Paradox No 1

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by yinyinwang, Nov 6, 2003.

  1. yinyinwang Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    469
    When I look back, I see myself a fool all the time but I never realize I am a fool now.
    A objective reference is more important in judging.
    aiming higher or highest is acceptable. but work the way and never forget checking reference objectively.
    oh yes, who was a fool indeed.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,576
    When some one says "You are being foolish" are they not saying "you should know better" or "you will regret what you are doing"

    When I make an error of judgement that I shouldn't have made I often refer to my own foolishness at making that mistake. Knowing I should or could have done better.

    Fool is a word that seems to be self reflective or suggested that it should be self reflective.

    When some one considers an action of another as foolish he is saying that as if it were him doing the action.

    A bit like leaning from others mistakes.

    Interesting word this word "Fool"
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. scilosopher Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    yinyinwang,
    I was assuming objective reference would be utilized, but there are frequently multiple explanations that are consistent with all the information one has.

    It's one thing to seek to grow as a person it's another thing to accept a responsibility one cannot fulfill.

    Quantum Quack,
    Not that I think it's bad to discuss definitions, but I'm not sure everyone would agree with yours ...
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. yinyinwang Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    469
    you can find out what you are competative at by comparison with others.
     
  8. Tyler Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,888
    This is what Nasor means when he says your question isn't a paradox. The above is a definition of paradox. Your question is just a question.

    And, in my opinion, not at all a matter of philosophy.
     
  9. yinyinwang Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    469
    You can't see something controdictory here can you?
    What is your definitin of a phi problem?
     
  10. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,671
    I like to consider myself a wise fool. But that's only because I'm a self-centered, pompus, wise fool (IMO), emphasis on the fool part.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Tyler Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,888
    A paradox is something like: One can never complete a race because first one must get half way to the finish, then half way between that point and the ending, then... infititely. (Zeno's Paradox).

    This appears to be a contradiction... I know very well it's possible to finish a race - I've done so - yet the logic seems to point to it being impossible mathematically.

    Asking if a fool can know he's a fool is not a paradox for a number of reasons:
    i) it's a question
    ii) the term 'fool' is being used very subjectively

    Point (ii) is probably the most important. Let's look at the definition of a fool
    By this simple definition - yes, it is quite easy for a fool to know he is a fool. The definition does not state "one who is lacking in all abilities of judgement or one who is incapable of any understanding". If it did then it would be impossible for a fool to know...

    If you take the definition as I do - that is, to mean that a fool is one who is lacking in most abilities of judgement or makes poor judgement or does not understand well most things - then it is possible for a fool to know he is one.

    Your question is a simple matter of english language. That is also why it's not one of philosophy.

    Let me explain a bit further...
    Are you capable of answer the above? No? Why not? Probably because you don't understand two of the words. There is no point in us debating the answer to my question, simple because we have no objective grounds for the definitions of those words.
    Seeing as I know for certain what each other word in the question means - I need you (the poser of the question) to tell me what you mean by 'fool'. Either you mean i) one who makes generally poor judgements - ii) one who never properly understands anything - iii) neither of these and something that doesn't really relate to the English language. I've already gone over the conclusions that must follow (i) or (ii), so unless you're using the english word "fool" to represent something I don't know about, we basically have your answer.

    Your question is akin to: "Can an academic be uneducated?" It is a simple matter of figuring out what the words mean (in this case, the english definition of academic implies being educated).


    For any question to be even remotly valuable in philosophy we must have completely solid definition which everybody is aware of. This prevents us from making useless debate.
     
  12. yinyinwang Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    469
    I presume that you also know the liar's paradox which has nothing to do with reality, not to mention contradictory to it and has premises you can not deduce from. So paradoxes do take many forms, I can't see the reason why we should only call the above as paradoxical and leave others unattended. But if you narrow youself to the above, it is you who cause useless debate.
     
  13. yinyinwang Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    469
    linguistically, it may take a question form, but the context meaning is not. But if you narrow it again to non-question forms only, it is your problem, not mine.
    I presume again that you know philosophically, any statement of causality or property is a judgement by human, that is to say, guilty of subjectiveness.
     
  14. yinyinwang Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    469
    I guess to prove the result, the best way is to actually ask anyone who "is" a fool in your "sub" or "ob"-jective view if he or she will admit that, don't you think so?
     
  15. yinyinwang Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    469
    I don't want to buy this. Because it is relative. A man can be a fool or non-fool at the same time depending on what reference you are using.
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2003
  16. yinyinwang Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    469
    As far as I know, language is about grammar, not context understnding.
     
  17. yinyinwang Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    469
    Shall I attach a dictionary each time I post? Or we are not allowed any new interpretation?
     
  18. yinyinwang Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    469
    No one has exactly the same understanding of words with others, but in the commonly used sense. So the fact that people know what a fool is about in common sense renders no guarantee that they know it is relative philosophically. So what I am emphasising is the relativeness which I can judge from your word to now that you really don't know.
     
  19. yinyinwang Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    469
    It is not as simple as that, see the reason above.
     
  20. yinyinwang Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    469
    This is true absolutely and you can slam it on any body. But unfortunely it is irrelevent here.
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2003

Share This Page