View Single Post
Old November 13th, 2003, 03:31 AM   #48 (permalink)
Hawk
Henri Serton
 
Hawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Eindhoven; Rockcity!
Posts: 6,561
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by cagedvoice
My God Hawk!?
Do I really have to read al you typed there?
[img]/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]

No you could have ignored them. But I am very happy you did not. [img]/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cagedvoice
I don't want to hurt your feelings, but are you a schoolteacher currently without a job that suddenly feels the need to teach on this board? Because you make me feel like I'm in school again. [img]/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Don't take this the wrong way, I'm only kidding...
[img]/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]

You did not hurt my feelings, you are giving me a complement!
I *am* a school teacher employed though. [img]/forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

I teach history, economics, and social studies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cagedvoice
I'm not a preacher Hawk, I'm just fooling around with ideas and concepts, of which none should be taken really serious, so lighten up man!
[img]/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Aha! Part of the reason why I reacted the way I did was that the ideas you are playing with can have *very* serious consequenses. What do you think Socialism, Fascism and National-Socialism are? They are indeed ideas!

All of those totalitarian ideas benefit from the idea that there is no such thing as a true proposition or idea. Remember that concepts like "right' " "equality before the law" and "demorcraty" are also ideas if they can not be proved to be true, everything goes. Of course I am not saying you hold those political ideas it's just that I see the connection between epistemological relativism and subjectivism on one hand, and those political ideas on the other.

Philosophy is not just playing with words. A philosophy can determine the course of history. Sez the history teacher [img]/forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cagedvoice
Just a few responses then:
I think you love philosophy more than you know or care to admit Andre.
You can not help but try and answer me and I think that's great! I would love to discuss philosophy with you at a Sun Caged concert after I just banged my head of!!! ![img]images/smilies/headbob.gif[/img]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cagedvoice
An opinion is a potential untruth until it is backed by facts, don't you agree? In the later example of person1 and person2 you can see that I didn't say that an opinion couldn't be the truth at all.
I believe you when you say that, thats is what you meant to say. But it surly did not come over that way. You made a pretty absolute statement Andre.

But I am in full agreement with what you say here, except I would not put it in the negative [potential untruth] but in the positive. Every proposition could potentially be a truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cagedvoice
In fact your example of de Cock en Vledder (For all readers, "de Cock" is a valid dutch name) [img]/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif[/img] isn't that far from my person1 and person2. One of both is potentionaly right and potentionaly wrong, until proven right or wrong. I don't see your problem!?
The funny thing about de Cock and Vledder is that Vledders first name is Dick!!! [img]/forum/images/smilies/lol.gif[/img]

But seriously now. I reacted to this statement:

Quote:
Originally Posted by cagedvoice
Opinions differ, hence there is no real truth in an opinion
As you can see, this is a statement in an absolute form.

In my previous post I tried to explain that I disagreed with this statement and why. Sorry if I sounded like I was lecuring you but that's an occupational hazzard when you debate a history teacher.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cagedvoice
Let me define a few unreal truths (or what is in my opinion an unreal truth, because you can't be to carefull with words these days as I learned from you)
[img]/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cagedvoice
Someone has lived his life believing in something, that something could be God, the laws of nature, love or something else. In the end he finds that the one true thing he has always believed in isn't the truth at all. So all his life he lived with an untruth (or unreal truth) which he believed was a truth. (you should see things a bit more abstract, an unreal truth is a contradiction, but not in the abstract sense)
I can see here that you are using the term/concept "abstract" in a different way as I do.

I would say that the rules of logic apply to abstract statement just as well as concrete statements. May even more, because abstract statements are more sweeping in that they cover more ground.

In that it is even more importand to be as exact as possible in uttering abstract staments. As an example:

An concrete statement: *This* history teacher is boring.

Abstract statement: *All* history teachers are boring.

You see that the abstract statement covers a lot more ground.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cagedvoice
The world today has a few truths that will not be a truth in a few years. A few hundred years back the world was flat. a few decades ago they found that the laws of nature don't apply on the rings of saturn. See where I'm heading?
Sure and I am with you to a certain degree. But I don't believe they discovered that the laws of nature did not aply to the rings of Saturn. What they discovered is that the laws of nature did not apply to the rings of nature *as they expected*. There's an importand difference here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cagedvoice
The world your living in today defines a certain thruth for you, that could be totally different in a few years. I don't know why you can't understand what I'm saying, because you seem a real intelligent man.
Well Andre I *do* understand what you are saying and you are saying it very clear. It's just that I don't find myself in complete agreement with you. I do not believe that it could be "*totally* different in a few years".

The operative word being "totally" here. As I tried to explain in my previous post things are very different from a few hunderd years ago.

200 years ago most people were motivated by superstition [christian or otherwise]. They held ideas based on a very bad intellectual foundation.

Since the industrial revolution this has fundamentally changed. For the first time in human history science has a explicit *rational* basis. Religious dogma's have been swept away. The very idea that scientific ideas will undergo fundamental changes is in fact based upon the day's when science has a bad supersticious base dating from the middle ages. In those day it indeed happend that the whole base of scientific "reasoning" had to be discarded. I have no reason to assume that such will take place in our modern time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cagedvoice
I get the impression you like an argument, which is O.K., but don't be to serious, I know I'm not!
[img]/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Well, I can not help but take some of it serious. it's kinda second nature. [img]/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cagedvoice
Try to see my words a bit more abstract.

And, yes... it is true that your nick is Hawk. [img]/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Since we are talking now I'd like to say that it been a loooong time since I heard a singer as good as you. The SC album will be head for my top 3 in the end of the year. It's one of the best albums I heard; ever! I hope you guy's will stay together and keep making music for a long time. I have selfish reasons for wishing that. The longer you guy's keep making music, the longer I can keep enjoying it. [img]/forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] ![img]images/smilies/headbob.gif[/img]

All the best Andre. Keep singing and thinking about philosophy!
Hawk is offline   Reply With Quote