Go Back   Puerto Rico Discussion Forum > Religion & Philosophy > Philosophy
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


2+2 does not equal 4

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 21st January 2004, 14:57
Stanley Stanley is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,872
Stanley

2+2 does not equal 4

The above is correct in most instances.

There is only one exception.

Which one?

__________________


Los recuerdos suelen
Contarte mentiras



Stanley
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 21st January 2004, 17:42
Eddier1 Eddier1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: The Americas
Posts: 3,051
Eddier1
Quote:
Originally posted by Stanley

2+2 does not equal 4

The above is correct in most instances.

There is only one exception.

Which one?

Is it that the Maitreya opines that Philosophy is only a game? Kant never thought so, and in his 'Critque of Pure Reason' he assailed logic for the abstraction that it is. He even made an effort to make apodictically clear that Philosophy entails reality. In one part of his work, he addresses the issue by actually counting on his fingers, in order to demonstrate the concrete reality that 2+2=4.

He was a very cultured man as well as a genius, whom being sophisticated was very well received in his day and time. But we who are realists view such aristocratic qualities as obsolete, and instead opt for the criterion of human practice.

To give an example of this relevant to the question above, (and all of us philosophers highly regard questions, irregardless of our cultural mores), let me try by asking the Maitreya to hold out the four fingers of his hand, while secreting the thumb in the palm of his hand. Now, then, he has the empirical evidence of an observation that the two plus two fingers with the split vee in the center of the hand does equal four fingers.

Now, let me underscore this based on our modern realist principles, and say if he doesn't see that, and still thinks that it is all a game of whom can stump whom, we can always assist him by avulsing his thumb, and listening to him cry out "OH MY, I GOT ONLY FOUR FINGERS LEFT!" Anyhow, it won't be all that negative if he realizes that he won't have that thumb anymore to poke into someone's eye.

Begone! and try to stump someone else if they are foolish enough to let you.
__________________
E.1: TWO STEPS FORWARD, ONE STEP BACK - V.I. Lenin
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 21st January 2004, 18:03
Stanley Stanley is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,872
Stanley
He even made an effort to make apodictically clear that Philosophy entails reality. In one part of his work, he addresses the issue by actually counting on his fingers, in order to demonstrate the concrete reality that 2+2=4.


Aha! You are getting close, however, you made the wrong decision. Your analogy is incorrect and I can easily show that two fingers plus two fingers is not always four fingers. Certainly the thumb is smaller than the index finger. If I add these two fingers that would be like adding $1.00 plus $1.30. I hope you see the point------- try again. This is no game, there is deep important concept in here.

__________________


Los recuerdos suelen
Contarte mentiras



Stanley
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 21st January 2004, 22:55
Eddier1 Eddier1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: The Americas
Posts: 3,051
Eddier1
Quote:
Originally posted by Stanley
He even made an effort to make apodictically clear that Philosophy entails reality. In one part of his work, he addresses the issue by actually counting on his fingers, in order to demonstrate the concrete reality that 2+2=4.


Aha! You are getting close, however, you made the wrong decision. Your analogy is incorrect and I can easily show that two fingers plus two fingers is not always four fingers. Certainly the thumb is smaller than the index finger. If I add these two fingers that would be like adding $1.00 plus $1.30. I hope you see the point------- try again. This is no game, there is deep important concept in here.

First of all you are incorrect in saying that it is my analogy. The analogy is drawn from the philosopher Immanuel Kant; he used it to call attention to the importance of empirical evidence and observations in an attempt to arrive at reality.

He already had proved that synthetic apriori propositions are not possible, and, therefore, negated the value of formal logic which is entirely an abstraction, and not connected with the empirical world.

When a philosopher of the category of Kant refers to counting his fingers, then there is an important concept involved. But when a Maitreya like you does it, there is the deep smell of "fire and brimstone".

All the digits of the hand are in the class of 'fingers' irregardless of their sizes. Size is irrelevant to the issue, and if it used as a ploy then it is a trick question that serves math games. If one counts the thumb as a member of the class 'finger' which it certainly is, and the index, middle or other fingers all having different sizes, (and size is irrelevant to the class), then using the middle and the thumb, or the pinky and index, still make two fingers. Any two of the fingers (including the thumb finger) added to any of the two other fingers still makes four.

So if you have any other trumped up definitions of such a class, they are invalid even if the result doesn't seem like a trick question and/or a game to you.
__________________
E.1: TWO STEPS FORWARD, ONE STEP BACK - V.I. Lenin
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 22nd January 2004, 09:30
Stanley Stanley is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,872
Stanley
Ed said:

He already had proved that synthetic apriori propositions are not possible, and, therefore, negated the value of formal logic which is entirely an abstraction, and not connected with the empirical world.

