RE: [hackers-il] Monkey Trial
- On Wed, 26 Jul 2000, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> Ah-hah! here is the mistake in this approach: if you just throw someWhat's reality? What you preceive with your senses? Why do you think
> axioms and try to derive some stuff for it, you'll probably end up with
> something that contradicts objctive reality, or "common sense". The
> philosophical system I am most familiar with, Objectivism, takes a
> different approach:
> As our axioms let's take the rules of logic, and deduce everything we need
> from the basic facts we know about our human existence. Now, if you just
> throw "Killing is wrong" as an axiom, that's not good because you didn't
> deduce it from something more basic. But if you start from the basic facts
> of existing and prove that claim (or actually a more accurate one), than
> it's ok, because you know for certain that you are not going to contradict
that the evidence you see is not self contradictary
> Think about it. Throwing axioms is a bad idea (tm). Unless you're buildingBut you don't have anything to start from. Decarte started by saying
> an abstract mathematical model (e.g: Graph Theory or Euclidean Geomtrey)
> in which case you need to do that, so you'll have something to start
> deducing from.
he exists, and can doubt things. It would be great if the rest of his
philosophy just followed rules of logic. But Decarte got pretty much
all axioms you can really have: what can you be sure that exists, for
example? You know for a fact your senses can lie to you (because they
sometimes contradict themselves), so you can surely not give the evidence
of your senses to mean anything.
(for anyone wondering, Decarte's fatal flaw was assuming an entity can be
created only by a superior entity. All else works flawlessly, so given
that, God exists, and what's more, we can trust our senses. Pity it
Moshe Zadka <moshez@...>
There is no IGLU cabal.
> Just my own thoughts.And by the usual rule - my contra-thoughts:
I started this group as a community, centered around a common interest in
science and technology.
Every line and thread of discussion is wellcome. Nothing is off-topic, if it
interests people enough to generate discussion then its worth talking about
(am I tautologing here?)
Some topics can go on only for very short time before they begin to be
boring and repitative. Philosophy is one of them, old flamewars are another.
So OmerZ says this is silly, and we all stop and realise it is very silly
indeed, and we shut up.