User talk:Edward Grefenstette/archive2

Cosmic Girl: Philosophy
How are you?...I don't know why I'm even writing you a message since you treated me awfullly the last time, but you seem like a good philosopher eventough you don't seem to be a very patient person... anyway...If I tell you that I won't write like a 12 year old on caffeine, would you be willing to discuss philosophy with me?, I think I can learn a couple of things from you.

ps. I see you called someone else an 'angsty and immature 12 year old'...well if I liked psychoanalisis I'd tell you you have a fixation with that age because your emotional habilities propably stoped developing when you where 12...but I don't like psychoanalisis, so I won't tell you that.--Cosmic girl 01:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty busy so don't expect rapid response, but if there's anything you want to bring to my attention and discuss, you're welcome to post it here. Edward Grefenstette 08:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Question Set I
Ok...since you study philosophy you must know the answer to this questions:

1st. Is there any consensus on whether absolutism is sounder than relativism or vice versa?.

2nd. What do you think about postmodernism?.

3rd. Was Karl popper a philosophical skeptic (a pyrrhoist)? ( I have checked the article but found nothing refering to that). I think this will be a pice of cake for you...I just hope I didn't miss a coma or didn't use the inapropiate way to talk to you. --Cosmic girl 15:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm flattered that you think so highly of me. However merely studying a subject doesn't mean that one has a broad knowledge base in that area. Philosophy has many strands of specialization and mine happen to be Philosophy of Mind and Language (and even there I'm still fairly novice), although I'm familiar with matters related to epistemology, phenomenology and existentialism. But when I say I'm familiar, it's not false modesty. I truly would need to look stuff up in a book related to those topics to answer questions. However I'll do my best to answer your questions.


 * For your first question, it depends entirely what you mean by sound, absolute, and relative, and thus my answer would be a cautious "it depends". In the domain of morals, which I'm not that well read on, moral relativism has its ups and downs, and while it offers a fairly monolithic sort of worldview, it is also (I believe) hard to defend. So many things are subjective, situational, and depend on factors which have no constant element. Take killing, for example. "Killing is wrong" is a typical absolute. However a popular undergrad ethics exam question is (something along the lines of) "Is it wrong to kill one person so you can save 10?". This invokes quite a few subjective elements. Who are these ten people to me? Are they more valuable than the person I'm killing? Should it even matter? And even though I'm doing it for the well being of a greater number of people, am I not committing something intrinsically wrong in deciding to murder someone because of utilitarian values? As you can see, it's a rather complicated matter. This doesn't disprove absolutism, but it makes it rather hard to modelize morality from an absolutist standpoint.


 * I'm afraid I don't have much to say about postmodernism. Most 'postmodernists' I've met at an undergrad level weren't too cogent with their worldview, however it'd be unfair to be dismissive, as it's a rather complicated matter. I'm quite fond of Wittgenstein, actually, who isn't a postmodernist stricto sensu, but can be at some points in his writing. I've read a bit of Derrida too, and wasn't too displeased. I'd say that my main qualm with postmodernism as I see it is that, in wanting to depart from the strict, rational aspects of philosophy, it can sometimes get a bit wacky in its conclusions, taking the leeway it is given a bit too far. But then again, I haven't really read enough postmodernists to really be able to say much about it. I do plan on reading a bit of Deleuze over the summer, so I'll get back to you on that if I don't forget.


 * Likewise, I'm not that well read on Popper, and am certainly not a specialist. I tentatively would say no. He certainly would not refer to himself as being a skeptic, although some people consider it to be. I'm afraid I can't really give you a fixed answer on that matter.


 * However, for all of the above, if you want a more complete answer, or want to expand your knowledge on these matters a bit, I'd heartily recommend checking out the articles in The Stanford Philosophical Encyclopedia, and excellent resource for all your philosophical enquiries. Although of course if you have any further questions, do not hesitate to ask me. Although normally I may take more time to answer. I'm just rather ill today and skipping out on lectures and engagements.
 * Edward Grefenstette 15:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Question Set II
Thank you, I really apreciate your response...I'm interested in the philosophy of mind also and I want to be a cognitive scientist and/or specialize in the field of neuroinformatics.

I have some other questions, they are about yourself now, I hope that doesn't bother you.

You wrote in your profile that you where a philosophical agnostic and a practical atheist...I can kind of identify with that, but what kind of philosophical agnostic are you exactly?...more like pyrrho or like hume? if it's none, then can you explain me your philosphical agnosticism?.

2nd what's your aproach to 'truth'?

and 3rd what's your aproach to ethics?.

oh one more question... do you think that absolutism is based only on faith?.

