A New Model describes the Big Bang Could have been a Big Bounce.

[seer]

The 'nothing' used by Socrates does not translate to your 'nothing.' Socrates use of 'nothing' involves the skeptical view of fallible 'humans knowing absolutes.' It is your problem that your an anal grammarian literalist, and refuse to understand the different meaning of words in philosophy.

Where does Socrates speak only of absolutes?

[shunyadragon]

Where does Socrates speak only of absolutes?

Socrates does not speak only of absolutes.

[seer]

Socrates does not speak only of absolutes.

You said when Socrates was speaking of knowing nothing you said he was speaking only of absolutes.

Socrates use of 'nothing' involves the skeptical view of fallible 'humans not knowing absolutes.'

Now prove that.

[shunyadragon]

You said when Socrates was speaking of knowing nothing you said he was speaking only of absolutes.

Socrates use of 'nothing' involves the skeptical view of fallible 'humans not knowing absolutes.'

Now prove that.

Seer, there is no possible 'proof' either way. You were not clear in your statement; "Where does Socrates speak only of absolutes?" Socrates speaks of many things and his philosophy is applied in many ways. We only know his philosophy through Plato his student. In particular, our American legal system is based on the application of Socratic philosophy. Socrates believed in the 'soul' and absolute truth beyond our world, and believed in the human quest of this knowledge.

His philosophy in simplicity was, "I know nothing, and my quest is the never ending search of knowledge."

Source: http://www.moyak.com/papers/socrates-truth.html

Socrates saw many such examples and came to the conclusion that by their very nature, our senses do not grasp reality. Of things that are changeable and imperfect, there can never be knowledge.(15) No reality is possible from sensible objects, and therefore, they cannot be what we seek in our search for truth. Our reality is impeded by them.(16) Reality and knowledge can only be found in our souls and with the Forms.(17) As objects of knowledge, the Forms cannot be known by using our senses because they can only interact with things that are less than perfect. The Forms are eternally perfect and are known only by the soul. Knowledge of them is not found through exercising our senses, but in the exercising of our souls. We may be able to recognize different kinds of things through our senses, but that is only because we have previous knowledge of the Forms.(18)

© Copyright Original Source

This article goes into considerable detail concerning the 'Socratic method' and American Law.

Source: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/prospectives/lifeofthemind/socraticmethod

Socratic Method

Socrates engaged in questioning of his students in an unending search for truth. He sought to get to the foundations of his students' and colleagues' views by asking continual questions until a contradiction was exposed, thus proving the fallacy of the initial assumption. This became known as the Socratic Method, and may be Socrates' most enduring contribution to philosophy.

© Copyright Original Source

[Roy]

Socrates use of 'nothing' involves the skeptical view of fallible 'humans not knowing absolutes.'

You said when Socrates was speaking of knowing nothing you said he was speaking only of absolutes.

No he didn't.

Do you ever not misrepresent people's words?

[seer]

No he didn't.

Do you ever not misrepresent people's words?

Really Roy, then tell me what this means:

The 'nothing' used by The 'nothing' used by Socrates does not translate to your 'nothing.' Socrates use of 'nothing' involves the skeptical view of fallible 'humans knowing absolutes.' It is your problem that your an anal grammarian literalist, and refuse to understand the different meaning of words in philosophy.

Shuny clearly said that when Socrates used the term nothing that he was speaking of knowing absolutes.

[seer]

Seer, there is no possible 'proof' either way. You were not clear in your statement; "Where does Socrates speak only of absolutes?" Socrates speaks of many things and his philosophy is applied in many ways. We only know his philosophy through Plato his student. In particular, our American legal system is based on the application of Socratic philosophy. Socrates believed in the 'soul' and absolute truth beyond our world, and believed in the human quest of this knowledge.

No Shuny you made a claim that when Socrates was speaking of 'nothing' that that was a reference to absolutes.

Socrates use of 'nothing' involves the skeptical view of fallible 'humans not knowing absolutes.'

You have not demonstrated that claim to be true.

[shunyadragon]

No Shuny you made a claim that when Socrates was speaking of 'nothing' that that was a reference to absolutes.

Socrates use of 'nothing' involves the skeptical view of fallible 'humans not knowing absolutes.'

You have not demonstrated that claim to be true.

Silly seer, read the English and at least try to understand Socrates Method and Philosophy at it's basic level. The Method of Socrates is that humans should seek an eternal search of knowledge through questions and not attain absolute 'truth.' Reading the whole references such as the one from the University of Chicago Laws School may help, but than again basic English comprehension may be a barrier to some. If you had a basic understand of philosophers like Socrates, Plato and others you would realize how meaningless your questions are.

I have found that many here on Tweb lack even a basic understanding of Philosophy and Logic, and seer you top the list.

[Roy]

Really Roy, then tell me what this means:

What it says.

Shuny clearly said that when Socrates used the term nothing that he was speaking of knowing absolutes.

But not only of absolutes. That was your misrepresentation, which you are now pretending didn't happen.

[seer]

What it says. But not only of absolutes. That was your misrepresentation, which you are now pretending didn't happen.

Nonsense, Shuny clearly said that the "nothing" that Socrates was speaking of was about absolutes. He did not say absolutes and other things - just absolutes.

[seer]

Silly seer, read the English and at least try to understand Socrates Method and Philosophy at it's basic level. The Method of Socrates is that humans should seek an eternal search of knowledge through questions and not attain absolute 'truth.' Reading the whole references such as the one from the University of Chicago Laws School may help, but than again basic English comprehension may be a barrier to some. If you had a basic understand of philosophers like Socrates, Plato and others you would realize how meaningless your questions are.

I have found that many here on Tweb lack even a basic understanding of Philosophy and Logic, and seer you top the list.

Shuny, you have no idea what you are talking about. When I called you on the Socrates' quote about know nothing you then claimed that the nothing that he was speaking of was about absolutes. But the larger fact is that we do know things, and know them with certainty.

[Roy]

Nonsense, Shuny clearly said that the "nothing" that Socrates was speaking of was about absolutes.

He didn't say it was about absolutes, just like he didn't say it was only absolutes. He said it involves absolutes:
Socrates use of 'nothing' involves the skeptical view of fallible 'humans knowing absolutes.'

He did not say absolutes and other things - just absolutes.

'involves' implies there are other things. You know this.

I see no point in continuing to belabour this point. You are deliberately misrepresenting what Shunyadragon said in order to criticise a position he does not hold. You always do this. Always. I don't think I've ever seen you summarise your opponent's view accurately. In fact your entire posting history can be summed up as:

someone: x
seer: so you agree y?
someone: no, that's not what I said.
seer: but you said z!
someone: No I didn't.

Repeated ad infinitum.

[seer]

He didn't say it was about absolutes, just like he didn't say it was only absolutes. He said it involves absolutes:
Socrates use of 'nothing' involves the skeptical view of fallible 'humans knowing absolutes.' 'involves' implies there are other things. You know this.

And you are just carrying Shuny's water because he was caught in another falsehood. It was about "humans knowing absolutes" the word "involves" does not qualify that in the least.

[Roy]

And you are just carrying Shuny's water because he was caught in another falsehood.

It was you that was caught in a falsehood.

It was about "humans knowing absolutes" the word "involves" does not qualify that in the least.

What happened to the "not" from "humans not knowing absolutes"?