7
   

certainty does it exist

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2014 09:32 am
@fresco,
When the Giants won the league pennant against the Cardinals, it was 'an event' that constitutes a reality. Anyone who would try to deny it just doesn't understand certainty or reality.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2014 09:44 am
@cicerone imposter,
Laughing
As a UK dweller, I cannot even begin to visualize what you are calling your "event". It sounds like it could be any one of several US sporting fixtures on various years, such as football, basketball or baseball. Anyone who cannot understand why it is a non-event for me just does not understand "certainty or reality" ! Social context rules all.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2014 09:48 am
@fresco,
Social context may rule all, but you can't deny it didn't happen.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2014 10:01 am
@cicerone imposter,
Of course I could if pushed ! For all I know you might be a lying CIA agent testing a suspected spy out on knowledge of US culture ! Or maybe you are suffering from dementia and making it up. The is-ness or was-ness of anything is ultimately a matter of social consensus irrespective of the size of that consensus.
The point is, non-philosophers have no trouble using words like certainty and reality. It is only when philosophers seek to take those words out of the normal context of usage that problems arise.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2014 10:17 am
@fresco,
Okay, you're pushed. Prove it didn't exist.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2014/10/16/giants-win-national-league-pennant-world-series-royals/17394671/
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2014 11:17 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:
. . . It is only when philosophers seek to take those words out of the normal context of usage that problems arise.
Ah, yes. Normal. Conventional. Acceptable. . . .
0 Replies
 
Alqaholic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2014 11:26 am
@fresco,
Cogito ergo sum?
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2014 11:33 am
@Alqaholic,
No...esse est percipi.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2014 11:52 am
@cicerone imposter,
Up to our correspondence, it certainly had no "existence" for me. and your cited "event" will never be my "event", any more than "An Audience with Les Dawson" would be an event for you. Interestingly ( perhaps) that "audience" never actually took place ! A TV show of his edited work was contrived and presented in front of a live audience.

(BTW Heidegger is pretty good on the relationship between "being","caring" and "existence").
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2014 12:12 pm
@fresco,
It doesn't have to be "your event." Your ignorance about American baseball doesn't change facts that are known to many people on this planet.

I posted a link; if you didn't look at it, that's your problem. If you did, prove that event was not true.
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2014 12:16 pm
@martinies,
No.
It is a concept - Non-physical - Inexistant.
martinies
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2014 01:00 pm
@mark noble,
Ok is a principle in the event.is it part and parcel of the event.thinking of heisenbergs uncertainty principle here.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2014 01:05 pm
@cicerone imposter,
EDIY
You don't get it. Why should I care sufficiently about your parochial "event" even to question or seek its "truth" ? Has anybody other than a baseball follower ever had cause to question "its certainty", and even amongst them I'm willing to bet that the word "certainty" about it, has hardly if ever arisen. Its assertion or denial is meaningless to me.
If you want to play philosophical games about "context free "certainty" " I suggest that you simply end up down an absolutist backwater familiar to religionists. There are simply too many potential candidates for "event-hood" to say anything useful about "certainty" other than to note the social functionality of that word in cases of doubt.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2014 01:13 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

You don't get it. Why should I care sufficiently about your parochial "event" even to question or seek its "truth" ? Its assertion or denial is meaningless to me. If you want to play philosophical games about "context free "truth" and "reality" I suggest that you simply end up down an absolutist backwater familiar to religionists. There are simply too many potential candidates for "event-hood" to say anything useful about "certainty" other than to note the social functionality of that word.


And you know for certain that there is no context free truths and no context free REALITY.

Gimme a break.

You know nothing of the sort. It is part of that belief system you put so much stock into.

There may well be a context free truth...and a context free REALITY.

I do not know...and you do not know.

I am willing to acknowledge that I do not know...you want to pretend you do...in those absurdly pretentious posts of yours.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2014 01:24 pm
@Frank Apisa,
http://s26.postimg.org/7isiyivnd/braying.jpg
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2014 01:30 pm
@fresco,
Can you spell pretentious?


Fresco!

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR0mZcM4yhPVVLgfR-4CobegyYggkReJGeA2QRrjRf3YDabmsgb
0 Replies
 
martinies
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2014 01:30 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Ok is a universal principle such as hiesenbergs certainly part and parcel of all events.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2014 01:41 pm
@fresco,
It's not parochial except to people like you. Get over it; you're not that important to the issue.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2014 02:02 pm
@martinies,
I suggest that the applicability Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is confined to specific scientific contexts like particle dynamics and Fourier analysis. Yet aspects of it have been extrapolated to other contexts wherever the act of observation is thought to influence reporting of "the observed". (See for example The Personal Equation in Behavioral Sciences),

Insofar that all we call "scientific knowledge" is deemed subject to revision, we might be tempted to argue that "absolute certainty" is a myth. But such a (philosophical) generalization already departs from the utility of the word "certainty" in everyday transactions where the universe of discourse is assumed functionally "closed".
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2014 03:13 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

I suggest that the applicability Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is confined to specific scientific contexts like particle dynamics and Fourier analysis. Yet aspects of it have been extrapolated to other contexts wherever the act of observation is thought to influence reporting of "the observed". (See for example The Personal Equation in Behavioral Sciences),

Insofar that all we call "scientific knowledge" is deemed subject to revision, we might be tempted to argue that "absolute certainty" is a myth. But such a (philosophical) generalization already departs from the utility of the word "certainty" in everyday transactions where the universe of discourse is assumed functionally "closed".


https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR0mZcM4yhPVVLgfR-4CobegyYggkReJGeA2QRrjRf3YDabmsgb
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/28/2022 at 09:43:54