You're welcome. Thank you for watching. its funny how no one's saying this. There's a scientist named Michael Polanyi and who was criticizing the one-sided view towards knowledge that we have.
thanks. its odd, this idea I feel is the most revolutionary one I posted, yet it didn't draw much interest. probably the length of the title haha, but i couldnt think of a shorter one.
I was thinking about Gödel's incompleteness theorems. As you move in the ladder of complexity, even if the system stays perfectly logical, it begins to grow paradoxes. Is it possible to create a complex system without any paradoxes, or is only metaphysics exempt from them?
I'm guessing your referring to his second incompleteness theorem where a theory sufficiently complex cannot be used to prove its own consistency. I think this is different from saying it has paradoxes. It just means you cant prove within that language that it does not have paradoxes. If metaphysics is able to have paradox, its because the language is less restricted. With math the principle of the excluded middle is typically used, when a mathematician says 'odd' he absolutely means the same as 'not even'. But if someone is doing philosophy the ideas are not usually constructed that way, but through a kind of affirmation. Certainly, one cannot create real contradictions in metaphysics though, since that would make one's words meaningless. Usually if there appears to be a contradiction in metaphysics (unless they are speaking actual nonsense) it's because they are affirming something about those words that goes beyond a merely logical formalization of them. When Deleuze explains how Alice becomes both larger and smaller in the opening of "Logic of Sense", he also says "certainly she is not bigger and smaller at the same time." If there's paradox in metaphysics its because metaphysics makes use of the rules of sense in a way that science cannot due to the nature of its subject matter.
lately I've actually been wondering though, if metaphysics is the science of the soul. The soul does not seem to be something that shows up in the course of normal science. Since it never shows up as an inference anywhere. I think psychology tries to be metaphysics and science at the same time. Possibly failing at both. Since, the soul seems to be where we got the idea for science from, so to say science can then determine what it is to be soul, seems to me the most absurd thing to claim, also a great tyranny possibly. Since we need a vent somewhere in life from the scientific discourse, or else the mind would be self-restricting the possibilities available to itself in its search for truth, and that seems kindof just like a disadvantage, since why not make full use of the possibilities available to language? But yea, thats basically been my opinion lately.
Thank you
You're welcome. Thank you for watching. its funny how no one's saying this. There's a scientist named Michael Polanyi and who was criticizing the one-sided view towards knowledge that we have.
Good observation. Narcissists view others as objects. In lieu of a soul you could say autonomy.
thanks. its odd, this idea I feel is the most revolutionary one I posted, yet it didn't draw much interest. probably the length of the title haha, but i couldnt think of a shorter one.
I was thinking about Gödel's incompleteness theorems. As you move in the ladder of complexity, even if the system stays perfectly logical, it begins to grow paradoxes. Is it possible to create a complex system without any paradoxes, or is only metaphysics exempt from them?
I'm guessing your referring to his second incompleteness theorem where a theory sufficiently complex cannot be used to prove its own consistency. I think this is different from saying it has paradoxes. It just means you cant prove within that language that it does not have paradoxes.
If metaphysics is able to have paradox, its because the language is less restricted. With math the principle of the excluded middle is typically used, when a mathematician says 'odd' he absolutely means the same as 'not even'. But if someone is doing philosophy the ideas are not usually constructed that way, but through a kind of affirmation. Certainly, one cannot create real contradictions in metaphysics though, since that would make one's words meaningless. Usually if there appears to be a contradiction in metaphysics (unless they are speaking actual nonsense) it's because they are affirming something about those words that goes beyond a merely logical formalization of them. When Deleuze explains how Alice becomes both larger and smaller in the opening of "Logic of Sense", he also says "certainly she is not bigger and smaller at the same time." If there's paradox in metaphysics its because metaphysics makes use of the rules of sense in a way that science cannot due to the nature of its subject matter.
lately I've actually been wondering though, if metaphysics is the science of the soul. The soul does not seem to be something that shows up in the course of normal science. Since it never shows up as an inference anywhere. I think psychology tries to be metaphysics and science at the same time. Possibly failing at both. Since, the soul seems to be where we got the idea for science from, so to say science can then determine what it is to be soul, seems to me the most absurd thing to claim, also a great tyranny possibly. Since we need a vent somewhere in life from the scientific discourse, or else the mind would be self-restricting the possibilities available to itself in its search for truth, and that seems kindof just like a disadvantage, since why not make full use of the possibilities available to language? But yea, thats basically been my opinion lately.