Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Hypotheses (was: Re: Assumptions vs.
From: Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakki Kocabas)
Date: 23 Nov 92 14:28:33 GMT
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand

> In article <10292322.79320.9942@kcbbs.gen.nz> Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Ha
> >> I wrote:    
> >> >> What person thinks he saw can easily be slightly different from what h
> >> >> actually saw.      
> >>     
> >> In article <10292319.81767.18770@kcbbs.gen.nz> Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz
> >> >and how would you know that ?      
> >>     
> >> Because there have been times when *I* thought I saw something, and later
> >    
> >yes, you thought you _saw_....but you didn't see it clearly...    
> >    
> >> evidence (looking at it more closely, for example) led me to conclude tha
> >> had been mistaken.    
> >    
> >then you saw it better...    
> >    
> >>     
> >> >I think you are in a loop.    
> >>     
> >> I think you are raising a philosophical point irrelevant to the discussio
> >    
> >how do you know ?    
> >    
> >> at hand.  If you want to define perception in such a way that it is not  
> >> possible to mistaken about a perception, go right ahead; but that is not 
> >    
> >we are not talking about "perception", we are talking about the use of    
> >the word "see"....    
> >    
> >> sense of the word I had in mind.    
> >    
> >and I am not interested what is the sense of this word in your mind, unless
> >you can put it on the sceen :-)    
>   
> If you have a point which is relevant to the discussion, please make it.  
                ^^^^^  
You mean an opinion....no I have no opinion...yet.  
  
> All I can get from this is that you don't like my word choices.  If, on the 
  
But my friend this is sci.philosophy.tech, is it NOT ?  
and   
  
"  
Philosophical questions, when you boil them down to what they  
really amount to, change their aspect entirely. What evaporates is  
what the intellect cannot take. MS 159, 3b.  
  
Philosophical investigations: conceptual investigations. The  
essencial thing about metaphysics: it obliterates the distinction  
between factual and conceptual investigations.  
  
Philosophy is embodied not in propositions but in a language.  
  
A main souce of our failure to understand is that we do not command  
a clear view of the use of our words. Our grammar is lacking in  
perspicuity....PI 42.  
  
It is the task of philosophy to achieve an order, an order which  
gives complete clarity.  
  
Der Begriff der uebersichtlichen Darstellung is fuer uns von  
grundlegender Bedeutung. Er bezieichnet unsere Darstellungsform,  
die Art wie wir die Dinge sehen.  
Diese uebersichtliche Darstellung vermittelt das Verstaendnis,  
welches eben darin besteht, dass wir die "Zusammenhaenge sehen".  
Daher die Wichtigkeit des Findens von Zwischeng liedern.  
(connections, itermediate-links) RFGB 9  
(read further: "formalen Zusammen hangs = formal connections) see  
how he ties to set up connections with ghost, shade, soul, spirit)  
  
We must distinguish the concepts from each other one by one..It is  
helpful to note both differences and similarities. Man 167.  
  
The matter cannot be clarified by raging against your words, but by  
trying to turn your attention away from the use of the words (Man  
228, $44; cp $$120,144). It is never right to say simply: 'no, that  
is false, it must be abandoned'. (man 112, 197; cp $$423-24;Z 460)  
"  
  
> other hand, this whole line of commentary was a joke, it wasn't funny.  
  
I know it is NOT funny...because:  
  
"  
Philosoph isn't anything except philosophical problems, the  
particular individual worries that we call "philosophical  
problems:"  
  
What has to be overcome is not a difficulty of understanding but of  
the will. PI 59-60.  
  
Philosophy has close affinity to Politics. (Ibn Rushd's Commentary  
on Plato's Republic)  
"