Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by lightgigantic, May 16, 2007.
There's no ruthless logic or nice logic only logic.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
How about reading it as "ruthlessly applied"? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And, in point of fact logic is, in itself, ruthless:
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
"just because you don't know what i am talking about, doesn't mean i don't."
ever meet a smart moron? i think the way i am using the term is equivalent to 'eccentric scientist' the ones that are autistic like.
Big..meet dyw..he will change your mind about that..Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hmm, yes. But you'll note that the cases in question were (essentially): in an engineering environment and discussing engineering. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
When you get a newbie with three months of college coming into the office and trying to lay down what's right and what isn't to people with 20 or more years of experience AND college under their belts it tends not work out the way they planned. At least I had the sense to keep my mouth shut as a newby in the office.
Yep, they tend to be good at remembering facts, not so much stringing them together to make conclusions. (Not knocking them, I've known a few guys that fit into that category, and got on well with them).
Edit: I just re-read that. In point of fact I'm probably as close as I know to your description of "smart moron". My mother refused to ask me to make the coffee/ tea after couple of disastrous attempts - some things just slip over my head. I had no idea at all what a "mortgage" was until a year before I had to get one.
We've already met. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
How is logic in itself ruthless, it doesn't have any inherent qualities.
Correct. If it has no inherent qualities then it is, of necessity, without compassion, pity or mercy.
I wonder what the word is that describes that situation?
Regardless, have you considered the other option I noted: that it is the application that is ruthless?
Ever heard of colloquial English? Imprecise language? Everyday usage?
Ah, I was aware of this. I would argue that humans can't function without ruthlessness (of varying levels), its more unavoidable than love afterall.
Certain applications of ruthlessness can be beneficial.
Not least in decision-making.
I.e. no matter that one really really likes mint chocolate chip ice cream AND also likes cheese and crackers, you're only allowed one or the other.
Plus, I suppose there may be other, far more trivial occasions.
Do we we sell the car or the kids now I've been fired and money's tight.... Etc. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
due to experience with just such a decision, and viewing it in hindsite, i would pry make more money if i sold the kid..
Tch. You should be more ruthless.
You can't have a day out driving to a beauty spot on a kid. You need a car for that.
Reminds me of something from Father Ted.
Father Ted and Dougal are in a caravan looking out the window at a field.
Dougal is looking puzzled.
Father Ted says "No, Dougal. The little cows are further away"
That's another way of looking at it.
The TV program I watched described it as each single photon passing through both slits and interfering with itself.
It would be hard to measure the interference pattern from a single photon, I grant you.
I can beg to differ. You could also steal a tank then drive. Sure it may cause a bit of chaos but hey! It is still an option. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It could be that the waves direct the photons somehow.
Or that the photons, when measured, have to choose which slit to go through. Consciousness and choice, if they are not an illusion, may begin at a very simple level.
Why does anything exist?
See here, in atheist/science thread:
The reason things exist
The world (experience) indicates that existence is improbable because that existence provides a possibilty of nothing - which a rational being (with that knowledge and only that knowledge) would accept as a true solution (that is mathematically to deduce).
Does it perhaps tells us this - all experience is in some way a mask hiding true reality - its true nature if known would SHOUT nothing cannot be. Reality as we comprehend, is unknown to us - only indicated by our sense.
We are not privy to reality in its full glory - only a very small part of the whole and as such, any conclusion must be flawed.
Newton, Einsten, Darwin - mere children playing with cloured bricks.
Given that we're here, i.e. we do exist, how do you deduce this?
And your point would be...?
Or did you think we're somehow not aware of this?
(Accepting "flawed" as a near synonym for "incomplete", at least)
Yes incomplete, if nothing was possible, nothing would be. ioho
Separate names with a comma.