Please note: because you're not logged in, you may be viewing older cached versions of pages which are served up to reduce server load.
Print What is the Opposite of Fish? | |
|
Postmodern Beatnik
Castigat ridendo mores  Usergroup: Administrators Joined: Nov 18, 2005 Total Topics: 19 Total Posts: 3137 |
 #41
peter rabbit wrote: Well, I'm not a positivist and I don't know what you mean by the term "neo-Darwinism" (beyond perhaps the acceptance of the modern synthesis regarding evolution, in which case I could be called a "neo-Darwinist").That is one interpretation (one I notice more popular with posivitism, neo-darwinism, etc). peter rabbit wrote: No, this is definitionally impossible. If two terms can both apply to the same object, they cannot be contraries or contradictories. If you want to say that there are no contraries or contradictories, fine. I would disagree, but that's a different issue from whether or not two terms that both apply to the same object can still be called contradictories. They simply cannot.Another is that the contrary / contradictory terms above both apply to the phenomena in question. peter rabbit wrote: With all due respect, the "less marvelous" view is all that can be realistically derived from the results we currently have. It is quite possible to say that an object exhibits properties of two contradictories, but that would only tell us that there is either a third term or that we are lacking information. This is because logical relationships are absolute, even if only because we won't let them be anything else.You favour the former, less marvelous (meaning more rationally comprehensible), view; I the latter. peter rabbit wrote: I'm coming to think that I might reject your entire premise. I know that I can certainly think of different things at once (I am currently thinking of both a raspberry smoothie and a silverback gorilla). Moreover, I don't think that language is either/or to the exclusion of being both/and. Grapefruits are both spherical and fruit. Basketballs are both spherical and balls. Neither is cubical, the latter is not a fruit, and the former is not qualified for official NCAA use. As for wetness and color, though, I'm pretty sure that dryness and colorlessness would fit your criteria as you have laid them out so far.It seems to me that the binary, relative, either-or nature of thought (I cannot imagine two different things at once) is what makes it thinkable - but I can't quite match up certain qualities, like wetness, colour, fishiness and so on with this atomic binary computational model. But perhaps you could clarify? It's still not quite clear what your question or your position really is. "All moral rules must be tested by examining whether they tend to realize ends that we desire. I say ends that we desire, not ends that we ought to desire. What we 'ought' to desire is merely what someone else wishes us to desire." --Bertrand Russell |
|
peter rabbit
Impossibilihere  Usergroup: Members Joined: Apr 22, 2009 Location: London Total Topics: 12 Total Posts: 133 |
#42
po-mo-be wrote: Well, I'm not a positivist... ...out of curiosity, in what way are you not a positivist? po-mo-be wrote: ...and I don't know what you mean by the term "neo-Darwinism" (beyond perhaps the acceptance of the modern synthesis regarding evolution, in which case I could be called a "neo-Darwinist"). I suppose by Neo-Darwinism I really mean Dawkinsism or Pinkerism or something of that sort; if it is not rationally understandable or scientifically provable, then it doesn't exist. Out of interest, how is this different to positivism and to your standpoint? po-mo-be wrote: I wrote: No, this is definitionally impossible. If two terms can both apply to the same object, they cannot be contraries or contradictories. If you want to say that there are no contraries or contradictories, fine. I would disagree, but that's a different issue from whether or not two terms that both apply to the same object can still be called contradictories. They simply cannot.Another is that the contrary / contradictory terms above both apply to the phenomena in question. I am very much in the business of being about the business of what is "definitionally impossible". It seems to me that contraries and contradictories cannot both apply to three dimensional "sensible" objects, as you say,, but they can both apply to infinity, nothing, and other quantum paradoxes (paradi?) and still be contraries and contradictories. po-mo-be wrote: With all due respect... ...and I am due a lot... po-mo-be wrote: ...the "less marvelous" view is all that can be realistically derived from the results we currently have. I'd say that rather depends on who is doing the measuring. po-mo-be wrote: It is quite possible to say that an object exhibits properties of two contradictories, but that would only tell us that there is either a third term or that we are lacking information. This is because logical relationships are absolute, even if only because we won't let them be anything else. Can you explain how logical relationships are absolute? I've always considered the present moment to be absolute (it can only be compared to something else notionally), but not logical relationships. A relation ship is a relation, isn't it? po-mo-be wrote: I wrote: I'm coming to think that I might reject your entire premise. I know that I can certainly think of different things at once (I am currently thinking of both a raspberry smoothie and a silverback gorilla). Moreover, I don't think that language is either/or to the exclusion of being both/and. Grapefruits are both spherical and fruit. Basketballs are both spherical and balls. Neither is cubical, the latter is not a fruit, and the former is not qualified for official NCAA use. As for wetness and color, though, I'm pretty sure that dryness and colorlessness would fit your criteria as you have laid them out so far.It seems to me that the binary, relative, either-or nature of thought (I cannot imagine two different things at once) is what makes it thinkable - but I can't quite match up certain qualities, like wetness, colour, fishiness and so on with this atomic binary computational model. Yes, my fault. When I say "different things" I mean contradictory things. I cannot think of the same apple being both present and absent. Not unless I duplicate it and put the absent one next to the present one. Contrary things I'm not quite so sure. I can think of a fish that is both "up" and "down" (by shifting my perspective), but I don't think I can think of the quality of up at the same time as the quality of down, unless, again, I put them "side by side" (two arrows?) po-mo-be wrote: But perhaps you could clarify? It's still not quite clear what your question... Well my question is open. I am not a fan of questions that have a single definable answer, I prefer those which can only be answered through friendly dialogue, such as this. po-mo-be wrote: ...or your position really is. My posiiton I will clarify later, now I've got to go to work. Thank you for your time and attention. odyssey to very nearby: http://www.gentleapocalypse.com/ |
Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.