a message to the martial artists on this forum

[mr goodcat]

That's sort of where your problems began.

yeah see you pick certain things out of my posts and comment on them, please.. give it a rest

[jubaji]

too embarrassing...

im taking 3 classes, personal development, health 101 and english 151a

Ok, I'm starting to feel bad for you now.

[jubaji]

or just say the evidence is with me.. meaning look how I type and present myself then you'' see.

That's sort of where your problems began.

[mr goodcat]

A part-time job scrubbing the toilets around campus doesn't count.

really you havnt proven to me how smart you are yet, because you seem to be too busy showing me how dumb you can be. im taking 3 classes, personal development, health 101 and english 151a

[jubaji]

I already am in college thank you.

A part-time job scrubbing the toilets around campus doesn't count.

[mr goodcat]

I've seen some pretty lame comebacks in my day... You deserve some kind of reward for this one though.

"I'm sorry, the evidence is kept with me right now. Try again after the tone --- *Beeeeeeeeeeeep!*" = LAME

It wasnt meant to be a come back, what he said didn't really deserve much of a reply so I was either to show them that I know grammar or just say the evidence is with me.. meaning look how I type and present myself then you'' see.

[Garland]

I've seen some pretty lame comebacks in my day... You deserve some kind of reward for this one though.

Oh, mr. curious cat is certain to attain a Darwin award post-mortem. He seems dumb enough to try and see if he lands on his feet jumping from bridges.

[kurt_myers0369]

I've seen some pretty lame comebacks in my day... You deserve some kind of reward for this one though.

"I'm sorry, the evidence is kept with me right now. Try again after the tone --- *Beeeeeeeeeeeep!*" = LAME

[mr goodcat]

All evidence to the contrary notwithstanding?

I'm sorry, the evidence is kept with me right now. Try again after the tone --- *Beeeeeeeeeeeep!*

[jubaji]

Sure it is.

All evidence to the contrary notwithstanding?

[mr goodcat]

It's Camus smarty pants...and for your information Immanuel Kant was a Kunt , and yeah 1+1=2 is a type of logic used in philosophy.

here's a paper I wrote on the subject;


Matters of Uncertain Fact

In David Hume’s “An Inquiry of Human Understanding”, the philosopher states a clear and direct argument regarding the nature of the human understanding of the corporeal world. In this argument, he makes a case for almost all human knowledge to be based solely on the senses, namely the inductive reasoning of “Matters of Fact”.
In order for a human being to gain an idea of an object or a thing. An object creates an impression upon our senses, upon which we base our ideas and perceptions of the object. From this initial perception, we examine the commonalities, contrasts, and relationships between other objects.
What links objects together, or what creates our sense of the outside world occurs through causation. When we become aware, through our senses, of an object interacting or changing, we find cause and effect. Through the examination of this cause and effect, we are able to come to “Matters of Fact” reasoning.
“Matters of Fact” are found by experience only, and not by the linear deductive logic that can be applied in “Relations of Ideas”, which are applied solely to mathematical sciences, such as Geometry or Algebra. “Relations of Ideas” do not require, according to Hume, any experience to discover, nor do they rely on the state of the cosmos.
Besides the “Relations of Ideas” which relate to math, all of our other ideas of the world are based on impression, ideas, and the inductive reasoning used to form “Matters of Fact”. We believe that the sun will set tomorrow because that is what our observations, our reasoning, and comprehension of the causation tell us. Nevertheless, because these “Matters of Fact” rely upon the future to conform to the known past and present, we can never be completely certain of them. Therefore, it is not completely illogical to say that, perhaps the sun may not rise tomorrow morning. Our understanding of the outside world, therefore, is limited to “the present testimony of our senses, and the records of our memory.
In summary, our knowledge of everything, outside of pure deductive logic that pertains to the “Relations of Ideas” found in mathematics, our entire sense of the world is based upon inductive logic that remains entirely uncertain, because it presupposes that the future will be the same as the past and the present.

the future doesn't exist because it hasnt happened yet. other than that i agree with this man's claim. a lot of what we feel and judge are based on our 5 senses. taste, smell, hear, touch, see. We judge based on our own interest. Things, that people prefer, plays a direct impact on the level of differences among people's judgement of the world they see. Since perception is reality we all see things slightly different. therefore nothing can really be certain.

