The Continuing Saga of the Pedophile Priests

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: Much of our understanding of mathematics is founded upon the base 10 system, also as our language applies it to the world in terms of actualities, it is a base 10 system, therefore it is a contingent truth for philosophical purposes that 4+4= 8

I stand by what I said, you base your statements on unsaid assumptions which you do not even think about before you talk. This prevents you from considering others may not share these assumptions. Doing thus, you deny yourself the beauty of the human diversity, and you deny yourself the possibility to be enlightened by other people's views. That's how one gets richer, by allowing oneself to see greater pictures by looking at things from the wider number of angles.

You are not controlling your own mind, Dramnek, it is controlling you.

[Sir Michael]

From Moraine:

I stand by what I said, you base your statements on unsaid assumptions which you do not even think about before you talk. This prevents you from considering others may not share these assumptions. Doing thus, you deny yourself the beauty of the human diversity, and you deny yourself the possibility to be enlightened by other people's views. That's how one gets richer, by allowing oneself to see greater pictures by looking at things from the wider number of angles. You are not controlling your own mind, Dramnek, it is controlling you.

In Dramnek's defense, I must disagree with your statements. I think his arguments have evinced a lot of thought and careful consideration of the words that he would write here. I think you've confused disagreement with certain opinions, and his insistence on one world-view, with an inability to see others. I am also a very opinionated person who is convinced his way is right, but that doesn't mean I don't consider other options and views, before either changing or coming to the conclusion that mine is right. BTW, he seems perfectly in control of his mind to me. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that he is insane, which I highly doubt.

BTW, I am not a philosopher, but it seems to me that "4+4=8" isn't so much a truth as a shared understanding we've developed amongst ourselves to make our lives easier. As in ...

[img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img] + [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img] = [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]
2 + 2 = 4

But what if we all agreed that 2+2=5? Then "5" would represent the four happy faces, and perhaps "4" would represent five happy faces. The point is that the number of objects remains the same, but our designation of them is completely arbitrary.

[Talthyr Malkaviel]

Originally posted by Sir Michael: From Moraine: quote: I stand by what I said, you base your statements on unsaid assumptions which you do not even think about before you talk. This prevents you from considering others may not share these assumptions. Doing thus, you deny yourself the beauty of the human diversity, and you deny yourself the possibility to be enlightened by other people's views. That's how one gets richer, by allowing oneself to see greater pictures by looking at things from the wider number of angles. You are not controlling your own mind, Dramnek, it is controlling you.

In Dramnek's defense, I must disagree with your statements. I think his arguments have evinced a lot of thought and careful consideration of the words that he would write here. I think you've confused disagreement with certain opinions, and his insistence on one world-view, with an inability to see others. I am also a very opinionated person who is convinced his way is right, but that doesn't mean I don't consider other options and views, before either changing or coming to the conclusion that mine is right. BTW, he seems perfectly in control of his mind to me. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that he is insane, which I highly doubt.

BTW, I am not a philosopher, but it seems to me that "4+4=8" isn't so much a truth as a shared understanding we've developed amongst ourselves to make our lives easier. As in ...

[img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img] + [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img] = [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]
2 + 2 = 4

But what if we all agreed that 2+2=5? Then "5" would represent the four happy faces, and perhaps "4" would represent five happy faces. The point is that the number of objects remains the same, but our designation of them is completely arbitrary.[/QUOTE]Yup, that's what I tried to say earlier but I had a headache and was getting confuddled so it probably sounded odd and muddled.

Originally posted by Moiraine: No, Dramnek, not true. That is, IF you assume that we are counting in base 10 (that is, 1st figure on the left is the number of unities, 2nd figure is the number of (base), 3rd figure is the number of (base square), ...), it is true. BUT if you make it in base 3, then you get 2+2=11, that is 1 x 1 + 1 x 3. See, both the (2+2=4) and the (2+2=11) statements are true ! [img]smile.gif[/img] My point is, Dramnek, and it applies to everything you've said so far in this thread, when you say something is true no discussion allowed, in fact it is not, because you always base what you say on unsaid assumptions. You see things from only one angle. When you'll admit that the same thing can be viewed from many angles, some of them one may not grasp because of his/her own frame of mind but nonetheless very clear for other people, you'll have made a great step towards wisdom. Keep in mind Socrate's greatest lesson of wisdom : "I know that I know nothing" ... [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QB]

Nah,
y’see it goes a little like this…

The number 4, (being of 4 and in the whole 4 and the value of 4 being in actuality 4 of a kind (4 being a group of objects, constants or abstracts that form a group that our language labels as 4)), is contingent on it being before 5 and after 3, in this universe it cannot be any other way. If we were to say that 2+2=5 they would no longer be 2 or 3, since there is no independent concept of “twoness” floating around in this universe with which to judge it by, and we have only that which is defined by the limits of our language.
There is no such things as numbers out there in the world, there are groups of things, therefore in the wholeness of its actuality the concept of numbers is a human truth, and therefore it is contingent that they exist for our mathematical system and that 4+4=8, otherwise the whole basis of the system we have built would be of valueless existence, and also of No existence, while it does have and existence, but it is only of a human one and therefore contingent in every way upon us.
Therefore in the world of actualities we must say that 2+2=4 for if it were to equal anything else it would no longer be 2 according to the definitions of both mathematics in its symbolic communication applicable system For philosophical purposes (or human language), and Our language in question (in this case being the English tongue)