What GKC_fan Wrote. (I don't understand it, but it sounds really good.) ~ Teallaura's Pick For Friday, October 19

[Teallaura]

Hmmm... I have my doubts as to this particular accusation; Logical Positivists can be faulted for many things, but typically they're blamed for positions they didn't hold. Care to be more specific?

I was refering to their verification principle: "Only believe something if you can empirically verify it.", to paraphrase. This is like Jimmy's very modern bias in favor of only teaching things that can be empirically tested. But when was it empirically verified that one should only believe things that have been empirically verified?

This old canard overlooks conventionalist framing of the matter, attaching necessity to a bounded system dealing with contingencies. Empirical verification is a key methodology within empirical-modeling conventions as defined; it by no means requires empirical verification itself, as all it addresses are empirical domains. Feel free to use other, non-empirical conventions as you wish; I'm just not sure what you're going to do with them that's useful... much less metaphyscailly significant.

Wyzaard, you have obviously been tragically misinformed. Allow me to clarify things for you.

Unbeknownst to most non-professionals, theoretical philosophy underwent a significant transformation -- albeit not a valid Kuhnian paradigm shift -- in the 1920's and 30's: the traditional tools of mathematical philosophy (real and complex analysis), which deal with the existence-meaning quantality, were supplemented by positivist approaches (more precisely, methods from differential negativity) that account for the holistic understanding of existential and philosophical tautologies. This trend was seen in the analysis of anomalies in theories of meaning; in the theory of ego-mediated phase transitions; and in theories of Nietzchean ontology.

For example, if one utilizes the post-Kantian paradigms of positivist praxis, one is faced with a choice: either reject positivist analysis or conclude that meaning is unattainable. The subject is interpolated by the logical positivists into a post-philosophical paradigm of expression that includes consciousness (at least in the Humeic sense) as a whole. In a sense, Schopenhauer used the term 'neo-analytical dialectic theory’ to denote a neo-minimalist positivist metaphysics.

The supra-dialectical methodology of positivist philosophy – at least as Ayer, Mach, and Rousseau visualized it - thus provides a powerful intellectual trans-disciplinary empiricization of the entire philosophical praxis, understood in its broadest sense as the transmigration of philosophical boundaries, the convolution of logical theoreticization, and the radical de-empiricization (as quantified by Rousseau) of all hitherto tangentially-realized metaphysics.

Ayer’s critique of the positivist situationalists suggests that their stance is intrinsically meaningless, but only if reality is interchangeable with consciousness. If that is not the case, then we can assume that reality, surprisingly, has objective value - but of course only in non-empirical constructs. Thus, Ayer promotes the use of constructive neo-positivist theory to analyze Nietzchean tautologies. For Mach, however, the subject is conceptualized into a positivist theory that includes reality as a whole. Therefore, Mach advocates the use of Rousseauian existentialism.

But Sartre, the eminence grise of modern existentialism, instead suggested the use of neo-Spinozan desituationalism to deconstruct logical positivism. He used the term ‘post-positivist theory’ to denote a self-supporting paradox. Therefore, if neo-Sartreian theory holds, we have to choose between metaphysical situationalism and the positivist paradigm of non-experiential and supra-metaphysical epistemology.

For this reason Mach hypothesized that an infinite number of discourses concerning positivist dadaism thus exist, rendering it intrinsically and epistemologically multi-leveled, multi-variable, and multieffable. Ayer also pointed out that, non-ontologically at least, logical positivism can promote logorrheic rationalization when analyzed tautologically (although this may only be testable using non-empirical constructs and quantification).

I had to pick it. The devil made me do it. No, really, he did....

[rogue06]

I had to pull out a dictionary and a book on general philosophy and still I lost track half way through when I first saw it. I have no idea if I agree or disagree with what he wrote.

[Vigilante]

Ya it went over my head, lol, but it sounds impressive!

[The Curtmudgeon]

You know, at some basic level it would be a cryin' shame if that actually turned out to make real sense.

The ("Bull, McCawley! But it's very good bull." -- Alec Baldwin, Pearl Harbor, slightly cleaned up for TWeb usage) Curtmudgeon

[Storico]

Awesome. Just awesome. GKC, you and I need to talk philosophy sometime. Your philosophical pwning skills are great.

[TyRockwell]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: Joe Zawinul

Arguing in a Honors Hall thread is prohibited by Campus Decorum

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Vigilante]

Me thinks an inside joke is forming on tweb...

[rogue06]

Me thinks an inside joke is forming on tweb...

WHAT... another one.

[The Curtmudgeon]

WHAT... another one.

All the inside jokes post in the T/G Locker Room.

The (and some of us outside jokes, too) Curtmudgeon

[TyRockwell]

You call a direct Quote from scripture arguing?

[Raptor]

You can debate the post, just not in the Honors Hall threads.

If you want, you can start a thread in apologetics.