Home Propeller Head Plaza

Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Propeller Head Plaza ]
[ Alert Moderator ]

I can only go by what you say . . .

Tony Lauck accuses me of materialism, you specify further dialectical materialism, neither of you having any basis for it.

"I identified a philosophical position, well-documented over many centuries. NOWHERE did I claim it as mine, nor even suggest that I subscribed to any part of it."

What? Over many centuries? The trouble is, philosophers do discuss many issues and often come up with quite different analyses and positions. Dialectics is a term with quite a varied history, so I have a perfect right to ask what you mean by a dialectical Law of Opposition. You could have gone back to the Pre-Socratics, for all anyone could tell.

You were the one talking about some undefined Law of Opposition which you maintain goes back "many centuries." Hegel began publishing around the beginning of the 19th century, so his own mature concepts can hardly have begun too much before that---oops, there goes the "many centuries."

As far as I can tell, the unity of the alleged Law of Opposites, as described, is based on equivocation, a merely verbal unity, which did not prevent either Hegel or Marx from making some interesting social analyses. But this does not establish some Law of Opposites which applies to all sorts of physical phenomena, biological phenomena, and social relations.

"oppositions that are at heart antagonistic, causing conflict to arise from the imbalance; and the primacy of the real world over the perceived world."

It is you who formulated that, not me. I simply want to know what you mean by it. Whether you hold some particular philosophical position is irrelevant to that discussion. Specifically, what do you mean by "primacy of the real world over the perceived world." Since I would not make such a formulation, I am simply asking what you mean by it. You haven't told me.

"You seem to be forgetting the very thing you wrote about initially. Maybe that, as habit, explains why you seem to avoid answering questions posters put to you?"

And just what was the question you addressed to me?

You seem to think that questions contain no presuppositions. This can easily be disproved. "When did you stop beating your wife?" is a classical example. A proper answer would point out that the questions assumes that you beat your wife, which is the point at issue. A proper answer could be "I have never beat my wife," or "I have no wife," even though such an answer steps outside the terms of the question. Discussing the assumptions of a question is an answer to it.



"Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Kimber Kable  

Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups
FAQ

Post a Message!

 Forgot Password?
Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
  Remember my Moniker & Password  (What's this?)    Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:
Message:   (Posts are subject to Content Rules)
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:  Automagically notify you when someone responds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]