Who is ILP's Funniest?

This is the place to shave off that long white beard and stop being philosophical; a forum for members to just talk like normal human beings.

Moderator: MagsJ

Re: Who is ILP's Funniest?

Postby Mr Reasonable » Wed Jun 05, 2013 4:07 pm

Von the law of non contradiction can only determine whether a statement is analytically true or not, or internally consistent, or that one proposition can't be if the other one is. It ignores the entire concept of context and therefore isn't a good measure of whether or not we should move or act on information. More so, it's a tool for clarifying language.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25236
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Who is ILP's Funniest?

Postby von Rivers » Wed Jun 05, 2013 5:31 pm

Smears wrote:Von the law of non contradiction can only determine whether a statement is analytically true or not, or internally consistent, or that one proposition can't be if the other one is. It ignores the entire concept of context and therefore isn't a good measure of whether or not we should move or act on information. More so, it's a tool for clarifying language.

Bruah, it doesn't ignore context or do any of that. All it says is that, when you contradict yourself, something you've said is wrong. It's a pretty important rule for dealing with busted up fools who contradict themselves. See Socrates, dawg.
User avatar
von Rivers
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5792
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:24 am

Re: Who is ILP's Funniest?

Postby Mr Reasonable » Wed Jun 05, 2013 6:08 pm

No no no no no.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25236
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Who is ILP's Funniest?

Postby tentative » Wed Jun 05, 2013 7:43 pm

Smears wrote:No no no no no.

Smears, some people have a great deal of trouble understanding the difference between a perspective, and the consequences of that perspective. They confuse and muddle the two. (shrug) #-o
IGAYRCCFYVM
Sorry, arguing with the ignorant is like trying to wrestle with a jellyfish. No matter how many tentacles you cut off there are always more, and there isn't even a brain to stun. - Maia

I don't take know for an answer.
tentative
.
 
Posts: 12368
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: Idaho

Re: Who is ILP's Funniest?

Postby von Rivers » Wed Jun 05, 2013 7:54 pm

Bruahs, get yourselves some learning.........

1. The law of non-contradiction has nothing to do with whether a statement is analytically true. (A) It has nothing the fuck to do with any one single statement, unless the statement can be broken into two separate statements which contradict each other. And (B) the law applies only after a meaning has been given to the component terms, and thus it has nothing the fuck to do with analyzing language.
2. The law of non-contradiction has nothing to do with whether a statement is internally consistent. (A) It has nothing the fuck to do with any one single statement, unless the statement can be broken into two separate statements which contradict each other. And (B) the law applies only after a meaning has been given to the component terms, and thus it has nothing the fuck to do with analyzing language.
3. The law of non-contradiction does not fucking ignore context----it states that contradictory claims cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. It's only via the context that you have a fucking contradiction.
4. The law of non-contradiction is not a tool for clarifying language, because it has nothing the fuck to do with analyzing what words mean. It applies only after a meaning has been given to the words.
5. The law of non-contradiction has nothing the fuck to do with "understanding the ifference between perspective and consequences of a perspective", or whatever the fuck that means.






I AM A RIVER TO MY PEOPLE.
User avatar
von Rivers
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5792
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:24 am

Re: Who is ILP's Funniest?

Postby tentative » Wed Jun 05, 2013 8:22 pm

von Rivers wrote:Bruahs, get yourselves some learning.........

1. The law of non-contradiction has nothing to do with whether a statement is analytically true. (A) It has nothing the fuck to do with any one single statement, unless the statement can be broken into two separate statements which contradict each other. And (B) the law applies only after a meaning has been given to the component terms, and thus it has nothing the fuck to do with analyzing language.
2. The law of non-contradiction has nothing to do with whether a statement is internally consistent. (A) It has nothing the fuck to do with any one single statement, unless the statement can be broken into two separate statements which contradict each other. And (B) the law applies only after a meaning has been given to the component terms, and thus it has nothing the fuck to do with analyzing language.
3. The law of non-contradiction does not fucking ignore context----it states that contradictory claims cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. It's only via the context that you have a fucking contradiction.
4. The law of non-contradiction is not a tool for clarifying language, because it has nothing the fuck to do with analyzing what words mean. It applies only after a meaning has been given to the words.
5. The law of non-contradiction has nothing the fuck to do with "understanding the ifference between perspective and consequences of a perspective", or whatever the fuck that means.






