Archimedes: The Method

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-20 01:33am

Strate_Egg wrote:OK good. a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing :

Wong said that they believe in Nothing, no evidence. That defintion directly contradicts what he says over and over that i believe in no evidence. That is what i am saying i DO NOT believe in.

Perhaps you're braindead, little boy, but both definitions are in unity. With nothing beyond the mind, there can be no evidence. But that sentence was full of big, nasty words.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-10-20 01:33am

What, you're not going to say what I wanted you to? You asked and everything... how disapointing.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-10-20 01:34am

Strate_Egg wrote:OK good. a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing :

Wong said that they believe in Nothing, no evidence. That defintion directly contradicts what he says over and over that i believe in no evidence. That is what i am saying i DO NOT believe in.

And what is "evidence" if nothing is true but your own thoughts, dumb-ass?

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 01:34am

1. A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety. See Synonyms at uncertainty.
2. Philosophy.
1. The ancient school of Pyrrho of Elis that stressed the uncertainty of our beliefs in order to oppose dogmatism.
2. The doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible, either in a particular domain or in general.
3. A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty.
3. Doubt or disbelief of religious tenets.

That is what i bellieve

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-20 01:34am

Strate_Egg wrote:Solipsism is what Descarte believed before he fell into the Rationalism trap

You are a retard. He's a Cartesian. He's THE Cartesian, since his 'proof' for rebuilding reality beyond his mind was discredited the minute he emerged from his opium-smoke-filled hut, but he is the foundation of Empiricism for reasons you will find out at the end of your Semester. Needless to say, he's not a Skeptic like you claimed.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 01:35am

Skeptics cast doubt on all thoughts, especially universal, but not lImited. Solipsism seems very relativist.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-20 01:36am

Strate_Egg wrote:Skeptics cast doubt on all thoughts, especially universal, but not lImited. Solipsism seems very relativist.

Skeptics are Sophists in clown suits. They just think a new name can erase three thousand years of being discredited.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-10-20 01:36am

I guess I don't have to stay up any later after all. He's starting to repeat himself.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-10-20 01:36am

Strate_Egg wrote:If 2+2=4 is a fact, ahhh when did i say that was a fact? WHen? That would be based on Empiricist (experience) Or rationalist reason.

In the other thread, you responded to my claim that fundamental truths do not exist by screaming incredulously:

Strate_Egg wrote:For a man of science, you dont believe in the truths of math?

Sorry, but you are the one saying that there is a such thing as a "fundamental truth", and even going so far as to offer up math as an example.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 01:37am

hmmmm maybe different books have different translations. I will brb for my reference for you. I will list author, publisher, version. I have two sources that agree that agree he was Skeptic ============to rationalism.

I dont know wher eyou get YOUR information. Clearly it must be a problem between authors

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-10-20 01:38am

Isn't it nice how he outright refuses to address the point that his claim of empiricism not producing any kind of knowledge has been proven false, so he now falls back on solypsism?

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 01:39am

NO, i said that Empiricists believe in fundamental truths learned through the senses and rationalised with reason to make sense. MATH is one of those. THey also believe the truth "justice, perfection, good, as well as infinity" can be gained through sense experience. IM sorry, i fail to see how you claim I believe that. SKeptics believe that there can be no certainty about those issues, therefore, dont be dogmatic

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-20 01:40am

Strate_Egg wrote:hmmmm maybe different books have different translations. I will brb for my reference for you. I will list author, publisher, version. I have two sources that agree that agree he was Skeptic ============to rationalism.

I dont know wher eyou get YOUR information. Clearly it must be a problem between authors

No, the problem exists that you simply appeal to authority, I use logic. To someone reading a philosophy 101 syllabus, it would be easy to classify Decartes as a Skeptic, but when you get to teh end of the semester, you'll see the difference.

