Re: [思辯] 事實與認知的關係

看板W-Philosophy作者playskin (上山下海香蕉皮)時間13年前 (2011/01/15 08:04)推噓2(2推 0噓 16→)

留言18則, 4人參與討論串3/9 (看更多)

: 推 nominalism:According to PhilPapers' 2009 survey on positions 01/12 11:46 : → nominalism:of contemporary philosophers, among 931 repondents, 01/12 11:47 : → nominalism:there are 61.4% who accept non-skeptical realism, 01/12 11:48 : → nominalism:and 20.1% who at least lean toward that view. 01/12 11:48 : → nominalism:Who exactly are the "we" you're talking about that 01/12 11:49 : → nominalism:do not talk about "reality"? 01/12 11:50 : 推 MathTurtle:主張realism倒不一定要討論reality。 01/12 16:41 : → MathTurtle:他可以說 xxx存在, 或xxx are mind-independent... 01/12 16:41 : → MathTurtle:這兩種談法都可以被歸為realism。 01/12 16:42 : 推 nominalism:Since realism is a view closely related to the talk 01/12 17:42 : → nominalism:of reality, it seems really inappropriate to claim 01/12 17:44 : → nominalism:that "we" (who exactly do that term refer to is 01/12 17:49 : → nominalism:still quite unclear) usually do not talk about 01/12 17:50 : → nominalism:reality recently without giving further evidence or 01/12 17:51 : → nominalism:justification. At least as far as I know, there are 01/12 17:52 : → nominalism:tons of literature discussing about reality in 01/12 17:52 : → nominalism:domains including truth theory, metaphysics of 01/12 17:53 : → nominalism:science, semantic theory, moral theory, etc. by 01/12 17:54 : → nominalism:many of the 20th century philosophers. 01/12 17:58 quite clearly "we" refers I myself plus one or more preson other than me. it is easy to be claimed appropriately for statements those are not claimed for the very first time. using of "we" usually isn't given with futher evidence or justification because it is too easy to find supportive facts -- yes I am talking about common-sensense-- but usually this kind of statements are not practically possible to be distribution as well as they don't intend to be so in the first place. for example "we humans have reason", "we don't like bitter drinks" when we say we, normally it doesn't EXACTALY refer a well-defined collection of people. using of "we" usually means that the statment is not urgently needed to be exact or precise. WE can translate those WEs to be expressions that "not only I think this way" or invitations or suggestions that YOU can try to think the way like I do. in all practicing conversations in the world out there, all "we" has the meaning and motivation as above. therefor I suggest that WE do not cancel the using of WE. we'll find communication becomes horrible to go on if WE is banned. in my opinon, under most circumstance "we" can be used appropriatly when the content of a statement is EXPERIENCEABLE. it is not necessary but stupid to try to prove every statement is UNIVERSAL or transcendentally truth. if it is, most conversation and communication are impossible to practice. WE can just try to live a day without saying one WE and WE'll both know what I mean. Be REALISTIC, huh huh :) the problem here is the boundary of "we" is not certain. most nouns and concepts have uncertain boundaries for example the universe, a dynasty, a country, the feeling of pain, a cup of coffie, the community, an alliance, the enemy, the well-being, a race, a species, a solarsystem, etc. the more serious problem is that no one can prove that one ever experienced reality. a statement involved with reality is not falsifiable. that is why WE tend not to talk about reality if possible. surely you can always find counterexamples for a random "we-statement" but the effort doesn't disprove the former statement. your counterexample-statement has nothing to do but referring another "we"; "We don't like to drink bitter melon juice" one said, "Oh yes but we do" the other answered. most of time we communicate to quest for a possibly-maximized agreement but not for the truth. thoughts are not necessarily based on reality because neither of you or I can prove oneself has ever experienced REALITY but it matters not that we can claim we seperately have experiences relating to something, including an experience about some WE or an experience of generating a concept of WE in one's mind. The conclusion is an open question: Shall or shell not I say "oops, I said WE again, beat me ar." -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 218.166.120.155

→

playskin

01/15 10:33, , 1^F

01/15 10:33, 1^F

→

playskin

01/15 10:33, , 2^F

01/15 10:33, 2^F

※ 編輯: playskin 來自: 218.166.124.27 (01/15 12:35)

推

ezk

01/16 01:58, , 3^F

01/16 01:58, 3^F

推

julians

01/17 01:19, , 4^F

01/17 01:19, 4^F

→

nominalism

01/24 20:36, , 5^F

01/24 20:36, 5^F

→

nominalism

01/24 20:37, , 6^F

01/24 20:37, 6^F

→

nominalism

01/24 20:37, , 7^F

01/24 20:37, 7^F

^^^^^

→

nominalism

01/24 20:38, , 8^F

01/24 20:38, 8^F

basing on who's sight? by that you talked about "common"!!!! in this very article i wrote: using of "we" usually isn't given with futher evidence or justification because it is too easy to find supportive facts how blind you are to say that my claim is not common it's extraordinarily ridiculous that you have this arguement after MathTurtle EASILY found examples to PROVE my claim. how naive you were to challenge such a wide opened definition and hoping you could be right. i now claim that, WE have brains. WE use telnet protocol. "no!!!" you cried out. yup, WE lie and WE can be ignoble if WE wish to be.

→

nominalism

01/24 20:38, , 9^F

01/24 20:38, 9^F

→

nominalism

01/24 20:39, , 10^F

01/24 20:39, 10^F

→

nominalism

01/24 20:39, , 11^F

01/24 20:39, 11^F