The Radical Academy Discussion Forum
Philosophy, Politics, and the Human Condition
|
||
| Search For Similar Forums · Return to Website | ||
 First |
 Prev |
 Reply |
 Home |
Next  |
Last  |
| Viewing Page 1 of 1 (Total Posts: 6) |
| Author | Comment |
Kevin
 Dec 8, 07 - 11:25 AM |
Ivo's "Surprise" and Normal Confusion (From Definition of Science)
Subject: Re: Re: definition of science Name: Kevin Email: PaedoSocrates@aol.com Message: Name: Ivo Email: ivocerckel@siquijor.ws IVO: I am very surprised to see that somebody was allowed to write into my Nov 18th, 2007 post. REPLY: Just switch to "threaded style" and you can see how it was done. When you write a SINGLE POST, which must be broken in to several parts because of the 5000 character limitation at this site, anyone can reply to each individual section of what you call "MY NOV. 18th, 2007 POST". But Ivo's "NOV. 18, 2007 POST" was NOT a single post. It was actually; let me see --- 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 posts --- as "flagged" with 3 stars per each section of his 5 "posts" (pleural) below. SUMMARY: Ivo begins on October 23rd, gets 2 replies on Oct. 25th, replies October 26 and November 4, receives 7 replies on Nov. 13th and then writes on November 18th, with his 5 part post. The replies are all "re: re", rather than merely a single "re." IN BOARD STYLE, rather than THREADED STYLE, each of the 5 parts received its individual reply, in the appropriate SPOT, inserted as a reply to each individual part. Hence Ivo's "surprise" at what he calls someone being allowed to "WRITE INTO" --- or in other words "BREAK APART" what he wanted to PRESENT as an individual and "seamless" or SINGLE POST, as is evident below: BEGINS: definition of science, by Ivo · Oct 23, 07 - 8:32 PM Re: definition of science by Kevin · Oct 25, 07 - 1:12 AM Re: definition of science by Kevin · Oct 25, 07 - 2:28 AM Re: definition of science by Ivo · Oct 26, 07 - 10:25 PM Re: definition of science by Ivo · Nov 4, 07 - 5:21 PM Re: definition of science by Ivo · Nov 4, 07 - 6:31 PM Re: definition of science by Kevin · Nov 13, 07 - 2:39 AM Re: definition of science by Kevin · Nov 13, 07 - 3:01 AM Re: definition of science by Kevin · Nov 13, 07 - 3:22 AM Re: definition of science by Kevin · Nov 13, 07 - 3:32 AM Re: definition of science by Kevin · Nov 13, 07 - 3:45 AM Re: definition of science by Kevin · Nov 13, 07 - 4:16 AM Re: definition of science by Kevin · Nov 13, 07 - 5:02 AM ***(1) Re: definition of science by Ivo · Nov 18, 07 - 4:55 PM Re: Re: definition of science by Kevin · Dec 6, 07 - 5:01 AM Re: Re: definition of science by Kevin · Dec 6, 07 - 6:11 AM Re: Re: definition of science by Kevin · Dec 6, 07 - 6:56 AM ***(2) Re: definition of science by Ivo · Nov 18, 07 - 5:00 PM Re: Re: definition of science by Kevin · Dec 6, 07 - 8:05 AM Re: Re: definition of science by Kevin · Dec 6, 07 - 9:01 AM Re: Re: definition of science by Kevin · Dec 6, 07 - 10:29 AM ***(3) Re: definition of science by Ivo · Nov 18, 07 - 5:06 PM Re: Re: definition of science by Kevin · Dec 6, 07 - 11:49 AM Re: Re: definition of science by Kevin · Dec 6, 07 - 12:51 PM Re: Re: definition of science by Kevin · Dec 6, 07 - 1:51 PM Re: Re: definition of science by Kevin · Dec 6, 07 - 2:34 PM Re: Re: definition of science by Kevin · Dec 6, 07 - 3:24 PM Kant's Description of Scholastic Philosophy by Kevin · Dec 6, 07 - 3:38 PM Re: Re: definition of science by Kevin · Dec 7, 07 - 12:00 PM « NEW Re: Re: definition of science by Kevin · Dec 7, 07 - 12:08 PM « NEW Re: Re: definition of science by Kevin · Dec 7, 07 - 12:18 PM « NEW Re: Re: definition of science by Kevin · Dec 7, 07 - 12:39 PM « NEW Re: Re: definition of science by Kevin · Dec 7, 07 - 12:53 PM « NEW ***(4) Re: definition of science by Ivo · Nov 18, 07 - 5:10 PM ***(5)Re: definition of science by Ivo · Nov 18, 07 - 5:13 PM KEVIN |
|
Kevin
Dec 8th, 2007 - 12:45 PM |
