When I first encountered this so-called "Ultimate Law" I questioned it immediately but now I think about our finite limitations to consider such concepts as reality or existence or ect.
I have questions of my own that neither logic or math can solve to my satisfaction but take comfort from paradoxes.
asked on Friday, Feb 19, 2021 12:36:27 AM by TrappedPrior (RotE)
Top Categories Suggested by Community
Comments
0
account no longer existswrites:
Of course, I realize logic is only the guide posts and math can justify unconfirmed realites.
posted on Friday, Feb 19, 2021 12:48:11 AM
0
Citizen Irrelevantwrites: [To Robert W. Armijo]
I am with Dr Richard: please do not assume your readers know what you are referring to? Define this "Ultimate Law"? Prima facia, I am skeptical of anything which would presume to be the penultimate authority of a subject matter which has filled volumes over the centuries.
I discovered something referred to as the Ultimate Law of Life, which has as key tenet the following descriptor: " Removing the illusion of death illuminates the absolute joy of life in the mundane world..." Is this what you may be referring to? Please provide your specific reference so that we might better respond? Thank you, Robert.
[ login to reply ] posted on Friday, Feb 19, 2021 01:43:11 PM
0
TrappedPrior (RotE)writes:
The phrasing of your question, and your responses, imply that you're not fully sure of what you're talking about. Maybe think about what this 'ultimate law' is supposed to look like, then make another post?
posted on Saturday, Feb 20, 2021 07:19:57 AM
0
TrappedPrior (RotE)writes: [To Rationalissimo]
Imply or infer?
[ login to reply ] posted on Tuesday, Feb 23, 2021 03:46:45 AM
0
TrappedPrior (RotE)writes:
I am as certain as the fictional on board AI computer of the H.A. L. 9000 series character in the movie 2001.
https://youtu.be/CD9YqdWwwdw
posted on Sunday, Feb 21, 2021 01:06:48 AM
Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Master the "Rules of Reason" for Making and Evaluating Claims
Claims are constantly being made, many of which are confusing, ambiguous, too general to be of value, exaggerated, unfalsifiable, and suggest a dichotomy when no such dichotomy exists. Good critical thinking requires a thorough understanding of the claim before attempting to determine its veracity. Good communication requires the ability to make clear, precise, explicit claims, or “strong” claims. The rules of reason in this book provide the framework for obtaining this understanding and ability.
This book / online course is about the the eleven rules of reason for making and evaluating claims. Each covered in detail in the book.
I don't understand what you mean by "Ultimate Law." I searched online but did not find anything that might be appropriate to your question.
answered on Friday, Feb 19, 2021 11:10:31 AM by Dr. Richard
Dr. Richard Suggested These Categories
Comments
0
Bo Bennett, PhDwrites:
I never heard of this either.
posted on Friday, Feb 19, 2021 01:30:36 PM
0
account no longer existswrites: [To Bo Bennett, PhD]
What a situation we find ourselves in ladies and gentlemen tonight.
When the inquiry: judge and jury one in the same of presides over Jung's "Old Man" who can't find the text in an old book he read as a young man; and yet younger men sit in judgment of him who cannot find evidence to refute his claim on the internet -- You know I am kidding you, right?
Sorry. I grow too passionate on occasions at times like these -- It's the young Greek Philosophy in me (I said Philosophy), which makes me grow on the outside too.
Again, sorry. This is much too easy.
[ login to reply ] posted on Saturday, Feb 20, 2021 12:34:50 AM
0
account no longer existswrites:
I am not surprised. I came accross it in one my p books on philosophy published, so long ago.
I remember the definition as being that one cannot argue a point beyond the known epistemological networks and thus the ultimate law of philosophy.
I believe it was used by the logical positivism camp. I remember thinking they engaged in character assasination, comparing Philosophy to mere poetry -- Given what one (name skips my mind) of the ancient philosophers thought about poetry and satire.
Did not know the term has disappeared. Must be out of lack of use.
posted on Friday, Feb 19, 2021 09:45:05 PM
0
account no longer existswrites:
Just poking a little fun out of all of you.
posted on Saturday, Feb 20, 2021 12:51:43 AM
0
account no longer existswrites:
But not just about Ultimate Law of Philosophy -- I am concerned too now that no one outside of me knows about it; or live that can recall it by either memory or by libratarian.
Still, I cannot pass up the moment to note the irony.
posted on Saturday, Feb 20, 2021 04:02:11 AM
0
Bo Bennett, PhDwrites:
[To Robert W. Armijo]
I am not what you think is "too easy" here or how you are "poking fun" at us. You referenced some obscure idea once written in a book. Perhaps you can elaborate.
[ login to reply ] posted on Saturday, Feb 20, 2021 07:43:46 AM
0
Dr. Richardwrites:
Ah, now I understand. It fits well with one of my favorite philosophers: “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.”
posted on Saturday, Feb 20, 2021 09:51:14 AM
0
account no longer existswrites: [To Dr. Richard]
Thank you for comments.
It all depends on who's sitting up on the wall.
[ login to reply ] posted on Monday, Feb 22, 2021 11:09:37 PM
0
Dr. Richardwrites: [To Robert W. Armijo]
I do not understand your comment. Sorry.
[ login to reply ] posted on Tuesday, Feb 23, 2021 09:11:33 AM
Kaiden
0
Hi, Robert W. Armijo!
