Recent content by Rainer

Chronos has a valid point. Ockham was a radical nominalist--and according to more Enlightenment period terms, an empiricist. Essentially, Ockham was against any sort of induction. Ockham was, ultimately, anti-sceintific--he held that the best we can accomplish is the recording of patterns in...

Give an example.

I've studied lots of philosophy. (Depends on the philosophical system you are talking about with regards to volition [freewill.] Generally speaking, one cannot deny volition without using volition--because denial and acceptence derive from "proof and disproof" which requires validation which...

Very well. I've understood you completely--and wrote on that knowledge.

Hey, Les Sleeth, this is sort of what I'm talking about. This epistemology is extremely similar to yours--and he gained his from life experience as well. However, having an epistemology based on experience that relies on experience is not a valid epistemology. Les Sleeth got most of it...

Rest assured, I'm not playing the Sophist card to win. I have an integrated view of things, and it clashes with experientialism and "rationalism." I say integrated because I want you to know that I haven't switched sides, I've merely taken another angle and added depth. You write that...

I remember all the points you've made, you never addressed the nature of knoweldge point blank. That is all I wanted from you. I've understood you all along. You can never escape absolutism and certainty. Never. You have absolute certainty that this system of experientialism works. Yet...

I am familiar with what you describe. And it reinforces my argument that it you hate knowledge. Now, different contexts and different times won't help. I've been into these kinds of clashes, it doesn't help. I have to ask you what knowledge is. What is knowledge?

I just want you to understand that I am upset that you are going to leave at what I consider to be an immature juncture--as I think additional meaningful things have yet to be said. But it is your choice. Then let us be clear. I understood what you were talking about. I have a certain way...

I've been making the points only out of response to yours...necessarily I would have to understand what you are saying. I don't think you listened to me at all. You never showed how experience is different from logic and all you've shown is that experience will NEVER reach certainty...

Another split between the logical and the empirical to make knowledge impossible. I always use the word "proof" to mean a proof about reality--I don't believe that "logical," proofs exist...what does exist in its place is a lame ****around. Again, logic (A is A) doesn't stand apart from...

A paradox is something that seems like a contradiction, but is still true. The analytic-synthetic distinction is just a contradiction AND is wrong. According to Quine, statements of analyticity do not exist simply because of how our language works, rather than how our minds work. His...

Epistemology, Induction. Not Logic.

Be picky then: To be exact, I had proven specific things in the nature of existence itself. This, as a consequence, then rules out the existence of many other things. The Christian God for one. Now, I've seen you, in many posts, change and obfuscate the hell out of God's "definition."...

Perhaps that is what you had in mind. But it was not the challenge you gave to me. You said that God cannot be "disproven," or God's nonexistence "proven." Which ever verbiage you perfer. You said nothing about a "proof with logic alone," and if you had I would have said "good-bye."...