--Cosmic girl 23:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not that complicated really. Unless I've missed something, there's not real rational explanation for the existence of god (the all knowing, all powerful one), but there's no final argument against it either. Kim's argument against the causal power of non-spatially extended entities is probably the strongest argument against the possibility of a higher being I've come across, but I still think it's not strong enough. Thus agnosticism is not just "not knowing", I judge it to be mere epistemological (and thus philosophical) prudence. I hope you don't mind if I addres your other questions later. Edward Grefenstette 12:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't mind at all.--Cosmic girl 18:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Still a bit swamped with work. To answer your other questions quickly. Truth is a tricky thing insofar as it's ill-defined. I'd have a hard time giving a precise definition, but I'm quite keen on Wittgenstein's take on things (at least, by my reading of it). The truth is basically what is in the world. It is its state. We say a proposition is true when it corresponds to the state, and it is false when it corresponds to something which is not the state of the world. Wittgenstein describes the world truth is 'reliant' upon as what is act (the conjunction of objects and causal interaction), which many people disagree with, claiming that it limits the world to physical causation and discards all importance of the mental world. I'd say this is wrong as he is just setting in context, and addresses the issues relevant to mentality in proposition 4 (and subsequent subpropositions) of his Tractatus, arguing that when we form propositions, we make a declaration about the world as we perceive it, and not about the world itself, which is why propositions can be true, false, or even relatively true. This is crucial to the concept of subjective truth. I believe Wittgenstein is arguing that we cannot actually perceive the objective state of the world but through a 'filter of ideas', which basically means that we cannot but perceive the world subjectively, and when we form propositions, they are about our subjective world and not the objective world. Thus we can make true statements within the context of our perception, which are not necessarily objectively true (ie corresponding to the true state of the world, rather than the perceived one).


 * I'm not very well read in ethics, at all. From what I've read I'd have to say I'm more in favour of Hume's view on ethics rather than Kant. I like a lot of Mill's work as well. But I'd rather not discuss this too in depth as I'd probably make a fool out of myself.


 * Finally, with regard to absolutism, I'd say this pretty much just ties into what I was saying about truth and Wittgenstein. I mean, I'd be tempted to say that by definition absolutism is based on faith. You'd need a pretty good argument proving that we can observe the world objectively (which, being subjects, I think we can not). Until then I'd tentatively say that yes, absolutism is faith (or at least a central component of it), but I'd argue that it's good to be prudent about such statements, and thus not be absolutist ourselves in making such a claim.


 * My apologies if all the above isn't too clear. I rushed it a bit, as I'm working hard to meet some deadlines. I hope it is of any use to you, or at least interests you a bit, and look forward to hearing from you in the future. Edward Grefenstette 12:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I also believe that Absolutism is based on faith... and about ethics, I don't deny there might be some 'objective code of ethics out there' ( I don't now if you understand me), but I'm a mix of a utilitarian and a consequentialist...thank you again for your answers, I don't have any more questions, but if you want to ask me something you are welcome to. --Cosmic girl 23:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Anagrams / Ars Magna

 * Grew from the detested Satan.


 * Feed the arrogant me STD stew,
 * the saddest, wet ferromagnet.
 * Sweeter, deft, mad hatter snog.
 * Tersest, two-headed fragment.


 * Daft sweetheart snorted gem.
 * Featheredged twat monsters.
 * Softer, sweet, grand, mad teeth.
 * Oddest sweetheart fragment.


 * Famed, tender warthog testes,
 * Fat whores, demented targets,
 * Defer to a sweet, mad strength,
 * The daft, sweet, tender orgasm.


 * God! Sweetest aftermath nerd.
 * Greatest mad nerd of the west.
 * Whom defenestrated targets.
 * Sweetmeat of dread strength.


 * Now regretted, the mad feasts.
 * The wanted rat gets freedoms.
 * Now regretted daftest shame.
 * The wrong mattress defeated.


 * Fat detested gent rams whore.
 * Merest nerd of the aged twats.
 * Sweetest, fragrant, odd theme.
 * Fragment worse, detested hat.


 * Damn! Forget sweetest hatred.
 * Wed to the strangest defamer.
 * Attended to freshwater gems.
 * Rest daft, stewed hatemonger.


 * Grew from the detested Satan. El Pingüino 00:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You didn't like the anagrams of your name? El Pingüino 16:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Dreadfully sorry, I didn't notice. I thought it was just some weird satanist (and poetic) vandal. Those are really clever! Do you have software that generates them, or do you just have too much free time? Impressive stuff. Edward Grefenstette 17:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have both software and too much free time. Which is your favourite line? Mine's "Featheredged twat monsters"... if you ever start a band, it should be called that. BTW, am not a satanist. El Pingüino 23:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd have to say either
 * Now regretted, the mad feasts.
 * or
 * Damn! Forget sweetest hatred.
 * But they're all good. Much appreciated. I'll remember your recommendation if ever I decide to create a band... Edward Grefenstette 01:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)