Every conversation I’ve had with people unironically obsessed with Parmenides had been absolutely horrible, they don’t understand or care about logic or epistemology at all and think they can jump right into ontology. If they would read Kant or any modern philosopher and then actually spend some time thinking about epistemology they would realize that all this bullshit about being is actually solved by logic and epistemology and that metaphysics is merely objectified logic. These people will spend forever studying Aristotle, Plato and the pre-socratics and then skip to Heidegger without ever realizing why they never get anywhere. It’s insufferable and I imagine that what attracts them to Parmenides is probably some kind of twisted emanation of the culture war.
>they don’t understand or care about logic or epistemology at all and think they can jump right into ontology. If they would read Kant or any modern philosopher and then actually spend some time thinking about epistemology they would realize that all this bullshit about being is actually solved by logic and epistemology and that metaphysics is merely objectified logic.
I'm not about to defend overly enthusiastic morons like Tweetaphon, who never stop jerking off of the seeming profundity of chanting the mantra "is", but this take on the relationship between logic, epistemology, and metaphysics wrong. Logic only does anything after starting from opinions about what is and how what is happens to be, otherwise all you're doing is sneaking metaphysical assumptions in through the back door. Why would logic be dependable, after all? And why would epistemology, as handed down after 2k+ years of inquiry and investigation, be the proper start instead of the natura beginning of inspecting opinions around you?
Assume that he does and actually answer the question
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
No, I have had many conversations about philosophy on IQfy and they have made me realize that there is no possibility of effective communication, people have to think things through themselves. Telling someone to read and think it through themselves is more productive. And of all conversations I'm definitely NOT having another one about "being." There is no getting through to ontology homosexuals, they're essentially just guenongays with 5 extra IQ points.
I've read both, and much more, a weak appeal to "read Locke and Kant" isn't a strong riposte to the fact that logic has grounds, namely, metaphysical grounds that came prior to its elaborations in Aristotle and Chrysippus.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
Logic does not have a "ground" because a "ground" is a logical concept. Logic was produced by an alogical, irrational process of becoming, except it was not produced by "becoming" because "becoming" insofar as I'm talking about it is only a concept. The proper investigation of logic does not prove that logic is valid or explain why logic exists, yet even without philosophizing about logic, when you start to think hard about induction and abduction in particular in and their relation to deduction, you start see the parallels between logic and what you call "metaphysics," which reveals the origin of metaphysics without ever making an ontological claim insofar as you conceptualize ontology. You believe that performing the investigation requires a "starting point" because when you think metaphysically you implicitly project logic onto everything. Your idea that logic must "presuppose" being is a pure logical idea since it is logic that requires grounds, and since metaphysics is logic, what you are actually saying is that "logic presupposes logic." Which, within logic, is absurd, and outside of logic, isn't a problem at all. In assuming that all investigation presupposes metaphysics, you are actually assuming that there is nothing outside logic, which I shouldn't have to explain to you if you really have read Kant. The reason logic is able to exist without metaphysics is that something outside of logic (and therefore being) DOES exist, which I called "becoming" at the beginning of this post but is actually not "becoming".
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Your idea that logic must "presuppose" being is a pure logical idea since it is logic that requires grounds
Since it is the rules of logic that requires things to have grounds*
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Logic does not have a "ground" because a "ground" is a logical concept
This is pedantry looking for victory aimlessly; yes, "ground" has a meaning specific in modern logic, but the expression "the grounds of x" and "this is grounded in y" are old expressions that mean, as you perfectly well know, "have a basis in, have a reason for being x or y way". I'm sure you'll jump at the word "reason" now and claim it all for logic, as if logic weren't a subsequent formalization of reason within certain bounds.
The rest of your post veers back and forth between unintelligiblity, and pretending that abduction and induction are the same as logic, which is incorrect; logic is a formal species of reasoning, which does not exhaust all reasoning. When you say:
>You believe that performing the investigation requires a "starting point" because when you think metaphysically you implicitly project logic onto everything
The claim is unintelligible; metaphysics is a body of subjects of inquiry that inform logic, leading to the formalization of the latter. Metaphysics is not a way of thinking. What you call inductive and abductive reasoning, which again, are not the same as logic (note the relation between logic and "logos", "speech"), are trivially already involved in any reasoning before logic comes into the picture (both historically and in personal education).
When you say the following: >Your idea that logic must "presuppose" being is a pure logical idea since it is logic that requires grounds, and since metaphysics is logic, what you are actually saying is that "logic presupposes logic"
You betray that you don't know what's involved in metaphysics, nor do you understand what logic does when you logically identify "a" and "b" as relating through "c", nor do you appear to understand how a principle such as non-contradiction is derived prior to logic.
