i just picked up off Wikipedia an excellent argument. If we were to prove that reason was flawed then that would flaw the proof since reason is flawed. Of course that would flaw the counter proof... its a mess.
My aim is not this. It is to show that for any symbolic system to be meaningful it must imply a non-symbolic "higher" heirachy, but obviously not be able to encode it. The "God" (or Mind) in the system so to speak.
Alternatively by reductio ad absurdum, if we were to assume that no non-symbolic realm was entailed, then a symbolic system would be able to entail itself. I seek to find out if this is the non-sense it seems to be.
Infinite heirachies, rather than a finite system, is the way to go.. at least it will keep the human race busy indefinitely!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
The classic antimony is between : (1) action that is chosen freely and (2) action that comes about through physical causation. To date no ...
-
Well that was quite interesting ChatGPT can't really "think" of anything to detract from the argument that Jews have no clai...
-
There are few people in England I meet these days who do not think we are being ruled by an non-democratic elite. The question is just who t...
No comments:
Post a Comment