Re: Ivo's "Surprise" and Normal Confusion (From Definition of Science)
IVO CONTINUES TO EXPLAIN HIS "SURPRISE". Of course he is not really "surprised" at what he thinks of as "inserts" into what he hoped would be presented on this site as a single "seamless" post. He is more "surprised" by the FACT that I saved his former posts from another list on to my hard drive, which, thereby, allows me to continue long conversations as if they were "Socratic" or, more correctly, PLATONIC dialogues. Actually, NO MODERN CONVERSATION is anything remotely resembling a Platonic Dialogue for the simple reason that "moderns" do not have the time or inclination to ARGUE or DEBATE according to the ancient rules of "discussion" --- which were, LISTEN CAREFULLY, and then CLEARLY PARAPHRASE the dialogue partner's PROPOSITIONS back to him/her for that person to AFFIRM or DENY whether or not you had heard him/her CORRECTLY. Then, when both parties ACKNOWLEDGED that each had, respectively (1) MADE THEIR POINT CLEAR and (2) HEARD CORRECTLY, the dialogue proceeded according to (1) CLEARLY STATED and (2) ACCURATELY RECEIVED statements. You see that phenomenon in Platonic Dialogues, in those cases where Socrates has heard a speaker, THEN repeated or paraphrased the speaker's point, and THEN begins his "ELENCHUS" (refutation) with the "catch phrase" --- LET US EXAMINE THIS (statement) TOGETHER TO SEE IF IT IS TRUE. The dialogue partner, be it Eutyphro, or Ion or Meno, etc. is helped by Socrates to make his point as clear as possible, until the speaker is satisfied that BOTH (1) he has stated his point as best he can and (2) Socrates has heard him and UNDERSTOOD his point. Then Socrates begins his famous QUESTIONING, which the dialogue partners actually ANSWER as best they can. Thus the Platonic or Socratic Dialogues. However, in modern conversations and especially internet lists --- FEW PEOPLE EVER ANSWER HONEST QUESTIONS with HONEST ANSWERS. Like Ivo, they merely like to see their modern university style "essays", replete with "footnotes" published at some website or other as "polished" works. Thus Ivo's consternation at seeing his 5 part "Essay" of November 18th, apparently "broken up" when he wanted it to be a SEAMLESS ESSAY published at this site. He expressed his consternation, previously, as, requote: IVO: I am very surprised to see that somebody was allowed to WRITE INTO my Nov 18th, 2007 POST. Then Ivo continues to explain his consternation as follows, quote IVO: Re: definition of science Name: Ivo Date Posted: Dec 7, 07 - 3:05 PM Email: ivocerckel@siquijor.ws Message: And again “Kevin Dec 7th, 2007 - 2:33 PM” appears before “Ivo Dec 6th, 2007 - 4:42 PM”. I don’t UNDERSTAND how K is able to do that. EXPLANATION: By replying to each individual part of the 5 part "essay"!!! ---an essay which Ivo wished to publish at this site. Ivo thought, at the time, he had written a PERFECT REBUTTAL ESSAY. Thus Ivo smugly proclaimed, near the end of his "essay", quote: IVO (requote): "Dear Kevin, If you recognise yourself in what I have written above, please feel free to reply. but please don’t just shout, but GIVE REFERENCES to what YOU are saying, especially if you continue to ARGUE that I KNOW HOW AND WHY MY COMAS HAPPENED (and if you continue to oppose the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics)." ARGUMENT: Of course, when I actually REFERENCED Ivo, himself, as of June 2007, he was caught in his own lie, per requote: Jun 11th, 2007 - 5:01 AM Re: Ivo's Pain (with continuing addendae) IVO: 15. My two comas. In May 1970 I ran against a car (because life with a hook was unbearable, certainly in summer). In 1982, I drove against a car (because I had discovered the TRUTH about my handicap in lawschool.) *********vs********** IVO (Nov. 18, 2007) "...GIVE REFERENCES to what YOU are saying, especially if you continue to ARGUE that I KNOW HOW AND WHY