I would suggest your own advice about just doing the damn reading back to you, re: metaphysics, but the fact you would tell me to read Kant and apparently completely miss how the first Critique relates to metaphysics suggests it would be of no use to recommend you do anything.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
In the 19th and 18th centuries "logic" was generally defined as the art of reasoning. I know one of Augustus De Morgan's book on logic for example includes sections on induction. If you insist on logic being only syllogism and formal mathematical logic, then simply replace everywhere I say "logic" with "reason."
Metaphysics is supposed to be the science of "being", it has a subject matter. Metaphysics is not just a body of inquiry but a collection of statements about "being" or "everything that exists." Analyzing these statements reveals that they merely derive from the tendency of the mind to assume that the laws of logic apply to everything. e.g. the claim that "there is a first cause." I don't really know what you think the Critique of Pure Reason is about because when I say "metaphysics is logic" I'm literally just repeating exactly what Kant said who believed all philosophy was transcendental criticism.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Logic does not have a "ground" because a "ground" is a logical concept. Logic was produced by an alogical, irrational process of becoming, except it was not produced by "becoming" because "becoming" insofar as I'm talking about it is only a concept.
kekking hard, you arent even realizing it.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
I assume you're talking about how I just said that there was a ground of logic (becoming) right after saying logic doesn't have a ground. You're right, that is because of the transcendental illusion, which is inescapable. That's why I negated what I said immediately after by saying that what I said was the ground of logic actually isn't.
People who cannot understand or have some aversion to "the culture war" are, I think, incapable of empathy. They just wish everyone else would shut up and stop having beliefs.
Was it not the goddess of night, Hecate? He is depicted at the halfway point of night and day because it is the middle point of the universe signifying truth.
I've seen arguments for Aphrodite and Demeter as well. There's evidence for all, but still difficult to tell. Athena is the most compelling to me, outside of the obvious "Wisdom = philosophy" connection; She was worshipped in his home town, and he went to Athens on a pilgrimage for the Goddess Athena's festival. Also, as the animals pulling a chariot are different according to various Gods (Dionysus is pulled by Tigers, Hera by Peawieners, etc), horses does imply Athena as well.
Every conversation I’ve had with people unironically obsessed with Parmenides had been absolutely horrible, they don’t understand or care about logic or epistemology at all and think they can jump right into ontology. If they would read Kant or any modern philosopher and then actually spend some time thinking about epistemology they would realize that all this bullshit about being is actually solved by logic and epistemology and that metaphysics is merely objectified logic. These people will spend forever studying Aristotle, Plato and the pre-socratics and then skip to Heidegger without ever realizing why they never get anywhere. It’s insufferable and I imagine that what attracts them to Parmenides is probably some kind of twisted emanation of the culture war.
>they don’t understand or care about logic or epistemology at all and think they can jump right into ontology. If they would read Kant or any modern philosopher and then actually spend some time thinking about epistemology they would realize that all this bullshit about being is actually solved by logic and epistemology and that metaphysics is merely objectified logic.
I'm not about to defend overly enthusiastic morons like Tweetaphon, who never stop jerking off of the seeming profundity of chanting the mantra "is", but this take on the relationship between logic, epistemology, and metaphysics wrong. Logic only does anything after starting from opinions about what is and how what is happens to be, otherwise all you're doing is sneaking metaphysical assumptions in through the back door. Why would logic be dependable, after all? And why would epistemology, as handed down after 2k+ years of inquiry and investigation, be the proper start instead of the natura beginning of inspecting opinions around you?
Let me guess, you haven’t read Locke or Kant and you barely even know what induction and abduction are.
Assume that he does and actually answer the question
No, I have had many conversations about philosophy on IQfy and they have made me realize that there is no possibility of effective communication, people have to think things through themselves. Telling someone to read and think it through themselves is more productive. And of all conversations I'm definitely NOT having another one about "being." There is no getting through to ontology homosexuals, they're essentially just guenongays with 5 extra IQ points.
I've read both, and much more, a weak appeal to "read Locke and Kant" isn't a strong riposte to the fact that logic has grounds, namely, metaphysical grounds that came prior to its elaborations in Aristotle and Chrysippus.
