一個人為甚麼要崇拜另一個人，涉及很多個人及社會因素，不容易解釋，我亦不會嘗試在這裏解釋。有人或許會認為受過嚴格思考訓練的人是不會盲目崇拜偶像的，其實不然，John Cook 就向我提過一個很好的例子：他在 University of Nebraska 當研究生時，O. K. Bouwsma 是那裏的教授；Bouwsma 當時頗有名氣，曾當過 American Philosophical Association 的 President。這樣的一個哲學家，不應該是沒受過嚴格思考訓練吧，但他非常崇拜 Wittgenstein，親口對 Cook 說他認為 Wittgenstein 在哲學上是永不會錯的！Cook 跟我開玩笑說，對 Bouwsma 而言，以下是一個可靠的推論形式： Wittgenstein says p, therefore p。
wong says p, therefore p.回覆刪除
willsin says p, therefore ~p回覆刪除
Zarathustra says p, there ~p回覆刪除
不會的，應該是 willsin says p, therefore Pr(~p)>0.5。
//Zarathustra says p, there ~p//
- For Zarathustra, it doesn't matter whether it's p or ~p, or, it can be both p and ~p.
此句有走棧的： " ... 在哲學上 ..."回覆刪除
Wittgenstein says p, p is not philosophical, therefore we don't know p or ~p.
//此句有走棧的： " ... 在哲學上 ..."
Wittgenstein says p, p is not philosophical, therefore we don't know p or ~p.//
- Bouwsma 那麼崇拜 Wittgenstein，這「哲學上」拿走了他也可能接受。
I can't help but feel that this is getting a little silly now...回覆刪除
It would be interesting to see if Simon Shen has the same gumption to admit his mistakes in a similar manner to Leung Man-Tao when confronted with errors in his writing by others. That would be the test of him yet.
I did not mean to talk about Shen any further; I just used him as an example in this piece. Anyway, I think Shen may respond to 李敏剛's article, and it probably won't be anything like Leung's responses to his critics.
wong says p, therefore willsin says ~p
willsin says ~p, therefore wong says p
"Wittgenstein says p, therefore p" I thought this is call Mom Philosophy回覆刪除
There is a difference though: Mom's logic is imposed, not adopted.
Wong says p, therefore ~p must be ridiculously nonsense.回覆刪除
Willsin says p, therefore Wong will tell you that p is dubious.
Meshi says ~p iff Wong says p.
GOD says p, therefore Wong rejects p.
p, therefore Wong says p.
p is provocative, therefore Willsin says p.
God says nothing because God does not exist.
wong says p, therefore willsin says ~p
willsin says ~p, therefore wong says p//
Maybe p and ~p are simply the head and tail of the same elephant, and both Wong and Willsin (as are indeed every single one of us) are equally blind men who kept harping on about the others' ignorance without first examining our own. We may be relatively less blind about certain parts of this same elephant than others, but that's not to say that p and ~p could not be equally true.
Okay, I will get my coat...
//but that's not to say that p and ~p could not be equally true.//
- p and ~p can't both be true, that's logic. The most you can say is that p (or ~p) is not the whole truth.
I knew you were going to say that :) But let's take God's existence as an example. God may not exist in any logical sphere, but that's the whole point of having *faith*.
After all, we cannot dispute what is Yingyeesheung with what is Yingyeeha, right?
Oh, and just on the point of p and ~p again. They could both be true in fuzzy logic. The difference is in degree (and degree here refers not to "different levels on the same measure", but different types of the same thing).回覆刪除
Either God exists or God doesn't exist. It's impossible that God both exists and doesn't exist.
//just on the point of p and ~p again. They could both be true in fuzzy logic. //
- In fuzzy logic, p and ~p can both have a truth-value of 0.5, but that's not the same as saying that they are both true.
Just to make it even clearer for you Wong (and apropos of our previous conversation about morality):回覆刪除
"God may not exist in any logical sphere, but that's the whole point of having *faith*."
So the concept of "Good" may not exist in any logical sphere (i.e. doing the Right thing may actually often times be detriment to my and even my group's class interest, and many people would indeed "logically" prefer to not do it and would laugh at those who choose to do good as complete and utter idiots),
but that's whole point in having *faith* in the "goodness" of people to not act only out of their own self- or class- interest.
(And just to be clear I do NOT at all see religion as being the only, and very far from the best, moral frameworks out there).
And apologies in advance as per usual I've said too much, and I really don't mean to rehash an old debate on your blog.
"Either God exists or God doesn't exist. It's impossible that God both exists and doesn't exist."回覆刪除
How is it impossible? We are not "God", after all? On matters metaphysic, I find it best not to apply dichotomous logic.
I am going to let you have the last word.
- In fuzzy logic, p and ~p can both have a truth-value of 0.5, but that's not the same as saying that they are both true.回覆刪除
They are both true within their own logical contexts, and thus could have the same truth-value even if the interpretation of that value may be vastly different and even contradictory.
Oh wow, thank you Wong, I am extremely flattered even though I know you were simply being kind :) (And sincere apologies again for rehashing an old debate on your blog.)回覆刪除
//They are both true within their own logical contexts, and thus could have the same truth-value even if the interpretation of that value may be vastly different and even contradictory.//
- I am not sure I understand this, but it probably is hard to clarify all the logical concepts involved.
You'd better use something like paraconsistent logic rather than fuzzy logic above,
I see fuzzy logic as a way to finally -- formally and logically -- grapple with the so-called "Rashomon" conundrum.
Thanks for that reference, I have only understood different truth-value interpretations within the context of fuzzy logic, I will look up the reference you cited, thanks again.
>p, therefore Wong says p.
But surely you appreciate the value of being taken down a peg or two now and again? :)
And of course I didn't just mean Wong yourself but anyone of us :) (And apologies, I've got to head out now, thanks Wong again for kindly accommodating this little debate on your blog).回覆刪除
I was joking when I said "窒我者無好下場".
Your comments are always welcome.
Sadist and Masochist.回覆刪除
對於those who act like they have所謂公主病的人，我佩服得很！差點可當「偶像」了。（我沒有離題太遠）