MY COMAS HAPPENED." COMMENT: One cannot do better than to "reference" a person who is arguing against his own previous POINT. That is exactly what happens in all actual Socratic Dialogues. A dialogue partner makes a POINT. Then under Socrates's cross-questioning, that same person CONTRADICTS his own previous assertion. And that is exactly what Ivo did in our long "dialogue" from June of 2007, to December of 2007. However, this is how a "modern person" reacts to his own SELF - REFUTATION, when caught in his own self-contradictory assertions, quote:- IVO: Without a level playing field and without Aristotle’s Greek text and Thomas’ Latin text, we can’t have a discussion. This should "therefore" be my last post on this Forum. IVO: Up to now all posts have displayed on a chronological basis. K is now able to insert posts in between. CONCLUSION: In other words: "KEVIN is a 'sneaky cheater'!", rather than, something to the effect that:- "I, Ivo, have been caught CONTRADICTING myself." One or two more "lies" follow... KB |
|
Kevin
Dec 8th, 2007 - 2:42 PM |
Re: Ivo's "Surprise" and Normal Confusion (From Definition of Science)
Ivo has evinced "surprise", re. his "POST" being "written into". He is actually embarrassed by being CAUGHT IN A SOCRATIC ELENCHUS (self-refutation), which he thought he could not be "CAUGHT IN" given that some "hacker" wrecked all of the previous posts on this FORUM. Ivo continues PREVARICATING and OBFUSCATING. Recall that everyone who ever had an actual Socratic Dialogue with Socrates, eventually "ran away" from his cross questioning, or became ANGRY with Socrates at his questions. Ivo is having the same sort of reaction, below --- although "moderns" are far more obviously "prevaricating" than any ancient Greek. When the ancient Greeks were embarrassed, they either apologized, or drew their swords or daggers and the fight was on --- no more words. By contrast what we have DEMONSTRATED below, by Ivo, is a peculiar "European" tendency to pull the old "Stylus Curiae" or "poison pen" routine out of a "European" bag of SOPHISTICAL tricks, quote: Re: definition of science Name: Ivo Date Posted: Dec 7, 07 - 3:05 PM Email: ivocerckel@siquijor.ws Message: And again “Kevin Dec 7th, 2007 - 2:33 PM” appears before “Ivo Dec 6th, 2007 - 4:42 PM”. I don’t understand how K is able to do that. [COMMENT --- previously explained. Now comes the European "poison pen" routine...] IVO: Without a level playing field and without Aristotle’s Greek text and Thomas’ Latin text, we can’t have a discussion. This should therefore be my last post on this Forum. POINT BY POINT: (1) Without a level playing field... INTERPRETATION:- Kevin is a "cheating" at play! Ivo gets a lot of his "stuff" from the British, who like "level playing fields". (2) and without Aristotle’s Greek text and Thomas’ Latin text, we can’t have a discussion. INTERPRETATION:- We "cultured Europeans" who understand Greek and Latin cannot have discussions with North American "barbarians" who do not understand our "culture and sophistication". ARGUMENT: But the fact is that an Ionion/Thraco/Macedonian "barbarian", named Aristotle, was the only "Greek" who eventually and thoroughly UNDERSTOOD both Socrates and Plato. And Aristotle's ancient "Greek" was probably not THAT GOOD when he first came down from Stagira to Athens at 18 years of age. But some kids LEARN QUICKLY and thoroughly, as Plato says in one of his letters. Aristotle was one such "quick study", even though, as far as the Athenians of the 300 B.C. era were concerned, he was only a Macedonian sympathizer --- which is WHY they ran him out of Athens as soon as his Macedonian "protector" (Alexander) was dead. IVO (continues his "poison pen", quote): Up to now all posts have displayed on a chronological basis. K is now able to insert posts in between. INTERPRETATION: Kevin is "cheating" --- good example of "ad