Paradox No 1

[yinyinwang]

Originally posted by scilosopher
I think theirs assymetry in judging intelligence. A sufficiently smarter person can see the mistakes in reasoning a less intelligent person makes, while a less intelligent person can simply not understand what a smarter person says (assuming adequate communications skills on both parts).

When I look back, I see myself a fool all the time but I never realize I am a fool now.

When judging oneself the best tact to take is to start reasoning from multiple starting places about a topic. If the results don't come out consistent you are making mistakes in reasoning and there's something your missing. If they come out consistent, you don't know you're right, but at least you've done what you can to check.

A objective reference is more important in judging.

I guess I would conclude that a fool can't understand his limitations or they wouldn't limit him. One can always use references to judge whether others are more intelligent than they. I agree that being a fool is relative ... but would add that what is truly foolish is attempting to do what is beyond your abilities. Being dumb in and of itself is not foolish.

aiming higher or highest is acceptable. but work the way and never forget checking reference objectively.

It's interesting to note that fools in medieval times were typically quite intelligent and used their guise of stupidity to say what others did not have the courage to.

oh yes, who was a fool indeed.

 

[Quantum Quack]

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"

 

[scilosopher]

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 ...

 

[yinyinwang]

you can find out what you are competative at by comparison with others.

 

[Tyler]

a self-contradictory statement that at first seems true
an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises

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.

 

[yinyinwang]

Originally posted by Tyler
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.

You can't see something controdictory here can you?
What is your definitin of a phi problem?

 

[river-wind]

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.

 

[Tyler]

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

i) a person lacking in judgment or prudence
ii) a harmlessly deranged person or one lacking in common powers of understanding

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...

Is a gorgenshlafer capable of knowing he is more sfergarden than most?

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.

Can a fool know he is a fool?

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.

 

[yinyinwang]

Originally posted by Tyler
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.

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.

 

[yinyinwang]

Originally posted by Tyler
Asking if a fool can know he's a fool is not a paradox for a number of reasons:
i) it's a question

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.

ii) the term 'fool' is being used very subjectively

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.

 

[yinyinwang]

Originally posted by Tyler
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.

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?

 

[yinyinwang]

Originally posted by Tyler

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.

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.

 

[yinyinwang]

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

As far as I know, language is about grammar, not context understnding.

 

[yinyinwang]

Originally posted by Tyler

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.

Shall I attach a dictionary each time I post? Or we are not allowed any new interpretation?

 

[yinyinwang]

Originally posted by Tyler

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.

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.

 

[yinyinwang]

Originally posted by Tyler
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).

It is not as simple as that, see the reason above.

 

[yinyinwang]

Originally posted by Tyler

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.

This is true absolutely and you can slam it on any body. But unfortunely it is irrelevent here.