jollysue
Fish Connoisseur
a priori
a pri·o·ri [ pree áwree, ày prī áwrī ]
adjective
Definition:
1. based on something known: working from something that is already known or self-evident to arrive at a conclusion
2. assumed: known or assumed without reference to experience
[Mid-17th century. < Latin, "from the previous (one, cause, hypothesis)"]
a pri·o·ri adverb
a·pri·or·i·ty [ pree áwrətee, ày prī áwrətee ] noun
I gave Freyerabend as an example of other approaches to knowledge and said I was not an advocate of his.
In my mention of Descarte I believe I indicate that he does a little circle. But back in the 60's Descarte saved my sanity. So I don't deny him all his props. I did not set him beside Newton or Einstein.
An agnostic is not an atheist. He says it is unprovable. I believe I said the same. Proving or disproving the existence of the Other is not possible--except by the Other himself (my experience.) I am not familiar with Einstein's final conclusions, but he was a believer of sorts:
"But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. (Albert Einstein, 1941) "
"By way of the understanding he achieves a far-reaching emancipation from the shackles of personal hopes and desires, and thereby attains that humble attitude of mind toward the grandeur of reason incarnate in existence, and which, in its profoundest depths, is inaccessible to man. This attitude, however, appears to me to be religious, in the highest sense of the word. And so it seems to me that science not only purifies the religious impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contributes to a religious spiritualization of our understanding of life.
The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge. (Albert Einstein, 1941)
(Copied from here)
And so in my opinion all knowledge procedes from an a priori position as fundamental as the belief about the Other and Truth.
It has been a long time since I did much deep study using the vocabulary of philosophy, but are you denyng the existence of the reality of epistomology?
There are many investigations today that seem to me to be potentially paradigm shifting. String theory, chaos, alternate dimensions, the discoveries of how emotions and thought are created, as well as sanity and the effect of language on thought, all shift my paradigm.
I am not impressed with examples from mathmatics. It uses a theoretical construct. Are 2+2 really 4--ever? Can you ever find 2 exact equals to add to 2 other exact equals that will be precisely 4 equal "thems"? Is a straight line really...blah blah blah?
This can go on forever, just as Gazo said. We can discuss and learn or waste our time in going round and round fruitlessly. You can no more prove anything but that I am limited in my knowledge, understanding and even wisdom--for being here if nothing else--than I can prove the existence of my God. You know him or you don't.
a pri·o·ri [ pree áwree, ày prī áwrī ]
adjective
Definition:
1. based on something known: working from something that is already known or self-evident to arrive at a conclusion
2. assumed: known or assumed without reference to experience
[Mid-17th century. < Latin, "from the previous (one, cause, hypothesis)"]
a pri·o·ri adverb
a·pri·or·i·ty [ pree áwrətee, ày prī áwrətee ] noun
I gave Freyerabend as an example of other approaches to knowledge and said I was not an advocate of his.
In my mention of Descarte I believe I indicate that he does a little circle. But back in the 60's Descarte saved my sanity. So I don't deny him all his props. I did not set him beside Newton or Einstein.
An agnostic is not an atheist. He says it is unprovable. I believe I said the same. Proving or disproving the existence of the Other is not possible--except by the Other himself (my experience.) I am not familiar with Einstein's final conclusions, but he was a believer of sorts:
"But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. (Albert Einstein, 1941) "
"By way of the understanding he achieves a far-reaching emancipation from the shackles of personal hopes and desires, and thereby attains that humble attitude of mind toward the grandeur of reason incarnate in existence, and which, in its profoundest depths, is inaccessible to man. This attitude, however, appears to me to be religious, in the highest sense of the word. And so it seems to me that science not only purifies the religious impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contributes to a religious spiritualization of our understanding of life.
The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge. (Albert Einstein, 1941)
(Copied from here)
And so in my opinion all knowledge procedes from an a priori position as fundamental as the belief about the Other and Truth.
It has been a long time since I did much deep study using the vocabulary of philosophy, but are you denyng the existence of the reality of epistomology?
There are many investigations today that seem to me to be potentially paradigm shifting. String theory, chaos, alternate dimensions, the discoveries of how emotions and thought are created, as well as sanity and the effect of language on thought, all shift my paradigm.
I am not impressed with examples from mathmatics. It uses a theoretical construct. Are 2+2 really 4--ever? Can you ever find 2 exact equals to add to 2 other exact equals that will be precisely 4 equal "thems"? Is a straight line really...blah blah blah?
This can go on forever, just as Gazo said. We can discuss and learn or waste our time in going round and round fruitlessly. You can no more prove anything but that I am limited in my knowledge, understanding and even wisdom--for being here if nothing else--than I can prove the existence of my God. You know him or you don't.
