Alternate methodologies of reason

[nihil]

Hah!

"LATERALIST" you toad

Actually, this attitude is subconsciously brainwashed into us at school...........you go to geography, history, math(s ), physics, chemistry an so on.............everything in its neat little pidgeon hole?

At university I did a project attempting to match settlement distribution with soil type.............OK, mathematics is a "language" so the statistical methodologies I used were commonplace and nothing unusual.

I failed to find a statistical correlation, yet logically there should be one...............I then factored in history (the age of the settlements) and got a very good correlation.

What had happened was technology had advanced, land was drained artificially, new roadbuilding technology, new farming technology..........all this had produced "noise" or "clutter" that disguised the original 12th 13th century pattern.

On another occasion I took these core samples out of a Welsh peat bog (Jeez! the things you do for science!) My radiocarbon dating showed that the bottom was about 7,000 tears old and the top was 30,000,000 years old......................errrrrrrrrr?............there was a road nearby, and petrol/diesel is how old?...............Carboniferous era?..............30M?..................I was dating traffic pollution

My point is, we need to "think outside the box"

[|3lack|ce]

My radiocarbon dating showed that the bottom was about 7,000 tears old and the top was 30,000,000 years old......................errrrrrrrrr?

Funny you should mention that - read on 'Caddo Lake' in East Texas - Indian legend says that this lake turned 'upside down'. Judging from silt samples taken in attempts to verify this, the legend is true.

Yes, outside the box thinking is precisely was I was attempting to incite with my little blurb above.

[Egaladeist]

Which is exactly why I promote cross study of various religions, histories, and philosophies before making a decision on ideology. Too many people base their entire understanding upon what they've learned through their social and economic enviroment...usually through second-hand unreliable sources.


Eg

[Draxx]

First of all, I am not a communist. I am an anarchist, the communists and anarchists have historically been rivals. But the communists are divided into several camps: real marxists, leninists, and leninist clones(like IBM clones). Marxists are people like Redstar2000, Leninists are people who supported the Soviet Union, and Leninist Clones ("maoists", "anti-revisionists", etc.) support China, Cuba, North Korea, etc. I support none of these places.

Of course I find Marx's writings interesting, at the least. Too often I find that Leninists take his words out of context; but that's another chestnut entirely. I agree that capitalism isn't good, and that a classless society should be sought. I am closer to Bakunin than Marx though. Most Communists dislike me for this, but not all of them hate anarchists.

I am strongly anti-authoritarian, but by no means do I defend every anarchist who ever was (or is). For example, Blanqui was a criminal who was more of a Leninist (super elite intellectual vanguard leading the "stupid masses" to freedom) I criticize him for his stupidity. I don't like Chomsky either, he can classify and document America's history of imperialism but he doesn't understand why it is. Most of the historical anarchists expect a deus ex machina to occur, which is one of the only admirable traits of Marxism: it tells you what will end capitalism, as opposed to just an idealistic cureall from nowhere. Like what Trotskyites do...sit on their hands and whistle...is essentially what the anarchists (used to) do; nowadays there are fewer anarchists who do that.

I am getting into philosophy, and am interested in Ancient Greece (specifically Socrates and all the other Greek Philosophers). I disagree with the pseudo philosophy of Objectivism on political grounds, epistemological grounds, and metaphysical grounds (or rather lack thereof). I am more of a sceptic and cynic than a nihilist. I am interested in Eastern Philosophy (e.g. Miyamoto Musashi, etc.) and find some of it applicable to programming.

Back on topic...

Dialectics?!? Got a decent link?

Here's a site for you, its a bit super simplified. Basically, the outline of dialectics are as such: [list=1][*]Everything has an opposite: the link I gave is great on this, but essentially everything has an opposite. We can never experience heat unless we experience cold, yin-yang concept.[*]Quantitative Changes become Qualitative: Hegelian Jargon for the snowball effect, gradually things build up and change entirely.[*]No two things are the same: I'd hate to say it but Trotsky explains this better than me. Aristotle once said "A is A" However, look at this: A is a. The first "A" differs from the second "a", they are clearly different. Yet they are the same, we can say "A is not a" though they stand for the same thing. Hegel argues the essence of "A" is represented empirically through "A" or "a". This is why he is an idealist. Or an easier example: a tree has an acorn, which falls and grows into another new tree, which creates more new and different acorns which create new and different trees ad infinitum.[*]Unity of opposites: Basically everything is made out of opposites. A magnet has both negative and positive poles.[/list=1]

Try looking for stuff by Edward de Bono................lateral thinking and all that? he may well have something relevant?

