enter the fray: our reader discussion forum
Search in:
Advanced
View:FlatThreaded
Page 2 of 4 (53 items)   < Previous 1 2 3 4 Next >
I'll bite
by ducadmo
how so?
Okay.
by Camille Claudel

1. From the Rennaissance up to the beginning of the twentieth century, history records the steady advancement of the rational mind

Steady advancement? Where? And exactly what do you mean by "the rational mind"?

2. But the twentieth century also revealed the formidable fortresses unassailable by rationality and impervious to logic.

Do you seriously believe that?

3. But, in my mind, the Dark Lord of Logic was always Kurt Gödel who found the Achilles heel of rational thought.

Nice idea - but I think Gödel himself would be offended at being called a "Dark Lord" and he certainly would not see his Incompleteness Theorem as an Achilles heel of rational thought. He did not see a consequence of his theory that "irrationality" was about to parade down Main Street.

4. Just like the dogmas of religion, the days of rationalism are numbered. The writing is on the wall, written by the mathematicians and physicists who wielded its power. It is always the wizards, the alchemists, who first understand that the jig is up.

What do you mean by rationalism? Who were/are its proponents? How does anything Godel say contradict rationalism as you so understand the term?

Dialectics 101
by ducadmo

Religion: There are a lot of things you don't need to understand.

Rationalism: I will know everything I can know.

God: Go for it.

There's an obvious problem
by Camille Claudel
with arguments using that kind of mathematical induction.........
XFile mantra The Truth is Out There
by PumpkinSeed

is made true and false at the same time. It's out there but you can't get to it, so it's not really there at all. Yet we search.

Re: And to you and yours! One big Bang theory 4th of jewlie!
by lilmacg

just kidding black hebrew Rabbi funnye robinsons!

hmm

<link>
Superationalism
by ducadmo

What do I mean by the rational mind? The rational mind is a tool. Logic is a hammer and, as you know, I'm a screwdriver in a ball peen world, but just for the record, you're not the sharpest tool in the shed, either.

Yes, much of this life is impervious to logic. Ummm ... George Bush, for example.

Kurt would not be offended by the 'Dark Lord' assertion of his nomenclature, though I find taxonomy taxing.

Gödel doesn't contradict rationalism, he theorized limits. If it's third down and you're on the ten yard line, do you pass or punt? We were talking about overtime, if you remember.

???
by PumpkinSeed
I don't see what you mean. Doesn't Religion say also: There are a lot of things you could never understand, just as you are saying (I think)? So the rationalist then concludes "I now know everything I can know", and thus their Truth is as good as anyone elses Truth.
I don't think you get it
by ducadmo

Rationalist: I will contain everything defined.

Godel: Define 'define'.

God: I am the Word and word up.

Re: Superationalism proof is in the batter err pudding
by lilmacg
Re: I don't think you get it
by Cooler Heads
ducadmo:

Rationalist: I will contain everything defined.

Godel: Define 'define'.

God: I am the Word and word up.

Philosopher: Therefore, I masturbate...

Divide and Conquer
by ducadmo

I like the way you equate, but here's the problem:

I'm trying to divide rationalists, everybody knows that, but when I do that I still usually get a rational number.

You, because you're a big zero, what do you get? That's right - you can't define it, because there's still a difference between a D & C and an abortion.

Here's the thing:
by Fritz Gerlich

we don't discover what we can get to if we don't try. The more we try, the more we get to (this applies to all domains of thought, not just empirical science), but we also begin to suspect, with good reason, that it's a never-ending story. OK--that's the kind of universe we live in: tortoises all the way down. And that's just our universe.

Methodological naturalism is a perfectly appropriate set of discourse-rules for empirical science. As a world-view, it is suited only to a very narrow class of great minds--the mystics of science, one might call them. We have at least one on BOTF.

Re: Fair point
by Teayser
Circles are complete.
"... or what's ...
by watt4bob
... a heaven for?"
Page 2 of 4 (53 items)   < Previous 1 2 3 4 Next >
View as RSS news feed in XML