Announcement

**Imran Siddiqui** · March 18, 2003, 02:22

Like I said, you can't see the other side. You asserted something he believed to be false, so he took you to task for it. If you could really see the other side, you'd know this by now.

**Asher** · March 18, 2003, 02:23

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Like I said, you can't see the other side. You asserted something he believed to be false, so he took you to task for it. If you could really see the other side, you'd know this by now.

Nonsense, both he and you have constructed strawmen.

(I have no idea how you cannot see the POV that math is an objective reality that man simply attempts to explain)

Mathematics are the explanations that man gave for the objective reality, I've never said anything to the contrary.

Since mathematics are explanations, they're man-made.

Pay attention next time.

Math is not that objective reality itself, just the explanations man gave for it. Don't believe me? Pick up your dictionary.

**Imran Siddiqui** · March 18, 2003, 02:26

Mathematics are the explanations that man gave for the objective reality, I've never said anything to the contrary.

No, you didn't get it. Pay attention, there WILL be a test.

The Point of View is that MATH itself is objective reality and man attempts to explain what math is. Math isn't the explanations, but the objective reality itself.

Reading is fundamental. You should try it.

**Asher** · March 18, 2003, 02:28

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
No, you didn't get it. Pay attention, there WILL be a test.

The Point of View is that MATH itself is objective reality and man attempts to explain what math is. Math isn't the explanations, but the objective reality itself.

But that Point of View contradicts the definition of mathematics.

If you're arguing something using a word like "mathematics", it's assumed you're using it as it's defined.

I used the word as it's defined. Mathematics is defined as being the "study of..." and as such is man-made.

You guys obviously interpreted it otherwise, but the dictionary isn't on your side.

**Ramo** · March 18, 2003, 02:32

I would butt into the argument between y'all, but I don't think either side makes much sense.

**Imran Siddiqui** · March 18, 2003, 02:32

Like I said you cannot see the other side's POV. I may not agree with it (in fact I'm on Ramo's side), but at the very least I can see it.

And Agathon saw your side while arguing his, and was able to make better arguments because he actually understood was he was arguing against.

And refering to the dictionary in philosophical debates is amazingly silly, btw. Most of the discussion focuses on what the definition of the important words of the debate SHOULD mean.

**The Vagabond** · March 18, 2003, 02:32

Originally posted by Ramo
I don't believe there's such a thing as objective reality.

If so, you bring the discussion to a completely different level. Then what is out there in lieu of objective reality?

**Asher** · March 18, 2003, 02:33

The problem is just a misunderstanding.

Agathon and Imran disagree with how mathematics is defined, apparently.

They don't understand that that's not what I was arguing about in the first place. Mathematics, the word, is defined on this planet as being the "study of".

They have every right to believe it's the actual events rather than the study of them, just as I have the right to believe the word "police" means "a large house", but I shouldn't debate people with those interpretations. It's silly.

**Asher** · March 18, 2003, 02:36

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Like I said you cannot see the other side's POV. I may not agree with it (in fact I'm on Ramo's side), but at the very least I can see it.

And Agathon saw your side while arguing his, and was able to make better arguments because he actually understood was he was arguing against.

And refering to the dictionary in philosophical debates is amazingly silly, btw. Most of the discussion focuses on what the definition of the important words of the debate SHOULD mean.

Imran... you still don't get it.
I never argued about the actual events/natural parts of it, at all. I realize Agathon did. I ignored that part, it's irrelevant to my comment he was refuting.

I stated mathematics was man-made. And since mathematics is the study of something, it certainly is man-made. Agathon apparently disagreed, and went into a lot of posts trying to refute it, all the while completely missing the point of what mathematics is defined as on this planet. I realize what he meant, but it's not what I meant.

He, in fact, did NOT see my side, and neither have you yet.

And I don't see why the dictionary can't be used -- how the hell else are we supposed to figure out what everyone is arguing about?

Use the word as it's defined next time, you'll find it's helpful to other people that way.

I'm a bit amused by this whole thing, both that Agathon continued arguing about something completely irrelevant to the statement I made and that you were somehow suckered into it as well. Oh well.

**Imran Siddiqui** · March 18, 2003, 02:36

If so, you bring the discussion to a completely different level. Then what is out there in lieu of objective reality?

Ah, a matter after my own heart

.

Since there is no objective reality everything is simply a subjective reality, individualized to each mind. It probably isn't the same reality to other minds (if they truly exist at all).

**Ted Striker** · March 18, 2003, 02:37

You people are too hard core for me.

Much easier to call people Eurocoms and shout USA!

**Ted Striker** · March 18, 2003, 02:38

USA!

**Asher** · March 18, 2003, 02:39

This is another example against most philosophy debates.

Half the time the philosophers use weird non-standard definitions and entire debates are born over it.

**Imran Siddiqui** · March 18, 2003, 02:39

And I don't see why the dictionary can't be used -- how the hell else are we supposed to figure out what everyone is arguing about?

You don't get it.

That's the point of philosophy of language. Defining words how they should be used. You cannot engage in a philosophical discussion without making an argument on how words should be used.

Btw, look in the dictionary for 'socialism' and 'communism' and you'll see definitions TOTALLY off the mark.

Oh, and where do you think definitions arise from? A supreme being somewhere? No, discussions over what words should mean.

**Asher** · March 18, 2003, 02:40

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You don't get it.

That's the point of philosophy of language. Defining words how they should be used.

If he disagreed with the definition of mathematics, he could have just SAID so, rather than assuming some weird definition and launching an entire argument centered upon it...

This wasn't even supposed to be a philosophy of language argument. I don't even want to debate that.

I go by how things are defined, if you don't like how the word is defined, make up your own damn word, trademark it, and jump for joy -- don't **** up existing words at your own leisure.

Announcement

Language and thought

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment