Why does everyone disagree with you

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 29/01/2020 16:13:40:

.

[*] Bazyle’s cuppa got him very near.

.

.

Ooops … That should have read Blowlamp’s cuppa

Sincere apologies

MichaelG.

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by old mart on 29/01/2020 20:42:10:

Similar rubbish like" if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, doe's it make any sound?, or something like that. Argument for arguments sake.

 

Actually that was Bishop Berkeley and an important idea in philosophy that is still studied and argued today. He is considered one of the great thinkers of all time. And his ideas were a precursor to Einstein's theory of relativity.

Berkeley's argument went something like this:

(1) We perceive ordinary objects (houses, mountains, etc.).

(2) We perceive only ideas.

Therefore,

(3) Ordinary objects are ideas.

 

Something to think about.

 

 

 

Edited By Hopper on 30/01/2020 00:41:30

Edited By Hopper on 30/01/2020 00:43:00

[Mick B1Participant @mickb1]

Posted by Hopper on 30/01/2020 00:20:16:

Posted by old mart on 29/01/2020 20:42:10:

Similar rubbish like" if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, doe's it make any sound?, or something like that. Argument for arguments sake.

Actually that was Bishop Berkeley and an important idea in philosophy that is still studied and argued today. He is considered one of the great thinkers of all time. And his ideas were a precursor to Einstein's theory of relativity.

Berkeley's argument went something like this:

(1) We perceive ordinary objects (houses, mountains, etc.).

(2) We perceive only ideas.

Therefore,

(3) Ordinary objects are ideas.

Something to think about.

That way lies nothing but solipsism, in the end.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Mick B1 on 30/01/2020 08:31:20:

.

.

Good morning , Mick

Did you read my post of 17:17:53 yesterday ?

I am still interested to see your version of Euclid’s definition.

MichaelG.

[David Standing 1Participant @davidstanding1]

Posted by Andrew Johnston on 27/01/2020 22:04:13:

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 27/01/2020 13:04:31:

I've had a PM confirming I'm a baddy.

Good grief! Is nothing sacrosanct? I'd put you in the always worth reading category, even if I don't always agree with you.

Andrew

Likewise!

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Mick B1 on 30/01/2020 08:31:20:

Posted by Hopper on 30/01/2020 00:20:16:

Posted by old mart on 29/01/2020 20:42:10:

Similar rubbish like" if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, doe's it make any sound?, or something like that. Argument for arguments sake.

Actually that was Bishop Berkeley and an important idea in philosophy that is still studied and argued today. He is considered one of the great thinkers of all time. And his ideas were a precursor to Einstein's theory of relativity.

Berkeley's argument went something like this:

(1) We perceive ordinary objects (houses, mountains, etc.).

(2) We perceive only ideas.

Therefore,

(3) Ordinary objects are ideas.

Something to think about.

That way lies nothing but solipsism, in the end.

In the end, we are all dead. And when I'm dead, you lot cease to exist. So you'd better be nice to me!

Philosophy is an interesting field, certainly worth exploring. Whilst much less reliable than Science or Mathematics, philosophy is more respectable than Theology. Bottom of the intellectual pile I'd say is Astrology. But as it turned out, the history of Astrology is a warning against dismissing even daft ideas at the outset – Astrology led to Astronomy.

Dave

[JAParticipant @ja]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 30/01/2020 09:26:40:

Posted by Mick B1 on 30/01/2020 08:31:20:

Posted by Hopper on 30/01/2020 00:20:16:

Posted by old mart on 29/01/2020 20:42:10:

Similar rubbish like" if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, doe's it make any sound?, or something like that. Argument for arguments sake.

Actually that was Bishop Berkeley and an important idea in philosophy that is still studied and argued today. He is considered one of the great thinkers of all time. And his ideas were a precursor to Einstein's theory of relativity.

Berkeley's argument went something like this:

(1) We perceive ordinary objects (houses, mountains, etc.).

(2) We perceive only ideas.

Therefore,

(3) Ordinary objects are ideas.

Something to think about.

That way lies nothing but solipsism, in the end.

In the end, we are all dead. And when I'm dead, you lot cease to exist. So you'd better be nice to me!