You keep making the wrong conclusion, but you are on the right path. I say to you that 2+2=4 only in a metaphysical sense. In the real world 2+2 never equals 4. I will be happy to explain this if you ask.

When a philosopher of the category of Kant refers to counting his fingers, then there is an important concept involved. But when a Maitreya like you does it, there is the deep smell of "fire and brimstone".

I did not bring the issue of counting fingers, however, man has always utilized his fingers when dealing with math problems and I can see why Kant and you immediately bring this up. However, at some point counting fingers is not enough.

All the digits of the hand are in the class of 'fingers' regardless of their sizes. Size is irrelevant to the issue, and if it used as a ploy then it is a trick question that serves math games. If one counts the thumb as a member of the class 'finger' which it certainly is, and the index, middle or other fingers all having different sizes, (and size is irrelevant to the class), then using the middle and the thumb, or the pinky and index, still make two fingers. Any two of the fingers (including the thumb finger) added to any of the two other fingers still makes four.

I see your point, but you are making a compromise. You are creating a set of definitions to be able to count and to be honest------- there is no other way.

If we want to be able to count we must make a compromise. We may say 2+2=4 and accept that as reality. It obviously very useful and it allows us to function and communicate with others.

The number 2 is only 2 in the abstract. In our reality 2 is never 2----------- therefore it follows that 2+2 cannot equal 4.


__________________


Los recuerdos suelen
Contarte mentiras



Stanley
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 22nd January 2004, 11:26
Eddier1 Eddier1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: The Americas
Posts: 3,051
Eddier1


I see your point, but you are making a compromise. You are creating a set of definitions to be able to count and to be honest------- there is no other way.

If we want to be able to count we must make a compromise. We may say 2+2=4 and accept that as reality. It obviously very useful and it allows us to function and communicate with others.

The number 2 is only 2 in the abstract. In our reality 2 is never 2----------- therefore it follows that 2+2 cannot equal 4.


[/b][/quote]

No, you don't see my point, and there is no creating of a set of definitions in order to be able to count. You seem to be benighted because of your relativistic bias, and complete lack of understanding of the framework of reference of human understanding which is discoverable, like Kant discovered it, and who identified its parameters within the categories of pure reason. They are not constructs of his point of view as relativists like you aver.

Relativism, even with the Heisenbery principle of uncertainity, is flawed, because Einstein began his theory of relativity by assuming an Absolute, i.e., that the speed of light was an Absolute with a constant value. From square one he compromised his theory, and all you relativists do the same thing.

Kant, on the other hand, does not compromise Reason in order to truncate his system of reality, like all relativists truncate their system in order to make it viable.

But the viability for relativists is that of math as a game, and not a reality. And if they accept the STANDARD OF PHYSICISTS WITH REASON, then they make some sort of sense. The Standard states that one must determine what are the parameters of the frame of reference of anything, and then apply whatever system of physics, inclusive of mathematical calculations, that explains that frame of reference in a necessary and sufficient way. Thus, if the absolutism of Newton does it universally, then that is what the STANDARD supports as universally viable, but if the relativism of Einstein does it in a universal, necessary and sufficient way, while absolutism does not, then the STANDARD supports Einstein'S system instead.

The problem with you Maitreya is that you are 'non compas mentes' when it comes to any STANDARDS. To you it is all a game, and you lack standards in everything you write and aver. That is why everything you write and aver is an insult to human intelligence and a violation of the boundaries of human understanding. You contradict yourself constantly in EVERYTHING, and that is why you are referred to as 'un caso perdido', too. It fits you like a glove on your hand. And you can count on that!

__________________
E.1: TWO STEPS FORWARD, ONE STEP BACK - V.I. Lenin
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 22nd January 2004, 12:00
Stanley Stanley is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,872
Stanley
Ed:

Now you bring up the issue of moral relativity. I know quite well from other discussions that you believe morality is absolute. In that regard you are very close to the bible stumping crazoid religionists. In any event I will gladly re-visit that issue with you as soon as we end the discussion regarding why 2+2 does not equal 4.

Do you think 2 is the same as 2.00 or the same as 2.000? Do you see the difference?

I await your reply "pequeño saltamontes".




__________________


Los recuerdos suelen
Contarte mentiras



Stanley
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 20:10.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC4 © 2006, Crawlability, Inc.