For those of you watching at home, Decartes used the ancient Sophist idea of 'maybe nothing's real', and then tried to 'piece' reality back together by finding things that can't be faked in a Matrix-like simulation. A Skeptic would not suddenly proclaim something existed for whatever reason; Decartes and those he inspired, who would create Empiricism, tried to prove the existance of things beyond their own minds.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 01:41am

any kind of knowledge has been proven false, so he now falls back on solypsism?

No, no, no no, i never said ALL knowledge was impossible, THat is a UNIVERSAL SKEPTIC. I am talking about NO certain knowledge about the fundamental issues addressed by Empiricism or Rationalism. ......

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-10-20 01:42am

Strate_Egg wrote:NO, i said that Empiricists believe in fundamental truths learned through the senses and rationalised with reason to make sense. MATH is one of those.

You just claimed that math is "learned through the senses"! Sorry, but math is an abstract concept which requires no sensory input whatsoever.

It must take a lot of effort for you to take yourself seriously.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 01:42am

I use logic

OHhhh sir, you mean you ignore good cases for SKepticism and ignored the xamples given.

(Ludwig experiment, Matrix,Dreams, illusions, insanity) for proving that ALL KNOWLEDGE FROM SENSES = reality is false and stuipd as an idea.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 01:43am

You just claimed that math is "learned through the senses"! Sorry, but math is an abstract concept which requires no sensory input whatsoever.

WOW then you sure as hell arent an Empiricist, cause they sure as hell believe math is learned through senses, ill brb with a direct quote, 3 min

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-10-20 01:43am

Strate_Egg wrote:No, no, no no, i never said ALL knowledge was impossible, THat is a UNIVERSAL SKEPTIC. I am talking about NO certain knowledge about the fundamental issues addressed by Empiricism or Rationalism. ......

You say that all knowledge of anything outside your own mind is impossible, which makes you a solypsist. How many times do we have to repeat this before it penetrates your thick skull?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-20 01:43am

Strate_Egg wrote:I use logic

OHhhh sir, you mean you ignore good cases for SKepticism and ignored the xamples given.

(Ludwig experiment, Matrix,Dreams, illusions, insanity) for proving that ALL KNOWLEDGE FROM SENSES = reality is false and stuipd as an idea.

The Matrix is the Cartesian Nightmare, it's not a Skeptic/Sophist idea you imbecile. If you think the Matrix, dreams, or insanity prove anything about reality, you are more deluded than I thought. And clearly failing that Philosophy 101 course.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-10-20 01:44am

Strate_Egg wrote:You just claimed that math is "learned through the senses"! Sorry, but math is an abstract concept which requires no sensory input whatsoever.

WOW then you sure as hell arent an Empiricist, cause they sure as hell believe math is learned through senses, ill brb with a direct quote, 3 min

Guess what: you can't prove anything with quotes. For someone who is so skeptical of other peoples' evidence, you sure have a low standard for your own.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 01:45am

because i dont believe that. I believe in the defintion of Skepticism I provided 4 times thisevening. Go and look at it and compare it to solipsism, there is a big difference.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-20 01:45am

Strate_Egg wrote:because i dont believe that. I believe in the defintion of Skepticism I provided 4 times thisevening. Go and look at it and compare it to solipsism, there is a big difference.

When you grow up and learn about logic, you'll realize there isn't. Run along now, you have school in the morning.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-10-20 01:46am

So he's been reduced to repeating himself, completely ignoring points even when they're raised repeatedly, and now, the final act of desperation: the ever-popular "I don't believe that" argument.

What stunning debate skills

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-20 01:47am

AdmiralKanos wrote:So he's been reduced to repeating himself, completely ignoring points even when they're raised repeatedly, and now, the final act of desperation: the ever-popular "I don't believe that" argument.

What stunning debate skills

You're surprised? He's a Sophistic Skeptic; they think anything can be dismissed by 'I don't believe that'. That's kinda why they've been discredited for several thousand years.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 01:48am

"THE ONLY SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE (Genuine) IS THROUGH SENSE EXPERIENCE" lawhead.

Lock refered to maths as "complex ideas" They were universaly discovered by light of experience and learned. These ideas seem to hold true. {essay concerning human understanding}