Philosophy is an interesting field, certainly worth exploring. Whilst much less reliable than Science or Mathematics, philosophy is more respectable than Theology. Bottom of the intellectual pile I'd say is Astrology. But as it turned out, the history of Astrology is a warning against dismissing even daft ideas at the outset – Astrology led to Astronomy.

Dave

Bottom of the pile is Economics.

JA

[Mike PooleParticipant @mikepoole82104]

Logic was studied in philosophy first then maths took it on and has become the foundation of computing.

Mike

[Former MemberParticipant @formermember19781]

[This posting has been removed]

[Mick B1Participant @mickb1]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 30/01/2020 09:26:40:

Posted by Mick B1 on 30/01/2020 08:31:20:

Posted by Hopper on 30/01/2020 00:20:16:

Posted by old mart on 29/01/2020 20:42:10:

Similar rubbish like" if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, doe's it make any sound?, or something like that. Argument for arguments sake.

Actually that was Bishop Berkeley and an important idea in philosophy that is still studied and argued today. He is considered one of the great thinkers of all time. And his ideas were a precursor to Einstein's theory of relativity.

Berkeley's argument went something like this:

(1) We perceive ordinary objects (houses, mountains, etc.).

(2) We perceive only ideas.

Therefore,

(3) Ordinary objects are ideas.

Something to think about.

That way lies nothing but solipsism, in the end.

In the end, we are all dead. And when I'm dead, you lot cease to exist. So you'd better be nice to me!

…

Dave

No, no! It's the other way around!

[Mick B1Participant @mickb1]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 30/01/2020 08:45:21:

Posted by Mick B1 on 30/01/2020 08:31:20:

.

.

Good morning , Mick

Did you read my post of 17:17:53 yesterday ?

I am still interested to see your version of Euclid’s definition.

MichaelG.

Yes I did, but thought it a challenge based on a conflation. Even if I knew enough Greek, it would probably not be possible to improve on Bill Phinn's. What I was finding verbose and indigestible was Joyce's pronouncements on it, considering where Euclid must've had to start from.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Mick B1 on 30/01/2020 14:36:10:

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 30/01/2020 08:45:21:

Posted by Mick B1 on 30/01/2020 08:31:20:

.

.

Good morning , Mick

Did you read my post of 17:17:53 yesterday ?

I am still interested to see your version of Euclid’s definition.

MichaelG.

 

Yes I did, but thought it a challenge based on a conflation. Even if I knew enough Greek, it would probably not be possible to improve on Bill Phinn's. What I was finding verbose and indigestible was Joyce's pronouncements on it, considering where Euclid must've had to start from.

.

No, Mick … it was just a simple straightforward response to your assertion:

Well, 'tain't really Euclid's definition, is it, but […]

… I read that ^^^ to be a claim that you knew better.

MichaelG.

.

P.S. the notes, which you seem to find objectionable, are meant to inform the modern reader … they are not intended to belittle Euclid. 

Joyce’s closing sentence on that page explains his approach: This version of the Elements is based on Heiberg’s Greek edition which is based on pre-Theonic editions, and is, therefore, relatively authentic. Even though parts of it may have been added in the first 650 years after Euclid, in these notes we’ll treat Heiberg’s edition as authentic.

… Joyce is simply being a good scholar.

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 30/01/2020 15:38:27

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

PostScript:

I confess that I did not know the exact meaning of pre-Theonic

… But thanks to Google, I found a man who does: **LINK**

MichaelG.

[FarmboyParticipant @farmboy]

Well, I don't know much about angels but this thread certainly seems to have grown wings and ascended to a higher plane. Such erudition and eloquence is rare on the interweb; long may it continue . . . well, at least until the weather improves and the sheds warm up a bit.

As a 'farm boy' my knowledge and abilities are wide-ranging but generally lacking in depth so I do enjoy being prompted by such as MichaelG to investigate topics of which I was aware only as a few names and phrases.

Mike.

[Cornish JackParticipant @cornishjack]

Blowlamp – my neice won the prize awarded by the BBC for inventing the name Legs and Co!! There's irrelevant fame for you!

rgds

Bill

[Author]

Posts