I'll have to look up this fellow in my local public library, thanks for the reference.

Presuppositionalism is "narrow mindedness" proudly come out of the closet.

You have all ready presupposed the closet Seriously, there's nothing special about it.

[nihil]

Of course I find Marx's writings interesting

Yes, "Das Kapital" is interesting. Marx was actually more of an economist than a politician. Unfortunately most of the translations are rather "heavy going" as was the literary style of the time (try reading a novel by Sir Walter Scott ) BTW did you know that Marx is buried in Highgate Cemetery London?

For an aside history read, look up the "Sydney Street Siege"..........Peter "The Painter" Poniatoffsky (spelling?) and his London anarchist gang. The "angry brigade" (British!)..........I am sure that you are well aware of Bader-Meinhoff.

I am more of a sceptic and cynic than a nihilist

He lies.................he cannot afford my membership fees

Have you considered that the Taliban were probably the only anarchist regime in recent history?

Just a few thoughts

EDIT: / me goes to sharpen ice pick and book a flight to Mexico City

[rcgreen]

A is not non-A. Without this assumption, we are mad.
Therefore we are all presuppositionalists.
We only differ in what we have pre-supposed.

I either assume that I am competent to judge reality,
shaping it according to my will, or reality exists independently
of my opinion.

I may assume that reality can be known, or assume that it cannot.
I can't begin to reason, or converse untill I have made my assumptions.

We never challenge or doubt our fundamental assumptions.
Like a computer, you must have some minimal bootstrap code,
without which you could not proceed.

Therefore it is OK to admit that you have opinions that are
based on Dogma, Authority, and Revealed Truth.
Orthodoxy is an inescapable concept. There are no heretics here,
only advocates of various "Orthodoxies" (of course mine is the correct one LOL)

[nihil]

A is not non-A

Not a very good start? Naturally all logic starts with "assumptions" but are they really, or are they merely "definitions"

H0 and H1, thesis and antithesis?

If there is no difference, there is no choice, and if there is no choice, what do you need logic for? because you have no decision to make

Obviously, you can have choice and no logic............it is a single edged sword..........."why did you paint that wall that colour".......... OK well I suppose that personal gratification is logic in a way?



/Me goes to fire up a Monte Carlo simulation

[Draxx]

Yes, "Das Kapital" is interesting. Marx was actually more of an economist than a politician. Unfortunately most of the translations are rather "heavy going" as was the literary style of the time (try reading a novel by Sir Walter Scott ) BTW did you know that Marx is buried in Highgate Cemetery London?

Yes it took me a few years of study to finish all three volumes (agh!). I read several biographies of Marx, wasn't three of his children buried there too?

A is not non-A. Without this assumption, we are mad.

Take Rand's "corollaries" to "A is A": "Existence exists" inconsistant with "A is A", however "Existence is existence" is consistant. What do we get? Nihil. What is god? "God is God". what is truth? "Truth is Truth", etc. Obviously "A" is and is not "A".

We never challenge or doubt our fundamental assumptions.
Like a computer, you must have some minimal bootstrap code,
without which you could not proceed.

Why can't we challenge axioms? That is the purpose of metaphysics!

Have you considered that the Taliban were probably the only anarchist regime in recent history?

Just because there was chaos doesn't equate to there being anarchism. Mind you, that is a common thought: anarchists want anarchy. The two words have similiar greek roots, but anarchists want anarchism or stateless socialism. There was authoritarianism in Afghanistan, in one form or another (e.g. classes, religious superiority, etc.) which is what anarchism is exactly against.

[rcgreen]

Why can't we challenge axioms? That is the purpose of metaphysics!

It's not that we can't challenge (other people's) axioms, that's always fun.
But we simply refuse to challenge our own. Who has ever
done it and lived?

[Draxx]

Only the greatest philosophers have ever questioned their axioms, and only the worst (viz. Ayn Rand) have not. If no one questions their own premises, the inferences from it are utterly useless.