[mr goodcat]

Mr. Goodcat

If you had actually studied philosophy you would know that your statement "My interpertation [sp. err.] is just as valid as anyone elses [gr. err.)" is incorrect. The validity of an "interpretation" in philosophy is dependant on the evidence which backs up or, as you put it, "validates" that particular point of view (interpretation). Do not confuse an opinion with a philosophical interpretation or analysis. Your opinion may be as valid as anyone elses, but unless you can present evidence (I believe in this case it would need to come from the branch of philosophy known as ethics), any philosophical interpretation would not be.
ncgf

first of all '' whats the validitiy of knowledge, was not a question i originally came up with. I forgot the person's name who asked it. second of all, your interpretation of what is valid is just as ''valid'' as anyone elses. the study of ethics, what is really right? or really wrong is simply a question of perspective. For instance, when a man who is deemed as evil looks into the mirror, does he see evil? What may be good to him is ''evil'' to his enemies. so who's really to know?

[Garland]

I already am in college thank you. I'll say it again, philosophy is not like like 1 + 1 = 2, <= even with this philosophers will debate '' what is the validity of knowledge?'' What makes it valid? How do we really know? There is no gospel truth. just look at all the philosophers debating philosophical questions; such as where did we come from? Why are we hear? Does god exist?, if so, where's the proof?

so philosophers such as Immanuel kant, Albert Camu, Stovstelski, etc, have written books to discuss their claims and why they feel they're right.

It's Camus smarty pants...and for your information Immanuel Kant was a Kunt , and yeah 1+1=2 is a type of logic used in philosophy.

here's a paper I wrote on the subject;


Matters of Uncertain Fact

In David Hume’s “An Inquiry of Human Understanding”, the philosopher states a clear and direct argument regarding the nature of the human understanding of the corporeal world. In this argument, he makes a case for almost all human knowledge to be based solely on the senses, namely the inductive reasoning of “Matters of Fact”.
In order for a human being to gain an idea of an object or a thing. An object creates an impression upon our senses, upon which we base our ideas and perceptions of the object. From this initial perception, we examine the commonalities, contrasts, and relationships between other objects.
What links objects together, or what creates our sense of the outside world occurs through causation. When we become aware, through our senses, of an object interacting or changing, we find cause and effect. Through the examination of this cause and effect, we are able to come to “Matters of Fact” reasoning.
“Matters of Fact” are found by experience only, and not by the linear deductive logic that can be applied in “Relations of Ideas”, which are applied solely to mathematical sciences, such as Geometry or Algebra. “Relations of Ideas” do not require, according to Hume, any experience to discover, nor do they rely on the state of the cosmos.
Besides the “Relations of Ideas” which relate to math, all of our other ideas of the world are based on impression, ideas, and the inductive reasoning used to form “Matters of Fact”. We believe that the sun will set tomorrow because that is what our observations, our reasoning, and comprehension of the causation tell us. Nevertheless, because these “Matters of Fact” rely upon the future to conform to the known past and present, we can never be completely certain of them. Therefore, it is not completely illogical to say that, perhaps the sun may not rise tomorrow morning. Our understanding of the outside world, therefore, is limited to “the present testimony of our senses, and the records of our memory.
In summary, our knowledge of everything, outside of pure deductive logic that pertains to the “Relations of Ideas” found in mathematics, our entire sense of the world is based upon inductive logic that remains entirely uncertain, because it presupposes that the future will be the same as the past and the present.

[Garland]

Justive?

Is that a new word meant to combine justice and jive?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=SXDF-Kzvr3o

How can one do that justice? nucca?

certainly not like this...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=TkvuA2N57AU

I actually like the song...

[ncgf]

Validity of Philosophical Interpretation

Mr. Goodcat

If you had actually studied philosophy you would know that your statement "My interpertation [sp. err.] is just as valid as anyone elses [gr. err.)" is incorrect. The validity of an "interpretation" in philosophy is dependant on the evidence which backs up or, as you put it, "validates" that particular point of view (interpretation). Do not confuse an opinion with a philosophical interpretation or analysis. Your opinion may be as valid as anyone elses, but unless you can present evidence (I believe in this case it would need to come from the branch of philosophy known as ethics), any philosophical interpretation would not be.


ncgf