Are Philosophers lost in the clouds?

Ah, but most humans react to what we see and perceive it to be. Out of the millions who visit the Gaza pyramids every year, how many do you think call it a triangle as its form?

We do not attempt to analyze its perfection; we all understand what it means when they tell us that the pyramids looks like a triangle. It's in the common understanding of language that is important; not how "perfect" it is.

Fido wrote:

guigus wrote:

If reality cannot offer an example (a perfect one) of a triangle, then what do you mean by "triangles are not created except when built"? If you stop an instant to think about what you have just said, you will see that you have touched on the true nature of the problem: a triangle is both an ideal construct and a concrete object - it is a way of representing a concrete object in which we clearly see the features of the object (material, three-dimensional) as different from the features of its representation (immaterial, two-dimensional), as well as how each one of them cannot exist in the same way (a triangular object) without the other. The source of all confusion is that, in a certain way, they are indeed the same, despite remaining essentially different.

We always use our forms to recreate reality in a fashion we find more desireable or useful... Our forms are not perfect, and they do not reflect reality, and cannot be used to create perfection... Can we "make" a triangle? Certainly, but the lines will not be straight nor the points constant... It is only in the ideal that things do not change...

If we use our "forms" (I suspect you mean our concepts) to recreate reality, then who created it in the first place?

Fido wrote:

Pyramids are a five sided object with a square base and triangular sides, but squarish does not make square, and triangular does not make a triangle...

Conversely, without triangles nothing would be triangular, and without squares nothing would be squared.

Fido wrote:

Do not forget that triangles do not exist in reality, and that for any given three points, like mountain peaks or stars that we provide the lines and angles, even the presumption of a point... It does not matter how much reason tries to polish reality to perfection because reality is always what it is, and never perfect...

The problem is that you consider as perfect a two-dimensional figure made of lines that are in turn made of points with no dimensions whatsoever, while considering as imperfect an object missing these properties, which only reveals a bias of yours (I would say a definitely idealistic one).

Hi!

A pyramid is a pyramid, defined by the pyramidic values. If lacking in said values, it is not a pyramid.

Kind regards!
Mark...

Fido, People do not live on facts; we live on our personal perceptions and emotion.

...and as the old saying goes, never believe what you see, and only half of what you hear.

Hi Fido!

You do write with a lot of sense, but your usage of 'we' can be a little frustrating at times. You appear to assume that the way 'you' perceive is the way all humans perceive.

It isn't. But you are coming to me from a highly logical platform.

Thank you, and kind regards!
Mark...

As for the 'ball' thing - It all goes in the direction it is rolled, or you and the entire solar system may rush away from it? That'll depend on what you've been smoking, I guess....

Mark...

cicerone imposter wrote:

Ah, but most humans react to what we see and perceive it to be. Out of the millions who visit the Gaza pyramids every year, how many do you think call it a triangle as its form?

We do not attempt to analyze its perfection; we all understand what it means when they tell us that the pyramids looks like a triangle. It's in the common understanding of language that is important; not how "perfect" it is.

The concept of a triangle could not be more simple or perfect, and yet in reality there is no such perfection found or created with the concept... What people think of the matter has nothing to do with the facts, which I do not know and do not pretend to know, but from insight say that the facts are that of reality falling short of concept in one sense and altogether surpassing concept in every other... Don't you believe as I, that to be a philosopher you must be willing to look beyond what others see??? The moment we generalize and classify any phenomena we are telling a great fib which is left for others to disprove...

There is no difference in kind of saying there is such a thing as a triangle or saying there is such a thing as a cat... Of course, there is such a thing as a concept of a cat, just as there is a concept of a triangle, and yet in both cases the concept defines only itself and not the reality... What is the essential element of a Cat??? It is its life, and yet life is a moral form and no true concept, so while we may conceive of a cat it is never a true cat, or rather, the concept is never true to the cat... And the concept of the triangle is never true to the reality, so it cannot define the reality and so, must only define itself...

guigus wrote:

Fido wrote:

Pyramids are a five sided object with a square base and triangular sides, but squarish does not make square, and triangular does not make a triangle...

Conversely, without triangles nothing would be triangular, and without squares nothing would be squared.

In a sense, you are correct since without our concepts everything would be what it is, and yet, without concepts we would not be ourselves either... Humanity is its own creation...It does not matter what we started out as because as we have conceived, so we have become...

guigus wrote:

Fido wrote:

Do not forget that triangles do not exist in reality, and that for any given three points, like mountain peaks or stars that we provide the lines and angles, even the presumption of a point... It does not matter how much reason tries to polish reality to perfection because reality is always what it is, and never perfect...

The problem is that you consider as perfect a two-dimensional figure made of lines that are in turn made of points with no dimensions whatsoever, while considering as imperfect an object missing these properties, which only reveals a bias of yours (I would say a definitely idealistic one).

I have no bias... I prefer any imperfect reality with me in it to a perfect reality without me in it... And there my bias ends... You know, I am uneducated... I have read too much and suffered too much lonely thought... But, I really think there is more than one old timey philosopher who agrees with me, and with perhaps a better and more reasoned argument for it... So without wishing to defer to them completely since I like to think for myself because thinking with the knowledge others gave me makes it impossible to think for myself and yet that is the particular dead horse I like to try to flog, there fore I suggest you read more too...