An Ultimate Law of Philosophy sounds very controversial, but very intriguing.
Keep in mind, however, that a statement alone cannot commit a logical fallacy in the sense of being a mistake in reasoning that prevents an argument from fulfilling its rational persuasive task. A logical fallacy occurs in the course of an argument or inference . So far, one cannot argue a point beyond the known epistemological networks is a lone statement. Do you not recall the argument in which the Ultimate Law was situated? Supposing you don’t, this knowledge might be lost forever, since besides you there are none alive who can even recall the Ultimate Law itself. In the meantime, as an echo to your comments towards the logically fallacious community, may we poke a little fun at you for your lack of preparation in submitting this Question? Once you provide us with the argument in which the Law was situated, we can get to work on answering your post with a view towards whether any fallacies have been committed. For example, was the Ultimate Law intended to work alongside other premises to support a refutation of the meaningfulness of metaphysical claims?
Thank you, Robert.
From, Kaiden
answered on Monday, Feb 22, 2021 08:53:56 PM by Kaiden
Kaiden Suggested These Categories
Comments
0
account no longer existswrites:
Thank you, Kaiden.
"The Ultimate Law of Philosophy" is what I read in a book somewhere on my journey through this life and not a conclusion of my own manufacturing.
Yet, I like your style.
I think and write in a shorthand just as you
I don't think my final fermantation of an arguement before this symposium will be metaphysical at all.
I have read many old books and still do to this day. And I am discovering that, that knowledge is not being transcribed onto the interwebs. And if, so deleted -- Now so quickly deleating...
I guess, you will have to trust me; or more importantly see in your mind's eye an Idea that I have implanted in your brain to answer your question you asked of me.
posted on Monday, Feb 22, 2021 10:30:44 PM
0
account no longer existswrites: [To Robert W. Armijo]
By the way, have you found a single document on The Ultimate Law of Philosophy, yet?
Don't bother, if you can't. Because beyond Dewey nobody can.
[ login to reply ] posted on Tuesday, Feb 23, 2021 02:30:35 AM
0
account no longer existswrites:
That is because boys and girls we are divided by zero.
posted on Tuesday, Feb 23, 2021 03:42:47 AM
1
Kaidenwrites:
[To Robert W. Armijo]
You write, “’The Ultimate Law of Philosophy’ is what I read in a book somewhere on my journey through this life and not a conclusion of my own manufacturing.”
I did not attribute the Ultimate Law of Philosophy to you. (I saw you explain to Dr. Bennett that it comes from an old philosophy book.)
You write, “I don't think my final fermantation of an arguement before this symposium will be metaphysical at all.”
Hold on now, Robert. My question was about the argument that the old philosophy book was making, not about the argument that you would like to make. You asked us about any fallacies that might be going on regarding the Law. My point is that you will have to settle with “no fallacies” as an answer unless you revisit that book and provide us with the exact argument in which the Law was situated.
You write, “…have you found a single document on The Ultimate Law of Philosophy, yet?”
Since the term has all but disappeared, our research regarding the Ultimate Law consists precisely in bringing our inquiries to you . But what has your reading of old texts amounted to, and what is it worth to be the last person who can recall the text, if you cannot so much as clearly communicate basic facts about it, such as the argument it contained? Again, without the associated argument, you will have to settle for “no fallacies” as an answer.
Are you fine with settling for “no fallacies” or would you like us to do more? If you want us to do more, then there are brilliant individuals like Dr. Bennett, Dr. Richard, Citizen Irrelevant, and Rationalissimo who are waiting to help you with this very intriguing topic, but you will have to work with us instead of trying to reach our minds through brain implantations and unclear phrases such as “That is because boys and girls we are divided by zero.”
[ login to reply ] posted on Tuesday, Feb 23, 2021 11:12:38 AM
0
account no longer existswrites:
I must say I really like you because you're filled or fedup with questions I have asked myself in my dreams over and over again.
Please, forgive me for asking you th question: Is your faith in God Muslim faith? Because, I can't find a trace of it in my own fault or faith except when he qutioned the purpose of his own death up on the cross
I
.
posted on Tuesday, Feb 23, 2021 10:45:05 PM
1
Kaidenwrites:
[To Robert W. Armijo]
“Please, forgive me for asking you th question: Is your faith in God Muslim faith?”
Apparently, you are supposing that I have faith in God; the question is then about whether my faith is Islamic. I get a kick out of both the supposition and the question. But I haven’t the faintest idea where the supposition is coming from, nor why the question is being put to me, nor why I should address either of these (I eventually learned, you see, that Dr. Bennett runs a tight ship.) Is there something relevant to fallacies that you would like to talk about or evaluate, such as an argument from the old book that incorporates the Ultimate Law of Philosophy?
[ login to reply ] posted on Saturday, Feb 27, 2021 08:12:18 PM
0
account no longer existswrites:
Tight ship...
So, please forgive me for quentioning the crew before signing up with the lot of you.
posted on Sunday, Feb 28, 2021 06:07:28 AM
0
account no longer existswrites:
As Americans, we're alll haunting down Herman's white whale.
posted on Sunday, Feb 28, 2021 06:23:06 AM
warning Help is Here!
warning Whoops!
You have one or more errors in this form. After you close this notice, please scroll through this form and correct the specific errors. Error(s):