(December 23, 2011 at 5:09 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Sorry, kids, typos, and fragmented thoughts. I find myself up and down from the keyboard, I try to get in it quick and at the start..lol.
No worries.
(December 23, 2011 at 5:09 pm)Rhythm Wrote: It can determine whether or not a concept conforms to its system of rules, but to bring that concept out of the realm of philosophy and into the physical world you require something else.
I think it also develops the said system of rules. Philosophy, as you said, is the basis of rationalization. It creates axioms from which all other things follow, including the system of rules which concepts conform to. I'll have to think on the second part of your statement though. I'm not sure if that's true, but perhaps you could add more to the statement to help me better understand its truth.
(December 23, 2011 at 5:09 pm)Rhythm Wrote: The statement implies nothing, it's a cut and dry statement that what can be imagined does not have to be real simply because it can be imagined. It can be "real as a thought", "real as a concept" "true to itself" "true to the core principles of philosophy"...and still be nothing but a thought. Sometimes language can be ambiguous and create discord where there is none, and I see potential for that in the statement I just made, but I'm unwilling to offer any olive branch by modifying the statement as I criticize the very behaviour that I would be appeasing.
I think this serves both of our perspectives equally. I believe that reality as we know it is 'real as a thought', 'real as a concept', and 'true to itself'. But to go further, and state that it actually exists requires something outside of ourselves, something that we do not possess.
Brevity is the soul of wit.