I AM A RIVER TO MY PEOPLE.

Mo, I really didn't expect you to get it. You prove that you really don't understand analytic philosophy. One follows the logic, not meaning or context.
And (B) the law applies only after a meaning has been given to the component terms, and thus it has nothing the fuck to do with analyzing language.

Assigning meaning to the components IS analyzing language and occurs after the logic is proven or falsified.
4. The law of non-contradiction is not a tool for clarifying language, because it has nothing the fuck to do with analyzing what words mean. It applies only after a meaning has been given to the words.

Uhh... yes. The law of non-contradiction is a tool used to examine the logic sequence for error. As you say, it is a consequence that is employed AFTER examining the logic construct. Soooo... one more time. There are logical constructs and there are the consequences (assigning meaning) of those constructs. Confusing the two happens all the time - even among "learned logicians". Sometimes especially among logicians.
IGAYRCCFYVM
Sorry, arguing with the ignorant is like trying to wrestle with a jellyfish. No matter how many tentacles you cut off there are always more, and there isn't even a brain to stun. - Maia

I don't take know for an answer.
tentative
.
 
Posts: 12368
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: Idaho

Re: Who is ILP's Funniest?

Postby von Rivers » Wed Jun 05, 2013 8:57 pm

tentative wrote:Mo, I really didn't expect you to get it. You prove that you really don't understand analytic philosophy. One follows the logic, not meaning or context.
No, I get it brethren, trust me. See below. But also recognize that analytic philosophy is absolutely about the analysis of meaning of terms as a way of solving philosophical problems. That's pretty much why analytic philosophy is called "Analytic Philosophy"----because of the rise to prominence of the method of conceptual analysis.

Assigning meaning to the components IS analyzing language and occurs after the logic is proven or falsified.
In formal logic, you can examine the structure of an argument independently of the meaning of the words by exchanging symboles (like P or Q, X or Y) for actual concepts. But the moment you insert concepts into those placeholders, the actual logical structure of the argument can change. That's partly why what you find in philosophy is that it is often done informally----i.e., with words and concepts that mean something in the real world.

The law of non-contradiction is a tool used to examine the logic sequence for error.
Not just "the logic sequence"----I can use the law on things you say, informally. If you tell me that you ate an apple this afternoon and that you didn't eat an apple the same afternoon----then I'll use the law to recognize that you don't quite know what you're talking about. That's pretty much the only thing that Socrates ever did----and he's famous for it. Imagine that.
User avatar
von Rivers
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5792
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:24 am

Re: Who is ILP's Funniest?

Postby statiktech » Wed Jun 05, 2013 9:15 pm

tentative wrote:Uhh... yes. The law of non-contradiction is a tool used to examine the logic sequence for error. As you say, it is a consequence that is employed AFTER examining the logic construct. Soooo... one more time. There are logical constructs and there are the consequences (assigning meaning) of those constructs. Confusing the two happens all the time - even among "learned logicians". Sometimes especially among logicians.


Wouldn't the law be part of the "logic construct"? And applying that law yields the consequence [ex. that both of the contradictory statements can't be true].
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Who is ILP's Funniest?

Postby tentative » Wed Jun 05, 2013 10:13 pm

statiktech wrote:
tentative wrote:Uhh... yes. The law of non-contradiction is a tool used to examine the logic sequence for error. As you say, it is a consequence that is employed AFTER examining the logic construct. Soooo... one more time. There are logical constructs and there are the consequences (assigning meaning) of those constructs. Confusing the two happens all the time - even among "learned logicians". Sometimes especially among logicians.


Wouldn't the law be part of the "logic construct"? And applying that law yields the consequence [ex. that both of the contradictory statements can't be true].

It certainly can be, but isn't absolutely necessary as LOGIC. But yes, even the smallest change in perspective can yield different applications which may include changing the logic sequences to avoid contradictions or to provide "meaning" depending on your desired outcomes. Logicians are famous for manipulating terms that affect the truth or falsity of any particular application of logic. And I would certainly agree that assigning meaning is all that allows logic to be useful in real world applications. Logic by itself is... to quote the infamous lady jane, meaningless. :lol: So the constant shifting back and forth between the logic and the check tool of the law is a constant. Finally, if there is to be understanding, one must see the difference between the tools, since both are abstractions looking for "truth". Glossing over one or the other is very common and I think that is what Smears was trying to say. He can correct me if I'm wrong.
IGAYRCCFYVM
Sorry, arguing with the ignorant is like trying to wrestle with a jellyfish. No matter how many tentacles you cut off there are always more, and there isn't even a brain to stun. - Maia

I don't take know for an answer.
tentative
.
 
Posts: 12368
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: Idaho

Re: Who is ILP's Funniest?

Postby Mr Reasonable » Wed Jun 05, 2013 11:02 pm

I'm saying that everyone knows that if you look at something long enough that contradictions are kind of at the base of everything. So throwing out things on the basis of contradiction is good for thought experiments and for clarifying language, but in most practical instances it's just silly. A contradiction in language doesn't imply, "wrongness" on it's own.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25236
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Who is ILP's Funniest?

Postby tentative » Wed Jun 05, 2013 11:20 pm

Smears wrote:I'm saying that everyone knows that if you look at something long enough that contradictions are kind of at the base of everything. So throwing out things on the basis of contradiction is good for thought experiments and for clarifying language, but in most practical instances it's just silly. A contradiction in language doesn't imply, "wrongness" on it's own.

Does too! If I decide it's wrong, then it is wrong. Errr... as long as it's logical... :-"
IGAYRCCFYVM
Sorry, arguing with the ignorant is like trying to wrestle with a jellyfish. No matter how many tentacles you cut off there are always more, and there isn't even a brain to stun. - Maia

I don't take know for an answer.
tentative
.
 
Posts: 12368
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: Idaho

Re: Who is ILP's Funniest?

Postby Mr Reasonable » Wed Jun 05, 2013 11:28 pm

Yes as long as it's not illogical then yeah it's like science and it's right....or something.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25236
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Who is ILP's Funniest?

Postby Tab » Wed Jun 05, 2013 11:35 pm

Yay science.
Image
Click Logo For Blog
User avatar
Tab
Deeply Shallow
 
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:49 pm

Re: Who is ILP's Funniest?

Postby von Rivers » Thu Jun 06, 2013 5:37 am

Smears wrote:I'm saying that everyone knows that if you look at something long enough that contradictions are kind of at the base of everything. So throwing out things on the basis of contradiction is good for thought experiments and for clarifying language, but in most practical instances it's just silly. A contradiction in language doesn't imply, "wrongness" on it's own.


Bruah, have you been reading Australia's leading erotic poet, colin leslie dean?
User avatar
von Rivers
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5792
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:24 am

Re: Who is ILP's Funniest?

Postby Mr Reasonable » Thu Jun 06, 2013 8:32 am

yes. red turgid and spiked.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25236
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Who is ILP's Funniest?

Postby Moreno » Fri Jun 07, 2013 2:42 am

Smears wrote:yes. red turgid and spiked.

That's how I like my Science.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: Who is ILP's Funniest?

Postby Orbie » Fri Jun 07, 2013 2:54 am

Moreno wrote:
Smears wrote:yes. red turgid and spiked.

That's how I like my Science.






You mean Your science fiction
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Previous

Return to Non-Philosophical Chat



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users