Logic does not have a "ground" because a "ground" is a logical concept. Logic was produced by an alogical, irrational process of becoming, except it was not produced by "becoming" because "becoming" insofar as I'm talking about it is only a concept. The proper investigation of logic does not prove that logic is valid or explain why logic exists, yet even without philosophizing about logic, when you start to think hard about induction and abduction in particular in and their relation to deduction, you start see the parallels between logic and what you call "metaphysics," which reveals the origin of metaphysics without ever making an ontological claim insofar as you conceptualize ontology. You believe that performing the investigation requires a "starting point" because when you think metaphysically you implicitly project logic onto everything. Your idea that logic must "presuppose" being is a pure logical idea since it is logic that requires grounds, and since metaphysics is logic, what you are actually saying is that "logic presupposes logic." Which, within logic, is absurd, and outside of logic, isn't a problem at all. In assuming that all investigation presupposes metaphysics, you are actually assuming that there is nothing outside logic, which I shouldn't have to explain to you if you really have read Kant. The reason logic is able to exist without metaphysics is that something outside of logic (and therefore being) DOES exist, which I called "becoming" at the beginning of this post but is actually not "becoming".
>Your idea that logic must "presuppose" being is a pure logical idea since it is logic that requires grounds
Since it is the rules of logic that requires things to have grounds*
>Logic does not have a "ground" because a "ground" is a logical concept
This is pedantry looking for victory aimlessly; yes, "ground" has a meaning specific in modern logic, but the expression "the grounds of x" and "this is grounded in y" are old expressions that mean, as you perfectly well know, "have a basis in, have a reason for being x or y way". I'm sure you'll jump at the word "reason" now and claim it all for logic, as if logic weren't a subsequent formalization of reason within certain bounds.
The rest of your post veers back and forth between unintelligiblity, and pretending that abduction and induction are the same as logic, which is incorrect; logic is a formal species of reasoning, which does not exhaust all reasoning. When you say:
>You believe that performing the investigation requires a "starting point" because when you think metaphysically you implicitly project logic onto everything
The claim is unintelligible; metaphysics is a body of subjects of inquiry that inform logic, leading to the formalization of the latter. Metaphysics is not a way of thinking. What you call inductive and abductive reasoning, which again, are not the same as logic (note the relation between logic and "logos", "speech"), are trivially already involved in any reasoning before logic comes into the picture (both historically and in personal education).
When you say the following:
>Your idea that logic must "presuppose" being is a pure logical idea since it is logic that requires grounds, and since metaphysics is logic, what you are actually saying is that "logic presupposes logic"
You betray that you don't know what's involved in metaphysics, nor do you understand what logic does when you logically identify "a" and "b" as relating through "c", nor do you appear to understand how a principle such as non-contradiction is derived prior to logic.
I would suggest your own advice about just doing the damn reading back to you, re: metaphysics, but the fact you would tell me to read Kant and apparently completely miss how the first Critique relates to metaphysics suggests it would be of no use to recommend you do anything.
In the 19th and 18th centuries "logic" was generally defined as the art of reasoning. I know one of Augustus De Morgan's book on logic for example includes sections on induction. If you insist on logic being only syllogism and formal mathematical logic, then simply replace everywhere I say "logic" with "reason."
Metaphysics is supposed to be the science of "being", it has a subject matter. Metaphysics is not just a body of inquiry but a collection of statements about "being" or "everything that exists." Analyzing these statements reveals that they merely derive from the tendency of the mind to assume that the laws of logic apply to everything. e.g. the claim that "there is a first cause." I don't really know what you think the Critique of Pure Reason is about because when I say "metaphysics is logic" I'm literally just repeating exactly what Kant said who believed all philosophy was transcendental criticism.
>Logic does not have a "ground" because a "ground" is a logical concept. Logic was produced by an alogical, irrational process of becoming, except it was not produced by "becoming" because "becoming" insofar as I'm talking about it is only a concept.
kekking hard, you arent even realizing it.
I assume you're talking about how I just said that there was a ground of logic (becoming) right after saying logic doesn't have a ground. You're right, that is because of the transcendental illusion, which is inescapable. That's why I negated what I said immediately after by saying that what I said was the ground of logic actually isn't.
That's why I always say that you are either a skeptic or a drooling moron
People who cannot understand or have some aversion to "the culture war" are, I think, incapable of empathy. They just wish everyone else would shut up and stop having beliefs.
It's less antipathy and more apathy. Supreme human nature will guide civilization down the same path regardless.
Who was the Goddess that gave him the epiphany you think? Athena? Hecate? Hermes in drag?
Was it not the goddess of night, Hecate? He is depicted at the halfway point of night and day because it is the middle point of the universe signifying truth.
I've seen arguments for Aphrodite and Demeter as well. There's evidence for all, but still difficult to tell. Athena is the most compelling to me, outside of the obvious "Wisdom = philosophy" connection; She was worshipped in his home town, and he went to Athens on a pilgrimage for the Goddess Athena's festival. Also, as the animals pulling a chariot are different according to various Gods (Dionysus is pulled by Tigers, Hera by Peawieners, etc), horses does imply Athena as well.
Is this really anything more than language games?
There is a real sense in which it is and also a real sense in which it is not.
rationalists are a plight on the world