hominem" irrelevancy. The fact is that in "threaded style" posts have always been insertable. I have usually started a new post when refuting Ivo previously. IVO: K originally said IN THIS THREAD that “adaequatio rei et intellectus” was Thomas’ definition of science. NOW WE HAVE ANOTHER LIE: "adequatio rei et intellectus" is the phrase which Ivo has constantly INSISTED to be Aquinas's definition of truth, from the disputed questions on truth --- an early work of Aquinas's, from his years when he first became a teaching "master". That disputation is arguably prior to Aquinas receiving the full "freshly translated" Aristotelian Corpus, directly from Greek into Medieval Latin, by William of Moerboeke, a Dominican stationed at Corinth --- a very competent Greek linguist and grammarian. Moerboeke received a papal commission to do a fresh translation given that the Latin Averroists were getting their "Aristotle" from Arab translations and "accretions". Aquinas's SUMMA definition of TRUTH is "conformity of intellect with thing.", although he provides 3 or 4 definitions of truth in Summa I, Q. 16., and also explains WHY, quote "consequently there are various DEFINITIONS of truth." (Summa I, Q. 16., Article 1. 4rth paragraph of "I answer that...") One of those several definitions is, as Ivo continues to insist, "Truth is the equation of thought with thing." LITERALLY (in Latin): Quod autem dicitur quod VERITAS est ADEQATIO REI ET INTELLECTUS potest ad utrumque pertinere. But a definition of truth is NOT a definition of SCIENCE, which means KNOWLEDGE. A Scientist KNOWS both FACTS and the CAUSES of those facts. So for Aristotle and Aquinas a SCIENTIST knows both THE FACT (true) and THE WHY or CAUSE (true) of a fact. Thus I actually said, on October, 25, 2007 at 2:28 AM, quote: KEVIN: SHORT ANSWER (previously answered) No. Science/knowledge is conformity of SOME intellects with SOME thing/s. In Aquinas's translated parlance, "SCIENCES are diversified by the diverse NATURES of knowable objects." Thus another LIE! contd. KB |
|
Kevin
Dec 8th, 2007 - 4:32 PM |
Re: Ivo's "Surprise" and Normal Confusion (From Definition of Science)
RECAPPING THE LATEST LIE OF IVO, from the previous post, requote: IVO: K(evin) originally said IN THIS THREAD that “adaequatio rei et intellectus” was Thomas’ definition of science. REFUTATION: **************ON THE CONTRARY************ October, 25, 2007 at 2:28 AM, quote: KEVIN: SHORT ANSWER (previously answered) No. Science/knowledge is conformity of SOME intellects with SOME thing/s. In Aquinas's translated parlance, "SCIENCES are diversified by the diverse NATURES of knowable objects." COMMENT: As previously explained, SCIENTISTS not only know FACTS (which are, of course, TRUE) but also the CAUSES (also TRUE) of facts. So, as per above, Ivo has "CONFUSED" his constant statement concerning Aquinas's "definition" of TRUTH... [which he did use in the Disputed Questions on Truth and also repeated in Summa I Q. 16. Article 1. as one of "several definitions of truth", BEFORE stating what he, then, in his mature thought considered to be his "I ANSWER THAT..." definition of truth --- conformity of intellect with thing] ...with my definition of SCIENCE as the "conformity of SOME intellects [ie. The intellects of actual scientists] with SOME things. EG. Knowable things; such as Grammar, Rhetoric, Logic (The "Trivium") or Arithmetic, Music, Geometry, Astronomy (a.k.a. the "Quadrivium") for a sum total of "The 7 liberal arts". EG. Or, more "modernly", Biology, Chemistry, etc. etc. even Quantum Mechanics vs. General Relativity vs. Newtonian Science vs. Kantian "non-sense" etc. etc. More "anciently" one can even KNOW Aristotle's METAPHYSICS which concerns KNOWING CONTRARIETY in individual units and individual beings, such as Ivo De Cerckel, for example. Ivo continues, quote: IVO: Then he said IN THIS THREAD that Thomas was not the first to