IcyMonkey, ne Zarathustra wrote:
Tamayo wrote:
[insert dictionary definitions here]
You're using a very specific interpretation of a very particular sub-meaning of the word "dualism" to make your case. Not a good idea. I'm only iterating what the generally-accepted philosophical conceptions of these terms are. In general, Descartes is considered a daulist whereas Plato is considered a monist.
Nay again. Please look once more at those dictionary definitions; the definition I used was listed
first, not
third where yours is found. That is the meaning of "dualism" I have used all my life. That is the meaning of "dualism" my friends who are not lucky enough to be mathematicians tease me with.
Most math people (I among them) think that analytic statements, such as "two plus two equals four" or "all finite groups over n elements are subgroups of the group of symmetries on n elements" or "any formal system that is sufficiently powerful such that it may describe the arithmetic of natural numbers must be incomplete, inconsistent or both" are discovered, not invented; such statements are necessarily true, but only known for sure once someone has proven them. That belief is a weak kind of dualism, and I admit it. It's a bit embarrassing, but you aren't going to change my mind about it; many people have tried, and failed.
But wait -- there's more! That's the
only definition given in the
Concise Oxford Dictionary. Where did yours go?
Et tu, Brute.
Quote:
If by "every event has a motive" you mean "humans are ultimately responsible for all of their actions", then can you please define responsibility, and define action?
No, that's not what I meant. If I may refer to another topic elsewhere, we are apparently in agreement that the universe is non-teleological. That is what I meant.
A fallacy, to a logician, is the presumption of
post hoc ergo propter hoc: if event B occurred after event A, then event B must have occurred because of event A. This is manifestly not the case, but it is the pattern of Sartre's philosophy. (Camus did it better.)
Quote:
Again, I really don't want to sound to patronizing, arrogant, or offensive. The last thing we need is a flame war over something as stupid as this. I respect anyone who displays the level of knowledge you do on these subjects. I'm just saying that your understanding of this subject is incomplete and flawed, while my understanding of it is... slightly less so.
Perhaps so; but you
did patronize me, and I admit I dislike having my intelligence insulted. You may not have intended that, and I should not be quick to see that it is happening, but ...
Quote:
Admittedly, I don't have a degree or anything to show for this (yet). All I can say is I have a burning interest in it, have taken many college courses on it already, and have read extensively on the subject.
A philosopher with this much background should not be so quick to say, "I know more than you do" to someone he respects.