Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
and the meanings that we give it.
there's a poo in my pants, eat it?
Can you rephrase the second part of your sentence?
is it just being positive all the time? Or is is some other random theory......
is the philosophy that the only authentic knowledge is knowledge that is based on actual sense experience. Such knowledge can only come from affirmation of theories through strict scientific method. Metaphysical speculation is avoided.
Related to that other thread about buses that included criticism of Dawkins for being a positivist.
I do like to think I can trust in science and all that kind of stuff but I'm not sure I put it into practice all the time I'm far to lazy and complacent.
like all pseudo-philosophical claptrap, posits itself as being different from the norm, and, thus, imbues the declarer of his/her positivism as being above the rest of humanity. The fact is that humans are naturally positive. To proclaim positivism is to insult all the rest of humanity.
there's just wrong with saying it of yourself? Why would you accuse someone of positivism then?
'you' meaning chiaroscuro: http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/social/4137959#r2466027
i tried to think about something as a post in reply to this thread, but kept dissappearing in a puff of logic
if so, expand
well i dont really know, but its great when rather than just assuming that there is an outside world that you actually know that there is because you become part of it (its easier in the bosom of nature of course).
I think we've all heard of that (frenchman was it) Descartes? was it him i dunno not into great men, who first postulated the whol thinking therefor you exist and then the next great step was proving that there was an outside rather than just believing the4re was or dreaming it, but sometimes you can get into a state where you know there is cos you are in the outside and its in you.
Of course this doesnt translate into what people call rational deductive reasoning, but there are other forms of reasoning that are as accurate and logical, (except that they are not according to the traditional orthodox rational deductive reasoning, cos that tends to start from the point that nothing can be certain to be true unless it is provably true, like using mathematical axioms.......you can start from the opposit viewpoint and work backwards of course (although this isnt the best way it is at least easier to explain)...that since things that are not provable to exist DO exist then proof is not available to offer confirmation that something that is true exists, thus provintg that there is something dodgy about a system that cannot logically accept that something does exist until it has proof, when in fact it actually does exist and ios obbviously true (I am of course aware of the danger of assumptions, just trying to give a gist of what i mean)
is it because no one lives by the strict code of positivism because we have faith in stuff we can't prove that applying that code to other people's faith is always going to be hypocritical?
And that we're part of the world so we're never removed enough to be wholly rational and logical?
but i wouldnt have drawn all that from what i said (actually i wouldnt be able to draw anything from that post, looking at it now its gobbledygook, although i know what i meant and you couldnt really infer all what you said from what i meant......however what you say seems to be true.
(I was trying to mean being part of the world in a deeper way that the way we normally connect with it)
i don't know how using that as a basis for what's real and what's not can be thought of as accurate and logical really, it's just chemicals in your head.
more real than that.
as i said i can't explain it in orthodiox terms, suffice to say you can learn to recognise the effect of chemicals in your brain, and distinguish between them. excess or depletion of them aids or inhibits firing of electro chemical impulses and reception of them. Practicing and comparrison of thought processes (try to make them almost like control experiments (prompting cards help overcome the problems with the differenting starting conditions and help retain a semblence of control so comparrisons can be made. Also music, seeing how same music is recieved. touch, heat cold damp everything should be compared analytically so that you can start to map what is real and what is a transitary and changable state of perception merely due to chemicals (of course this is not always possible to achieve anything like full 'controls', but you will be suprised at what you can do, for instance you can deplete certain chemicals.
Your not really after a scientific detailed breakdown of what chemicals do what though you are after what is temprorary perception due to such states.......of course this isnt as absolute as starting from the 'i think therefore i must exist premise' but it is a start to realise how (in practice) 'illusionary and state dependant' some thought is (rather than just trying orthodox deductive logic with proof being necessetated)
and yet i've forgotten
i'm doing this kind of thing for the theory portion of my masters and depending who you read positivism means different things, including how it relates to empirical research models or not.
Sociological (e.g. Comtean, or Durkheimian; though the gap between them is big enough to treat them separately)? Historical? Legal? Logical?
Answers to your question depend on answers to mine.
i'm guessing that's the logical, comtean kind.
cos that's kind of different to the idea that the only real knowledge is scientific knowledge.
that we can be sure that we will one day be able to fully understand and utilize the material world.
i'm not whether anything beyond the physical world comes into it :/
aspect to it? Or am I barking up the wrong tree?
she seems like a bit of a nut. Only know her argument for ethical egoism though.
did on the comic book artist Steve Ditko - his charcater Mr A was based on her principles apparently - seeing things in black and white, moral absolutes and all that.
and that the best possible scenario would be if everybody acted in their own self interest.
apart from the fact that she didn't like gays so in order to act in her own self interest she has to hate gays.