Meaninglessness of all views ie mathematics and science

Quote:

This is all moving too fast for me to keep up with. But I would like to note that Nightrider's deprecation of Nietzsche is contradicted (if I may use the term) by Nietzsche's position that logic has the grave limitation of needing to address only the relations between static "beings" or "sets" of beings (e.g., all A's, B's, X's, Y's), referring always to formal relations between completely abstract constructs (Aristotle's "essences"?) rather than pointing to "objects of experience".

geee cant you see that he is talking meaningless nonsense
i will go slowly
if every thing is in flux then so is his language without static refrence through time no proposition can make any sense
ie if in this statement "this is a horse" what a horse is is continually in flux then the statement does not refer to anything and is meaningles
2
as i have shown logic neeeds a static essence if there is no essence there can be no logic
so his flux view means
1 he negates the very logic he uses to make his claim
2 all his statements cannot refer to anything because they are all in flux- thus mean nothing are meaningless
Nietzsche is an unintelligent idiot because he cant even see these simple contradictions in his views

0 Replies

Wrong !

Although "everything is in flux" the categories within language represent nodes of relative stability with respect to human (social) functioning. Yestrday's "tree in the garden" is functionally equivalent(for the purposes of avoidance with the mower) to todays "tree in the garden" even though a storm night have blown its leaves off last night. Thus language categories are an intricate part of the significantly human urge to "predict and control" which is an aspect of normal epistemology. That web of nodes, like buoys on an ocean constitutes a semantic field of consensual reference points, subject to additions, deletions and relocations.

He would deny this denies his humanity ! His communication licence is hereby revoked !

0 Replies

Quote:

Although "everything is in flux" the categories within language represent nodes of relative stability

you cannot say everythingis in flux then say there are nodes of relative stability by doing so you contradict your self
ANY ONE WITH SOME INTELLIGENCE CAN SEE THE CONTRADICTION

0 Replies

NR, are you and dean smart enough to realize that--aside from the kind of "pragmatic situationalism" referred by Fresco--even though all is changing, RATES of change differ. Hence a changing cloud seems to be changing but a block of lead seems to be stationary, yet both are changing, but at very different speeds).
The pragmatism of Fresco's example simply indicates that for everyday purposes the illusion of continuity is useful, as was the illusion of a flat earth. It seems that you are operating in terms of an absolutism by which something either IS or it ISN'T.

0 Replies

Quote:

NR, are you and dean smart enough to realize that--aside from the kind of "pragmatic situationalism" referred by Fresco--even though all is changing, RATES of change differ. Hence a changing cloud seems to be changing but a block of lead seems to be stationary, yet both are changing, but at very different speeds)The pragmatism of Fresco's example simply indicates that for everyday purposes the illusion of continuity is useful,.

illusion is illusion
and this is what deans meaninglessness points out your argument collapse into meaninglessness

Quote:

Although "everything is in flux" the categories within language represent nodes of relative stability

to say every thing is in flux then say there is stability-due to different rates of flux is to be contradictory
when you admit your stability is an illusion then you are faced with the meaninglessness of your own views
as i said

Quote:

i will go slowly
if every thing is in flux then so is his language without static refrence through time no proposition can make any sense
ie if in this statement "this is a horse" what a horse is is continually in flux then the statement does not refer to anything and is meaningles
2
as i have shown logic neeeds a static essence if there is no essence there can be no logic
so his flux view means
1 he negates the very logic he uses to make his claim
2 all his statements cannot refer to anything because they are all in flux- thus mean nothing are meaningless
Nietzsche is an unintelligent idiot because he cant even see these simple contradictions in his views

you are self contradictory on all counts
1 by saying every thing is in flux and then saying there is stability
2 if stability is an illusion then all is in flux and your language and logic becomes meaningless

0 Replies

JLN,

Quote:

Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.

Euripides (484 BC - 406 BC),

0 Replies

Quote:

Deakin University School of Social and International Studies (Melbourne, Australia)
Master of Arts
Colin Dean
Thesis entitled: Contentless Thought: Case Study in the Meaninglessness of all Views.

I found this on the internet. Does anyone know if the author submitted his thesis to any professional journals?

0 Replies

That thesis was "supervised" by another" unknown" academic
Ron Gilbert MA. Dean seems have published it himself and later may have donated it to various libraries. Links to its contents were rejected by Wikipedia when submitted by Dean under the pseudonym "Gamahucher" ("Oral Sex") the name of his publishing company. He's been banned for spamming by at least one of the many forums he is currently blitzing.

0 Replies

NR, you say that illusion is illusion. How do you feel about the reality of a mirage: it's a real mirage; you just can't swim in it.

And you tell me that "to say every thing is in flux then say there is stability-due to different rates of flux is to be contradictory" shows that you feel that either something is or it isn't. Very Aristotlean if you ask me.
You fail to understand that by "stability" I refer only to one's perception of continuity or reiteration of an "entity" because of its rate of change relative to the mental set of the viewer. I'm not talking about absolute stability.

0 Replies

Quote:

I found this on the internet. Does anyone know if the author submitted his thesis to any professional journals?

dean has called quite a storm it looks like -every one is hunting hinm down now

Quote:

You fail to understand that by "stability" I refer only to one's perception of continuity or reiteration of an "entity

you are self contradictory on all counts

if ones perception is to give the illusion of stablity
then stability is still an illusion thus
then
2 if stability is an illusion then all is in flux and your language and logic becomes meaningless

0 Replies

...don't flatter yourself Dean !
Your simplistic "attention seeking" whether positive or negative is at the level of the "boring problem adolescent".

0 Replies

Meaninglessness of all views ie mathematics and science

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know