Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09/26/04 9:32pm
In reply to:
Duane
's message, "Ah - apparently we're talking about 2 different things." on 09/14/04 4:37pm
>Wade:
>
>Are you aware that "The Tristam Shandy" paradox was
>originally a mathematical argument and NOT a
>philisophical argument?
Depends which argument you are referring to. If you're talking about my argument, then it is a philosophical argument. Of course, I'm aware Bertrand Russell was discussing mathematics when it came to his own TS scenario.
>In the context of the human mind, or I guess you could
>say in the context of human existence as a whole, that
>infinite time is a concept which is, itself, absurd.
Not by itself. But if it leads to absurdities like "the present cannot be reached" and so forth, then yes.
>It still seems to me that the test condition for your
>premises is the concept of "absurd," which has its
>basis in our intuition. Eventually, we reach a point
>where we say, "Enough already! OK! This is clearly
>not true because it's ridiculous!"
>
>So the limits of philosophy are the limits of human
>intuition.
In practice, that's going to be true for a lot of things. Take for instance the five-minute hypothesis.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
