Here's a fine ("useful") distinction which jumps out this very day: " Reason is slippery because language is. Reason can easily become rationalization and discerning the difference is the task of true philosophy. " Dr Matthew Raphael Johnson on Petre Tutea of Romania http://www.dailystormer.com/the-orthodox-nationalist-the-thoughts-of-petre-t... -- Certified Deplorable Fake News Nazi (TM)(C)(R) Executive Director of Vice, Ministry of Winning Shilling for buxom Russian swastika clad minxes since 1488
Folks - please have a look. Excellent resource! www.dailystormer.com -------- Original Message -------- On Dec 4, 2016, 6:42 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: Here's a fine ("useful") distinction which jumps out this very day: " Reason is slippery because language is. Reason can easily become rationalization and discerning the difference is the task of true philosophy. " Dr Matthew Raphael Johnson on Petre Tutea of Romania http://www.dailystormer.com/the-orthodox-nationalist-the-thoughts-of-petre-t... -- Certified Deplorable Fake News Nazi (TM)(C)(R) Executive Director of Vice, Ministry of Winning Shilling for buxom Russian swastika clad minxes since 1488
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/04/2016 09:42 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Here's a fine ("useful") distinction which jumps out this very day:
" Reason is slippery because language is. Reason can easily become rationalization and discerning the difference is the task of true philosophy. " Dr Matthew Raphael Johnson on Petre Tutea of Romania
http://www.dailystormer.com/the-orthodox-nationalist-the-thoughts-of-p etre-tutea/
That's
odd. I thought the task of "true philosophy" was to evaluate the internal consistency of logical statements, in a context where physical evidence or relevance to material situations is not considered. Or is that mathematics? The barrier between the two gets a bit fuzzy when Goedel's work gets dragged in, proving that proofs prove nothing. Rationalization normally means arguing backward toward a preconceived conclusion, in a process where logical contradictions and discarding or misrepresenting physical data are permissible - usually to justify or prove arbitrary and/or emotionally motivated propositions. That seems very much like philosophy to me. On the other hand, the task of science is to test well defined assertions about physical processes by attempting to falsify them with observational data or experimental results contradicting those assertions. Where does hitching "reason" to the material world get you? Bang, zoom, to the Moon, Alice! :o) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYRPB7AAoJEECU6c5Xzmuqy/YIALHPzktTIgCx4IzldPgx/zQM P2JsyqxTN3gmfdxWA2P3lm0ab1t7qr1j+QxQQSj1dMdRK8bT8Siuxm+Au+DMUERY p+6ozOsXPS3jdurVuCDK/rm0ikKwmkiBvuwL9ovEGXGqhUQr61XroYX4bO/YDpRH lILvibSLDQZ1s0L204Rjh9EWMmSQu5ELBsQJ4KMkv+8BEWaDXwops/bw5swPqjLz 4ZF2Xhd98Ff+AAWmPbfgJ9nr4bz218AMkQn3q+/wdXthplE7GY7M6mWyh/DaCNpu Pg0RiA/pD4b282O6kGE10emqcyTq7ZINT53SV4GS7vj3HdrJjGbzNZQHJtSvweQ= =kgvO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 23:43:39 -0500 Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote: --
odd. I thought the task of "true philosophy" was to evaluate the internal consistency of logical statements, in a context where physical evidence or relevance to material situations is not considered.
No it isn't. You don't know what philosophy means. Hardly surprising coming from a supporter of theocratic fraud, or a sworn enemy of truth, like you.
Or is that mathematics?
It isn't mathematics either. But thanks for showing you know fuck about mathematics as well.
The barrier between the two gets a bit fuzzy when Goedel's work
Pseudo intellectual charlatan trying to look cool by invoking a 'well known' pseudo intellectual charlatan.
gets dragged in, proving that proofs prove nothing.
Rationalization normally means arguing backward toward a preconceived conclusion, in a process where logical contradictions and discarding or misrepresenting physical data are permissible - usually to justify or prove arbitrary and/or emotionally motivated propositions. That seems very much like philosophy to me.
No stupid piece of shit. What you are describing is jew-kristianity. Philosophy, as it name implies, is the search of truth/knowledge prompted by a love of truth/knowldege. A love of knowledge is exactly what apologists of jew-kristianity lack since their whole 'worldview' is built around the most stupid lies ever.
On the other hand, the task of science
Intelectual frauds babbling about science. This list is really something. is to test well defined
assertions about physical processes by attempting to falsify them with observational data or experimental results contradicting those assertions. Where does hitching "reason" to the material world get you? Bang, zoom, to the Moon, Alice!
:o)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYRPB7AAoJEECU6c5Xzmuqy/YIALHPzktTIgCx4IzldPgx/zQM P2JsyqxTN3gmfdxWA2P3lm0ab1t7qr1j+QxQQSj1dMdRK8bT8Siuxm+Au+DMUERY p+6ozOsXPS3jdurVuCDK/rm0ikKwmkiBvuwL9ovEGXGqhUQr61XroYX4bO/YDpRH lILvibSLDQZ1s0L204Rjh9EWMmSQu5ELBsQJ4KMkv+8BEWaDXwops/bw5swPqjLz 4ZF2Xhd98Ff+AAWmPbfgJ9nr4bz218AMkQn3q+/wdXthplE7GY7M6mWyh/DaCNpu Pg0RiA/pD4b282O6kGE10emqcyTq7ZINT53SV4GS7vj3HdrJjGbzNZQHJtSvweQ= =kgvO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Dec 5, 2016, at 12:14 AM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 23:43:39 -0500 Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote: --
odd. I thought the task of "true philosophy" was to evaluate the internal consistency of logical statements, in a context where physical evidence or relevance to material situations is not considered.
