RE: What's the point of philosophy any more?
March 21, 2018 at 6:41 pm
(This post was last modified: March 21, 2018 at 6:55 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
(March 20, 2018 at 9:20 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:(March 20, 2018 at 11:21 am)polymath257 Wrote: For example, Kant considered Euclidean geometry to be a priori. We know that is nowhere close to being the case.
Isn't all math a priori though?
All logic including math
(March 20, 2018 at 9:22 pm)Khemikal Wrote: nah. If you ask a hardcore philosopher....... none of it is. If things were different math would be different. Math is posteriori.
Nope. Either something equates to something else or it doesn't, math, as a form of logic, doesn't deal with phenomena... unlike empiricism.
It's empirical science that is a posteriori. Truths of fact are a posteriori, truths of logic are a priori.
There are certain truths that are modal. We've been through your silliness about 2+2 possibly=5 in another universe. Nope. It doesn't matter how different things are, they still are whatever they are and 2 and 2 of whatever they are will always have the same meaning as 4 of whatever they are. Because the definition of 2+2 literally is identical to the definition of 4. It's the exact same thing. And saying that in another universe it's defined differently is exactly the same thing as talking about something else so you haven't even addressed and fathomed the modal truth I speak of. It's for exactly the same reason that it doesn't matter how different things are in another universe or another dimension... one thing is for sure there are no square circles. Talking about something other than the logically impossible and calling that a square circle doesn't solve the problem any more than pointing at a starfish and saying that from now on you're going to call it an "unmarried bachelor" which you define to be "starfish".
It's much like your failing to understand that it's not possible for consciousness to seem to seem to be real but not actually seem to be real. If it seems to seem then it seems. It's thinking in circles on your part and completely missing the point. Equivocating around and around without knowing it like some kind of Oblivious Equivocal Dervish. Perhaps I should call you OED... maybe at least you can smile at the fact it's the same acronym as Oxford English Dictionary regardless of your own repeated epic fails completely unbeknownst to you.
