We Know Just About Nothing Again!

Philosophers and rhetoricians, Welcome!
Post Reply
threewood14
Textkit Fan
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:11 pm
Location: Southie

Post by threewood14 » Sat Mar 13, 2004 9:05 pm

I am a Roman Catholic. After seeing the Passion of the Christ, I really became closer to my god. As much as you think about it, the universe could not have started without a supernatural presence. I think god is essential to the universe.

I also believe that time does not apply to god. He is everywhere and can move from everypoint in time instantly.

Family time, i have to go!
phpbb

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Re: We Know Just About Nothing Again!

Post by Bert » Sat Mar 13, 2004 9:10 pm

threewood14 wrote: He believed that since man defines his world as what he thinks it is, then that is reality for man.
and
threewood14 wrote:

Man defines his world and thereofore what he defines things as is his reality. But of course this does not mean that all humans define their reality the same...
One young women at a school was asked to define the term "juxtapose"
Not knowing the meaning of the word she jokingly wrote; "Juxtapose means 'cat'. Since Heidegger said that reality is as we perceive it, this is what juxtapose means to me".
To her amazement she received full marks.

threewood14
Textkit Fan
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:11 pm
Location: Southie

Post by threewood14 » Sat Mar 13, 2004 10:57 pm

Her professor is a brilliant man...
phpbb

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert » Sun Mar 14, 2004 12:37 am

threewood14 wrote:Her professor is a brilliant man...
He may be, in spite of the mark he gave her. :)
Last edited by Bert on Sun Mar 14, 2004 1:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

threewood14
Textkit Fan
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:11 pm
Location: Southie

Post by threewood14 » Sun Mar 14, 2004 1:06 am

Am I misunderstanding you? LOL!
phpbb

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert » Sun Mar 14, 2004 1:09 am

Nope! :wink:

threewood14
Textkit Fan
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:11 pm
Location: Southie

Post by threewood14 » Sun Mar 14, 2004 1:21 am

Do you agree with me? Just curious...
phpbb

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert » Sun Mar 14, 2004 5:18 pm

No, I do not agree with you.
This young woman should have gotten a pat on her shoulder for her ingeniousness, but her mark for that question should have been 0.
Juxtapose is not cat.
If truth is defined by an individual's perception, communication (among other aspects of life) would become a chaos.
2+2 is 4 even if I wrongly preceive it to be 9.

You indicated that you are Roman Catholic.
Is the Bible the truth for you but a myth or fiction to someone else?
Last edited by Bert on Sun Mar 14, 2004 10:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Apotheosis
Textkit Member
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 10:25 pm

Post by Apotheosis » Sun Mar 14, 2004 9:46 pm

Precisely Bert. 2+2 will always equal 4, no matter what. However, like you said, people could misconceive this concept.

As to threewood's revised statement, I still do not agree.
Man cannot know anything about another's reality except for his knowledge of uncertainty and his own reality.
There is still a flaw with this statement. It is true that one cannot completely comprehend another's reality. That is simply impossible. (Threewood explained why earlier) However, it is possible for a person to partially understand someone else and his or her reality. Furthermore, the statement "man cannot know anything except for his knowledge of uncertainty" is self-destructive. It contradicts itself. For example, if it is true that man cannot know anything, then the statement saying that man cannot know anything could be false. I suggest the statement be re-written as follows:

"One cannot completely comprehend the reality of another."

The statement cannot claim anything more than that without beginning to deteriorate and collapse.

What do you guys say?

threewood14
Textkit Fan
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:11 pm
Location: Southie

Post by threewood14 » Sun Mar 14, 2004 10:25 pm

Furthermore, the statement "man cannot know anything except for his knowledge of uncertainty" is self-destructive. It contradicts itself. For example, if it is true that man cannot know anything, then the statement saying that man cannot know anything could be false.
If you look at the end of that sentence, it reads 'except for knowledge of uncertainty' which makes it so it does not contradict itself. I do not want to imply that 'man cannot know anything.' My claim does not contradict itself.

I'm not sure I understand what flaw there is. "Man cannot know anything about another's reality." This is because if man tries to comprehend the reality of another, it will become his own reality. (Take this next part literally) Man A believes that fire puts out water. Man B hears Man A say this and also believes it. Man B may believe that water is chocolate while Man A may think water is water. They think they are talking about the same thing, but they are not. Man B misunderstands Man A, but he still believs him. In order to view the universe like another does, you would have to be that one.
phpbb

Post Reply