No it isn't. You don't know what philosophy means. Hardly surprising coming from a supporter of theocratic fraud, or a sworn enemy of truth, like you.
Or is that mathematics?
It isn't mathematics either. But thanks for showing you know fuck about mathematics as well.
The barrier between the two gets a bit fuzzy when Goedel's work
Pseudo intellectual charlatan trying to look cool by invoking a 'well known' pseudo intellectual charlatan
Wait - how is Goedel a "pseudo intellectual charlatan"? Because he believed in God? His personal religious beliefs, as misguided as they may have been, don't discount his body of work.
gets dragged in, proving that proofs prove nothing.
Rationalization normally means arguing backward toward a preconceived conclusion, in a process where logical contradictions and discarding or misrepresenting physical data are permissible - usually to justify or prove arbitrary and/or emotionally motivated propositions. That seems very much like philosophy to me.
No stupid piece of shit. What you are describing is jew-kristianity.
Philosophy, as it name implies, is the search of truth/knowledge prompted by a love of truth/knowldege.
A love of knowledge is exactly what apologists of jew-kristianity lack since their whole 'worldview' is built around the most stupid lies ever.
On the other hand, the task of science
Intelectual frauds babbling about science. This list is really something.
is to test well defined
assertions about physical processes by attempting to falsify them with observational data or experimental results contradicting those assertions. Where does hitching "reason" to the material world get you? Bang, zoom, to the Moon, Alice!
:o)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYRPB7AAoJEECU6c5Xzmuqy/YIALHPzktTIgCx4IzldPgx/zQM P2JsyqxTN3gmfdxWA2P3lm0ab1t7qr1j+QxQQSj1dMdRK8bT8Siuxm+Au+DMUERY p+6ozOsXPS3jdurVuCDK/rm0ikKwmkiBvuwL9ovEGXGqhUQr61XroYX4bO/YDpRH lILvibSLDQZ1s0L204Rjh9EWMmSQu5ELBsQJ4KMkv+8BEWaDXwops/bw5swPqjLz 4ZF2Xhd98Ff+AAWmPbfgJ9nr4bz218AMkQn3q+/wdXthplE7GY7M6mWyh/DaCNpu Pg0RiA/pD4b282O6kGE10emqcyTq7ZINT53SV4GS7vj3HdrJjGbzNZQHJtSvweQ= =kgvO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 07:12:20 -0500 John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
The barrier between the two gets a bit fuzzy when Goedel's work
Pseudo intellectual charlatan trying to look cool by invoking a 'well known' pseudo intellectual charlatan
Wait - how is Goedel a "pseudo intellectual charlatan"? Because he believed in God?
I didn'r know he was some sort of christian (but thankfully not a catholic eh, those are the bad christians - ask rayzer). What bothers me about the philosophy of mathematics is the attempt at finding some ultimate 'foundation' for the whole thing, though I realize that Goedel was rather on the opposite side of the so called logical positivists...
His personal religious beliefs, as misguided as they may have been, don't discount his body of work.
True. Well at least for the more technical stuff.
On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 11:43:39PM -0500, Steve Kinney wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 12/04/2016 09:42 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Here's a fine ("useful") distinction which jumps out this very day:
" Reason is slippery because language is. Reason can easily become rationalization and discerning the difference is the task of true philosophy. " Dr Matthew Raphael Johnson on Petre Tutea of Romania
http://www.dailystormer.com/the-orthodox-nationalist-the-thoughts-of-p etre-tutea/
That's
odd. I thought the task of "true philosophy" was to evaluate the internal consistency of logical statements,
Ack. That's actually how I read "reason vs. rationalization" - as in, reason is that logical reasoning based on facts, with rationalization being say cherry picking facts, and or using strained logic to justify a position. May be the colloquial use of the word "rationalization" is different here in Australia, don't know sorry, but we tend to say "now you're rationalizing your untenable position", as being essentially the same as "now you're justifying your untenable position".
in a context where physical evidence or relevance to material situations is not considered. Or is that mathematics? The barrier between the two gets a bit fuzzy when Goedel's work gets dragged in, proving that proofs prove nothing.
Ahh Goedel, been on my bucket list for many years. Some years back I was in a bookshop and saw some Goedel, Escher, Bach book and began reading the 1000 pages whilst I waited for a friend. After a few pages that fateful day, he's remained on my bucket list - yes, still on the list.
Rationalization normally means arguing backward toward a preconceived conclusion, in a process where logical contradictions and discarding or misrepresenting physical data are permissible - usually to justify or prove arbitrary and/or emotionally motivated propositions. That seems very much like philosophy to me.
Haha! Your definition same same two dollar :) <trigger warning, cultural appropriation alert/> Except for that last bit - "philosophy" that is, for which I don't actually have a definition, so I can't say yours in any different to mine - it might be the same when I try to figure out a definition for myself.
On the other hand, the task of science is to test well defined assertions about physical processes by attempting to falsify them with observational data or experimental results contradicting those assertions. Where does hitching "reason" to the material world get you? Bang, zoom, to the Moon, Alice!
Perhaps the ideal word got lost in transalation and "reason" in this instance should be "science". -- Certified Deplorable Fake News Nazi (TM)(C)(R) Executive Director of Vice, Ministry of Winning Shilling for buxom Russian swastika clad minxes since 1488
participants (5)
-
John Newman -
juan -
rooty -
Steve Kinney -
Zenaan Harkness