Present Evidence Here II

[Cavebear]

Yes, the Platonists can see this reality, in their imagination, because as ubermenschen outside the Cave ... they can see pure Euclidean geometry and Pythagorean arithmetic.  Sorry, it is an assumption, that there is hard objective reality (qualia).  I think that soft objective reality can be demonstrated, and that will have to do.  I can be holding a sandwich for lunch, and two independent observers selected at random and with no connection with me, can confirm that.

Since that kind of objectivity can be demonstrated, therefore your cultural, linguistic, political etc positions are ... reality?  Sorry, I see no way to derive all that from confirmed observation of my sandwich.  Also the fact that I made that sandwich, it didn't spontaneously assemble without human intervention, isn't proof or disproof of the strawman god used by theists and atheists to make empty arguments.

Reality is sufficiently proven to me when a fall on the floor and cut my hand open (tripped over a cat the other night).  Blood is quite real.

[Baruch]

More like a phallacy...

Competing with Munch ;-)

[Baruch]

Reality is sufficiently proven to me when a fall on the floor and cut my hand open (tripped over a cat the other night).  Blood is quite real.

Congratulations you are Samuel Johnson, 18th century English lexicographer.  He said to Boswell ... "I refute him thus!" kicking a stone with his foot.  He was refuting philosopher George Berkeley.  But David Hume took it further than George Berkeley ... that almost nothing is real or true ... except by hidden assumption (unconscious or duplicitous).

[Cavebear]

Competing with Munch ;-)

There is NO competing with Munch.  Especially if you are a Munchkin.  And I will certainly not go any further than that...

[Baruch]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6wjgNhgaNU

Good addition.  But Logical Positivism and Nietzsche, beat that by 90 - 130 years.  Then it was sealed by Wittgenstein (second version) that all philosophical problems are just language problems ... that language is real, but what language refers to isn't real.

See Wittgenstein's Poker ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittgenstein's_Poker

I will support Karl Popper any day.  The German idealists were psychopaths.

[Baruch]

There is NO competing with Munch.  Especially if you are a Munchkin.  And I will certainly not go any further than that...

Unbeliever needs to be careful, given that I mostly sit in front of my computer in a semi-nude condition, for reasons best left unmentionable.

[Unbeliever]

Good addition.  But Logical Positivism and Nietzsche, beat that by 90 - 130 years.  Then it was sealed by Wittgenstein (second version) that all philosophical problems are just language problems ... that language is real, but what language refers to isn't real.

See Wittgenstein's Poker ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittgenstein's_Poker

I will support Karl Popper any day.  The German idealists were psychopaths.

I read that book a couple of years ago, if you recall our brief discussion of it.

[Cavebear]

Good addition.  But Logical Positivism and Nietzsche, beat that by 90 - 130 years.  Then it was sealed by Wittgenstein (second version) that all philosophical problems are just language problems ... that language is real, but what language refers to isn't real.

See Wittgenstein's Poker ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittgenstein's_Poker

I will support Karl Popper any day.  The German idealists were psychopaths.

One can easily construct a situation where the poker would be justified.

[Baruch]

I read that book a couple of years ago, if you recall our brief discussion of it.

No, but glad you read it.  It was a good book (on modern philosophy) if by modern you mean circa 1950.  The standard today is ... whatever a college student imagines with passion, is real.

[Baruch]

One can easily construct a situation where the poker would be justified.

You didn't read the book.  Also I don't think that Wittgenstein would have hit Popper with the fireplace poker (in the colloquia room at Cambridge).  But it made the book more dramatic.  If you want to support Wittgenstein or diss Popper, then you will have to work harder than this ;-)

[Cavebear]

You didn't read the book.  Also I don't think that Wittgenstein would have hit Popper with the fireplace poker (in the colloquia room at Cambridge).  But it made the book more dramatic.  If you want to support Wittgenstein or diss Popper, then you will have to work harder than this ;-)

I'm not on either side.  Merely saying that the poker was not any sort of conclusive argument-winner.

[Baruch]

I'm not on either side.  Merely saying that the poker was not any sort of conclusive argument-winner.

Ah ... well then be more clear next time.  Or I will have to hit you with my poker ;-)

[Cavebear]

Ah ... well then be more clear next time.  Or I will have to hit you with my poker ;-)

I read a sci-fi story once where the humans confused the telepathis aliens by focussing on an image of a knight climbing a poker.  The irrational image confused the aliens suficiently...

[Baruch]

I read a sci-fi story once where the humans confused the telepathis aliens by focussing on an image of a knight climbing a poker.  The irrational image confused the aliens suficiently...

Guess aliens don't understand homonyms (night).  And Kirk did this on Mudd's Planet ... to an poorly designed Norman, the android.

[Unbeliever]

I think Kirk did something similar in more than one episode. Wasn't something like that used against Landru?