Rise of atheism: 100,000 Brits seek 'de-baptism'

[appolose]

donathos said:

appolose said:

donathos said:

I reject "definition" as being a category outside of "reality." :)  I think reality is bigger, and fairly all-encompassing.  Or, if it's not, then how do you know that definition is something different from reality?  How can you be certain of it?

When we talk about reality, we already accept that reality is encompassed by definition ("What do we mean by reality?" "We mean...").  Logic and meaning are fundamental, and necessary even to have the term "reality". Our understanding of reality is only within definition.  If that's at all clear (I'm not sure I said much coherently).

To say "A bachelor is an unmarried man" is not an assumption; it's definition, and it's true, because that's what you mean by it.  Whether or not bachelors, men, or marriages exist is a different question.  So when I identify statements about reality to be assumptions, it's true, because of the definition of assumption.

I think the critical distinction is that I think all statements about reality are assumptions.  That idea does not defeat itself, as it deals with statements concerning reality, not reality itself.

I'll check out those links nonetheless :)

But for all of your proposed beliefs, as to what a definition is, or what an assumption is, or a distinction, etc....  Where does this knowledge of yours come from?  How are you certain of it?  Not, how are you certain that "a bachelor is an unmarried man" (though I find the idea of that statement being inassailably true while we doubt the concept of men to be... questionable), but how do you know what definitions, themselves, are?  Or that things that are definitional are true?

And, relatedly, I've begun to wonder... we've been speaking about judgements from "sense data" as opposed to other sources (like presumably, where ever it is you feel you've received your knowledge about definitions and logic and so on), but how did you ever learn to seperate that stuff out from the judgements you've made on data from your eyes, ears, etc.?

How do you even know what "eyes" are?  Or that they provide sensory data?  What is sensory data, anyways, without relying on any judgements made based off of... well... sensory data?

How can you argue anything about judgements made based on sensory data (that they're accurate, inaccurate, arbitrary, or otherwise), unless you agree that sensory data exists?  And isn't "sensory data" meaningless, unless we believe that we've made accurate judgements to determine that there are things like eyes, ears, noses, and that we receive information from them?

The source of my definitions (where I got the idea of things to define) is of no consequence.  To ask if I know if the concept of definition is true is to already know it (like asking to define "define"; you already have to know it to ask it).  You can't question definition without using it.

I'm not quite sure I understand your second paragraph, but it looks like the next two are related, so I'll address those.

I do not know if I have eyse; I could be a brain floating in a vat recieving electrical stimuli, for all I know, or even less.  But, I do agree with the idea of the existence of sensory data; whatever "this" is, it can't be nothing (what else could I be referring to?).  It's what we do with it that I have issue with (making statements about other parts of reality, or proposing other parts of reality).