Laughing Man: laminustacitus:You cannot claim that you know the ends which an individual strives after. By examining the means by which they act and asking 'What ends do you have?', yes...yes I can.
laminustacitus:You cannot claim that you know the ends which an individual strives after.
By examining the means by which they act and asking 'What ends do you have?', yes...yes I can.
Its not hard to comprehend: absolute knowledge of the ends that individuals strive after is denied to the third party observor. What we have, at best, is an approximation.
Laughing Man: laminustacitus:Meteors are not men. Fine, if presented with their death, what is an individual more likely to do? Beg to live or plead to be killed?
laminustacitus:Meteors are not men.
Fine, if presented with their death, what is an individual more likely to do? Beg to live or plead to be killed?
Depends on the situation, and the individual involved.
Laughing Man: laminustacitus:The fact that our actions do not always bring about the intended results is an economic fact. Yet we act purposefully in order to enhance ourselves. Again, you postulate then if we can't have everything then we have achieved nothing. If I walk to my deli to buy a sandwich and the deli is having a buy one get one sale then I get what I want and more. If the deli is closed that day, then I receive the knowledge that I cannot buy sandwiches that day and for the future know that.
laminustacitus:The fact that our actions do not always bring about the intended results is an economic fact.
Yet we act purposefully in order to enhance ourselves. Again, you postulate then if we can't have everything then we have achieved nothing. If I walk to my deli to buy a sandwich and the deli is having a buy one get one sale then I get what I want and more. If the deli is closed that day, then I receive the knowledge that I cannot buy sandwiches that day and for the future know that.
You utterly, utterly misses the point.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
laminustacitus:Its not hard to comprehend: absolute knowledge of the ends that individuals strive after is denied to the third party observor. What we have, at best, is an approximation.
That has been my argument all along. No one has absolute knowledge of everything at everytime so why expect it? Even though we don't have absolute knowledge we can deduce what is more likely to happen.
laminustacitus: Depends on the situation
Its obviously life or death.
laminustacitus:and the individual involved
No it doesn't. If an individual was alive to see a life or death moment then they obviously value life or else they would of killed themselves.
laminustacitus:You utterly, utterly misses the point.
Then explain it to me because you keep repeating I don't have absolute knowledge and that I miss the point etc etc.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Laughing Man: laminustacitus:Its not hard to comprehend: absolute knowledge of the ends that individuals strive after is denied to the third party observor. What we have, at best, is an approximation. That has been my argument all along. No one has absolute knowledge of everything at everytime so why expect it? Even though we don't have absolute knowledge we can deduce what is more likely to happen.
You cannot deduce what will happen with any epistemological certainty, one is left gropping in the dark for motivations.
Laughing Man: laminustacitus: Depends on the situation... Its obviously life or death.
laminustacitus: Depends on the situation...
No, the situation will influence how bright the future will look, and whether death is preferable with respect to the future following the situation.
Laughing Man: laminustacitus:and the individual involved No it doesn't. If an individual was alive to see a life or death moment then they obviously value life or else they would of killed themselves.
They are not simply choosing between life, and death; rather they are choosing between dying, or begging for their lives, knowing that they will have to live following this incident.
Laughing Man: laminustacitus:You utterly, utterly misses the point. Then explain it to me because you keep repeating I don't have absolute knowledge and that I miss the point etc etc.
With respect to what I was responding to specifically, all that I was saying was that action often fails, and that man's action does not always bring about a more preferable state of affairs.
laminustacitus:You cannot deduce what will happen with any epistemological certainty, one is left gropping in the dark for motivations
Right, reason and logic is just a useless trial and error...honestly...
laminustacitus:No, the situation will influence how bright the future will look, and whether death is preferable with respect to the future following the situation.
I don't believe that when face with your death, the first thought you will have is...'I wonder if I am going to win the lotto?'
laminustacitus:They are not simply choosing between life, and death;
What do you affirm every day through your existence? That you value life.
laminustacitus:With respect to what I was responding to specifically, all that I was saying was that action often fails, and that man's action does not always bring about a more preferable state of affairs.
Strange, you deduce you cannot know how action will turn out and yet here you say action often fails and that it will not produce a preferable state.
Are you also assuming the individual also only has an approximation of his own goals?
twistedbydsign99: laminustacitus:Its not hard to comprehend: absolute knowledge of the ends that individuals strive after is denied to the third party observor. What we have, at best, is an approximation. Are you also assuming the individual also only has an approximation of his own goals?
Absolutely not, absolute knowledge is denied to the third party observor.
laminustacitus:Absolutely not, absolute knowledge is denied to the third party observor.
In the case of a mere observer I agree. In the case of a collaborator I believe a person can truthfully tell another person what his goals are. He might lie, but he can tell the truth. In the case he tells the truth the collaborator in actual fact knows the other mans goals, he just cannot know for sure that he knows.
twistedbydsign99:In the case of a collaborator I believe a person can truthfully tell another person what his goals are.
With no scientific certainty whatsoever.
laminustacitus:With no scientific certainty whatsoever.
You can also never know the answer to any optimization problem with scientific certainty. But when you find an answer you test it some number of times and then assume it is true until new evidence disagrees.
twistedbydsign99: laminustacitus:With no scientific certainty whatsoever. You can also never know the answer to any optimization problem with scientific certainty. But when you find an answer you test it some number of times and then assume it is true until new evidence disagrees.
Non sequitur, I'm speaking about academic analysis of the means-end framework of human action, nothing else.
laminustacitus: twistedbydsign99: laminustacitus:With no scientific certainty whatsoever. You can also never know the answer to any optimization problem with scientific certainty. But when you find an answer you test it some number of times and then assume it is true until new evidence disagrees. Non sequitur, I'm speaking about academic analysis of the means-end framework of human action, nothing else.
I think twistedbydsign99 made a valid assertion. A human being in action is an experiment. We gather truths over time. If those truths of our nature become known as secondary truths with more primary truths that open up a whole new understanding, a larger genus to incorporate human action. We learn these truths and understanding culture provides definition to numerous secondary truths whereas human biology and generalization of human culture (such as humans have culture) then these are more primary truths.
wilderness: It's moot that a rock exists even though I observe that it exists. whatever floats your boat
It's moot that a rock exists even though I observe that it exists. whatever floats your boat
That's really not what was said.
It's moot to say that you know what a rock fundamentally is and what its "fundamental" traits are when you can't know anymore than what you observe.
existence is elsewhere
Wilmot of Rochester: It's moot to say that you know what a rock fundamentally is and what its "fundamental" traits are when you can't know anymore than what you observe.
The only fundamental trait I am currently stating is the rock is being. Metaphysics (to be or not to be is a truly metaphysical contingent) is a science. I know the rock is being (thus I've stated a metaphysical fact) and then any knowledge I gain about such a rock is either something true or false about the rock. Thus true or false knowledge/epistemology. Further inquiry about a rock extends into the fields of geology and physics (geo-physics) to name two. This all comes about due to the observation that a rock is. Thus I'm not debasing the metaphysical involvement from reality. Any further peering into what any particular rock is, applied scientifically, reveals more about the nature of such a rock. Is it round, smooth, what kinds of minerals, etc... But first and foremost the metaphysical fact - a rock is - sure it is observational and as I noted I'm not debasing metaphysics from reality. It is a science.