust here, as you please. > > > > > > > > Lonnie Courtney Clay > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, June 7, 2011 4:28:51 PM UTC-7, nominal9 wrote: > > > > > > > > > Yo Momma (Sarah Palin's) Ass is so big...... the National Parks > > > > > > > > Service offers donkey rides down the sides of her Butt > Crack.... > > > > > > > > > On May 28, 12:54 pm, Lonnie Clay <cla...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lonnie-courtney-clay/ckETvke2mOE > > > > > > > > > > Has some of my original jokes. Want more? > > > > > > > > > > Lonnie Courtney Clay -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/epistemology/-/FfLgXA-86WsJ. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
