Hello Serenity Smiles... We may have talked before I really would like to reply to your post in detail, but I am very pressed for time just now... so I must put you on "hold"... please forgive me... I have a "big thing" in the morning to prepare for...
On Jun 8, 5:27 pm, "Serenity Smiles" <gentle.esse...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > I am glad you raised the subject of senses, in buddhism the calculation of > actual senses within the mortal vehicle is 6 but, of course, that is not the > end I submit this article for consideration > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayatana. I am interested in how it compares > with a nominalists viewpoint. > > -----Original Message----- > From: nominal9 > Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 9:44 PM > To: Epistemology > Subject: [epistemology 12116] Re: OT For joke lovers > > 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 M nchhausen > 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 <claylon...@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 <clayl...@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 <clay...@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 > > ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. 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.