advocate this definition. Now he is saying IN THIS THREAD that Thomas’ definition is "conformity of intellect with thing" and NOT "equation". CRITICISM: Notice how Ivo is NOT saying what DEFINITION we are talking about (Truth? Science?). Of course, St. Thomas, like any other good student, got his definitions and "ideas" from others. REBUTTAL: I have always said that Aquinas's mature definition of TRUTH was "conformity of intellect and thing", because that is what Aquinas says in Summa I, Q. 16., Article 2., quote: AQUINAS: "...For this reason TRUTH is defined by the CONFORMITY of INTELLECT and THING; and hence to KNOW truth." [Summa I, Q. 16., Article 2. "I ANSWER that..."] If Ivo requires the same "stuff" in Latin, he can read the same thing in Latin, quote: AQUINAS: Et propter hoc per CONFORMITATEM INTELLECTUS et REI (conformity of intellect and thing) veritas (truth) definitur (definition) Unde conformitatem istam cognoscere, est cognoscere veritatem. (Roughly; This conformity when cognized is cognized as truth; IN translation: "And hence to KNOW TRUTH.") *****[Summa I, Q. 16., Article 2. "I ANSWER that..." in Latin]**** Aquinas knew many definitions of truth. He eventually preferred Aristotle's THESIS that the knowing mind actually becomes the THING it knows, according to its MODE of knowing. In Aristotle's analogy we have the FORM or "idea" of a stone in our souls without having the MATTER of a stone in our souls. Thus the definition "CONFORMITY of INTELLECT and THING." for truth. Of course everybody KNOWS what stones are. But "everybody" does not know stones in the SCIENTIFIC way that a MINEROLOGIST or a GEOLOGIST actually KNOWS stones --- ie. SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE of stones. Aristotle would never use the English phrase "Scientific Knowledge". He would use Plato's terms such as EPISTEME or MATHEMATAI, for knowing things "scientifically", as opposed to the "accidental" knowledge of sophists, or the "merely critical" knowledge of dialecticians. Aquinas eventually adopted Aristotle's DEFINITION of TRUTH and of KNOWLEDGE, for "academic" purposes. But at the back of his mind, being a Christian Theologian, he would always have Christ's "I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life." as his ultimate definition of WHAT TRUTH is and was, for him. Of course there were a lot of philosophers, theologians and even GRAMMARIANS before the 13th century and Aquinas's time. Isaac Ben Israel or "Israeli" was one of them. So we have as Objection 2, in Summa I, Q.16, Article 2. AQUINAS: "Further Isaac says in his book ON DEFINITIONS that truth is the equation of thought with thing." AQUINAS (Latin): Praeterea, Isaac dicit, in libro de definitionibus, quod veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus. ALMOST WORD FOR WORD! So that was Isaac's definition of truth. But as Aquinas teaches in Q. 16, Article 2., it is a very different thing to KNOW a definition of something than to actually KNOW THAT SOMETHING, which CONFORMS to the definition. eg. (1) There are definitions of lions. (2) There are images of lions. (3) Then there is the hunting of a REAL LION, who is hunting YOU. contd. |
|
Kevin
Dec 8th, 2007 - 5:27 PM |
Re: Ivo's "Surprise" and Normal Confusion (From Definition of Science)
IVO'S FINAL EQUIVOCATIONS from "Definition" of Science, quote: IVO: Then he said IN THIS THREAD that Thomas was not the first to advocate this definition. REPLY: Aquinas wasn't the "first advocate" of any definition of truth, since there had been many definitions of TRUTH before his time. Isaac's definition is "adaequatio", as clearly demonstrated in Summa I, Q. 16., Article 2., Objection 2., previously cited from the Summa. As noted in my last post, knowing definitions and knowing DEFINED THINGS are quite as different as knowing the definition of a lion, knowing an image of a lion and hunting a REAL LION who is hunting you. The lion hunter KNOWS a lion far better than any dictionary or text book writer, or safari photographer, or "critic" of lion hunters! IVO: Now he is saying IN THIS THREAD that Thomas’ definition is "conformity of intellect with thing" and NOT "equation". VERIFICATION: I have always ARGUED that "conformity of intellect with(mistake)/and(correct) thing" is Aquinas's mature definition of TRUTH in the Summa --- but not his definition of SCIENCE, since a scientist knows both true statements and the CAUSES of the things to which TRUE statements refer. IVO: No, Thomas definition of TRUTH in the first article of De Veritate is “adaequatio rei et intellectus”, not “confortmitas” nor “aequatio”. REBUTTAL: I have never argued that Aquinas's definition of truth in "De Veritate" is "not" adaequatio... I have always argued that it is CONFORMITATEM/conformity in the Summa and cited the question and article where Aquinas writes that definition. But, again, Aquinas's definition of TRUTH is not his definition of SCIENCE --- which is KNOWLEDGE based on FIRST PRINCIPLES or which is reducible to the FIRST PRINCIPLES of a more basic science. IVO: It is possible that one of translations which K is using translates “adaequatio” as “conformity”. This translation can however not modify the Latin original “adaequatio”. ON THE CONTRARY: No! It is not possible. It is actually the clear Latin term of Summa I, Q.16., Article 2. in Aquinas's I ANSWER THAT... which says "CONFORMITATEM", and not "Isaac's" ADAEQUATIO as previously quoted directly from the Latin: AQUINAS: Et propter hoc per CONFORMITATEM INTELLECTUS et REI (conformity of intellect and thing) VERITAS (truth) DEFINITUR (definition) Unde conformitatem istam cognoscere, est cognoscere VERITATUM. *****[Summa I, Q. 16., Article 2. "I ANSWER that..." in Latin]**** ERGO:- The above is NOT a "translation" but the direct quote of Aquinas from the Latin original, to which any person can gain access on the net. Below follows IVO's "refutation" of Aquinas's reference to "Isaac" in Summa I, Q. 2., Article 2., Objection 2., written in the 13th century A.D., as requote: AQUINAS: Praeterea (further), Isaac (Isaac) dicit (says), in (in) libro (book) de (of) definitionibus (definitions), quod (that) veritas (truth) est (is) adaequatio (equation of) rei (thing) et (and) intellectus (intellect). HERE IS IVO's "refutation": IVO: Isaac Ben-Israel is a Knesset member http://www.knesset.gov.il/mk/eng/mk_eng.asp?mk_individual_id_t=808 COMMENT: AND HE IS!!! But the Isaac Ben Israel to whom Ivo refers in his "refutation" sure as heck wasn't writing books on DEFINITIONS circa the 13th century, because, quote: Isaac Ben-Israel; Kadima Particulars Date of Birth: 26/07/1949 Place of Birth: Tel Aviv, Israel Residence: Ramat Hasharon Family Status: Married Number of Children: 3 Education - Herzlia Hebrew Gymnasium (high school) - Studied Mathematics, Physics and Philosophy at Tel-Aviv University, receiving his Ph.D. in 1988 Military Service - Served in the Israel Air Force (IAF) after graduating high school (1967) and has served continuously until his retirement (June 30, 2002). - During his service...(snip) Profession Professor; Languages English REFUTATION: Since the professor was born in August of 1949, he is certainly not the ISAAC to whom St. Thomas made reference in his 13th century Summa. Ivo de Cerckel is completely REFUTED and has been reduced to utter triviality in his final post (one would hope) to a REALISM list. And nobody, other than Ivo and myself, is reading this trivial "junk" anyway. Kevin James "Joseph" Byrne; SOCRATIC |
|
Richard
Dec 8th, 2007 - 6:23 PM |
Re: Ivo's "Surprise" and Normal Confusion (From Definition of Science)
"And nobody, other than Ivo and myself, is reading this trivial "junk" anyway." I am,,, and enjoying every word. |
| First |
Prev |
Reply |
Home |
Next |
Last |
bravenet.com