Hi Jud,
i certainly agree that philosophy calls for disciplined thinking,
therefor i have a question about the relation between "materialistic
nominalism" and "tautology", because you both say to endorse them.
To be a materialist means that one is committed to a truth criterium
that is based on empirical evidence, i.e. the meaning of a proposition
about some state or aspect of the world is derived from experience
via (one of) our five senses. Through empirical verification and/or
falsification one accepts or rejects the truth of a proposition; thus a
materialist always needs proof, he holds the thesis that "we can learn
from our mistakes", because without this possibility of refutation
there is no development in or growth of science. For him this is the
only legitimate way to gain and accumulate knowledge about the
material world.
Yet a tautology is a proposition that, regardless of the truthvalue of
its components, is always true e.g.: a=a; (2+2=5)=(2+2=5); 'X exists
as X'; 'it is raining or it is not raining'. These propositions can never
be rejected because they need no experience or proof, they cannot be
empirically proved, thus they add nothing to our understanding of the
material world.
>From an empirical materialists point of view a tautology is non-sense,
because it possesses no (new) information; it has no meaning, because
it needs no, nor can it provide any, empirical evidence to prove it. How
Jud do you reconcile this, or better, why do you need these tautological
arguments in your materialistic nominalist ontology ?
yours,
Jan
btw. i'm very interested in the etymological roots of YHWH, maybe
Allen can tell us some more ?
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
i certainly agree that philosophy calls for disciplined thinking,
therefor i have a question about the relation between "materialistic
nominalism" and "tautology", because you both say to endorse them.
To be a materialist means that one is committed to a truth criterium
that is based on empirical evidence, i.e. the meaning of a proposition
about some state or aspect of the world is derived from experience
via (one of) our five senses. Through empirical verification and/or
falsification one accepts or rejects the truth of a proposition; thus a
materialist always needs proof, he holds the thesis that "we can learn
from our mistakes", because without this possibility of refutation
there is no development in or growth of science. For him this is the
only legitimate way to gain and accumulate knowledge about the
material world.
Yet a tautology is a proposition that, regardless of the truthvalue of
its components, is always true e.g.: a=a; (2+2=5)=(2+2=5); 'X exists
as X'; 'it is raining or it is not raining'. These propositions can never
be rejected because they need no experience or proof, they cannot be
empirically proved, thus they add nothing to our understanding of the
material world.
>From an empirical materialists point of view a tautology is non-sense,
because it possesses no (new) information; it has no meaning, because
it needs no, nor can it provide any, empirical evidence to prove it. How
Jud do you reconcile this, or better, why do you need these tautological
arguments in your materialistic nominalist ontology ?
yours,
Jan
btw. i'm very interested in the etymological roots of YHWH, maybe
Allen can tell us some more ?
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---