Guest guest Posted April 3, 2006 Report Share Posted April 3, 2006 > > B: > > Looking at your, " The idea of one who is conditioned, " I can > > infer that you mean that conditioning inherently implies " one > > who is conditioned " . If so, that is a grammatical statement, > > not an empirical statement. It is not true by *observation* > > but by definition. > > > L: > Nothing is ever true by definition, Bill. > > Lot's of stuff is. If a set A is *defined as* the set of four numbers: 1, 2, 7, 41 then the statement, " 2 belongs to A, " is true, by definition. Also, " Bachelors are unmarried " , is a true statement, again by definition. There are " empirical statements " , which are statements of observations in the " world " as per the senses. But not all statements are empirical statements. In other words there are *different kinds of* truth. Right now it is raining outside where I am. So the statement, " It is raining here, " is true. That's an empirical statement and one kind of truth. That 2 is in the set A defined above is true in a different sense. That is not an empirical statement. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2006 Report Share Posted April 3, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > > > B: > > > Looking at your, " The idea of one who is conditioned, " I can > > > infer that you mean that conditioning inherently implies " one > > > who is conditioned " . If so, that is a grammatical statement, > > > not an empirical statement. It is not true by *observation* > > > but by definition. > > > > > > L: > > Nothing is ever true by definition, Bill. > > > > > > Lot's of stuff is. > > If a set A is *defined as* the set of four numbers: 1, 2, 7, 41 > then the statement, " 2 belongs to A, " is true, by definition. > > Also, " Bachelors are unmarried " , is a true statement, > again by definition. > > There are " empirical statements " , which are statements of > observations in the " world " as per the senses. But not > all statements are empirical statements. > > In other words there are *different kinds of* truth. > Right now it is raining outside where I am. So the > statement, " It is raining here, " is true. That's an > empirical statement and one kind of truth. > > That 2 is in the set A defined above is true in a different > sense. That is not an empirical statement. > > Bill I wasn't talking about abstractions, but about observable things. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2006 Report Share Posted April 3, 2006 > > > > B: > > > > Looking at your, " The idea of one who is conditioned, " I can > > > > infer that you mean that conditioning inherently implies " one > > > > who is conditioned " . If so, that is a grammatical statement, > > > > not an empirical statement. It is not true by *observation* > > > > but by definition. > > > L: > > > Nothing is ever true by definition, Bill. > I wasn't talking about abstractions, but about observable things. > > Len > Well, then you really didn't read what I had written: When you wrote: " Nothing is ever true by definition. " I had made a clear distinction between an empirical statement and a grammatical statement. Your statement: " Nothing is ever true by definition, " sounds quite unqualified, if you ask me. Apparently what you *meant* to say was, " No empirical statement is ever true by definition. " Is that right? If that *is* what you meant, which why you didn't make that clear when I had already made a distinction between grammatical statements and empirical statements, is beyond me. And, if " " No empirical statement is ever true by definition, " *is* what you intended to say, then *that* statement is true by definition. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2006 Report Share Posted April 3, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > > > > > B: > > > > > Looking at your, " The idea of one who is conditioned, " I can > > > > > infer that you mean that conditioning inherently implies " one > > > > > who is conditioned " . If so, that is a grammatical statement, > > > > > not an empirical statement. It is not true by *observation* > > > > > but by definition. > > > > L: > > > > Nothing is ever true by definition, Bill. > > > I wasn't talking about abstractions, but about observable things. > > > > Len > > > Well, then you really didn't read what I had written: > > When you wrote: " Nothing is ever true by definition. " > I had made a clear distinction between an empirical statement > and a grammatical statement. > > Your statement: " Nothing is ever true by definition, " sounds > quite unqualified, if you ask me. I wasn´t discussing gramatical statements with you. What´s the use of this dialogue now? Let´s forget about it and talk about what matters. > Apparently what you *meant* to say was, " No empirical statement > is ever true by definition. " Is that right? Yes, it´s right. > If that *is* what you meant, which why you didn't make that > clear when I had already made a distinction between > grammatical statements and empirical statements, is beyond > me. > > And, if " " No empirical statement is ever true by definition, " > *is* what you intended to say, then *that* statement is true > by definition. > > > Bill And now? what? What´s the point of it all? Being right or wrong? Or do we have some really interesting issues to talk about? Where did we start anyway? Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.