Did anybody try to PM me?

Wombat · Post by **Wombat** » Fri Feb 18, 2005 12:17 am

Earlier today I got an email message saying a new PM had arrived but, if it got sent, I didn't receive it. So, if you were expecting a reply, better try again.

Unseen122 · Post by **Unseen122** » Fri Feb 18, 2005 9:09 am

Same thing happened to me. Maybe it was a glich in the system that sent random email notifications to random people or it was somebody trying to PM us and nothing happened.

aderyn_du · Post by **aderyn_du** » Fri Feb 18, 2005 9:26 am

Most likely what it was is that the person who sent it, unsent it. Or accidentally deleted it from their outbox before you retrieved it.

Bloomfield · Post by **Bloomfield** » Fri Feb 18, 2005 9:55 am

Yes, that was me. Here is my pm:

Bloomfield wrote:If truth consists in the accordance of a cognition with its
object, this object must be, ipso facto, distinguished from all
others; for a cognition is false if it does not accord with the object
to which it relates, although it contains something which may be
affirmed of other objects. Now an universal criterion of truth would
be that which is valid for all cognitions, without distinction of
their objects. But it is evident that since, in the case of such a
criterion, we make abstraction of all the content of a cognition (that
is, of all relation to its object), and truth relates precisely to
this content, it must be utterly absurd to ask for a mark of the truth
of this content of cognition; and that, accordingly, a sufficient,
and at the same time universal, test of truth cannot possibly be found.
As we have already termed the content of a cognition its matter, we
shall say: "Of the truth of our cognitions in respect of their matter,
no universal test can be demanded, because such a demand is
self-contradictory."

I decided I needed to think about it a bit more.

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Fri Feb 18, 2005 9:56 am

Bloomfield wrote:Yes, that was me. Here is my pm:

Bloomfield wrote:If truth consists in the accordance of a cognition with its
object, this object must be, ipso facto, distinguished from all
others; for a cognition is false if it does not accord with the object
to which it relates, although it contains something which may be
affirmed of other objects. Now an universal criterion of truth would
be that which is valid for all cognitions, without distinction of
their objects. But it is evident that since, in the case of such a
criterion, we make abstraction of all the content of a cognition (that
is, of all relation to its object), and truth relates precisely to
this content, it must be utterly absurd to ask for a mark of the truth
of this content of cognition; and that, accordingly, a sufficient,
and at the same time universal, test of truth cannot possibly be found.
As we have already termed the content of a cognition its matter, we
shall say: "Of the truth of our cognitions in respect of their matter,
no universal test can be demanded, because such a demand is
self-contradictory."
I decided I needed to think about it a bit more.

You suck.

dubhlinn · Post by **dubhlinn** » Fri Feb 18, 2005 9:58 am

Bloomfield wrote:Yes, that was me. Here is my pm:

Bloomfield wrote:If truth consists in the accordance of a cognition with its
object, this object must be, ipso facto, distinguished from all
others; for a cognition is false if it does not accord with the object
to which it relates, although it contains something which may be
affirmed of other objects. Now an universal criterion of truth would
be that which is valid for all cognitions, without distinction of
their objects. But it is evident that since, in the case of such a
criterion, we make abstraction of all the content of a cognition (that
is, of all relation to its object), and truth relates precisely to
this content, it must be utterly absurd to ask for a mark of the truth
of this content of cognition; and that, accordingly, a sufficient,
and at the same time universal, test of truth cannot possibly be found.
As we have already termed the content of a cognition its matter, we
shall say: "Of the truth of our cognitions in respect of their matter,
no universal test can be demanded, because such a demand is
self-contradictory."
I decided I needed to think about it a bit more.

Me too

Slan,
D.

TomB · Post by **TomB** » Fri Feb 18, 2005 9:59 am

Bloomfield wrote:Yes, that was me. Here is my pm:

Bloomfield wrote:If truth consists in the accordance of a cognition with its
object, this object must be, ipso facto, distinguished from all
others; for a cognition is false if it does not accord with the object
to which it relates, although it contains something which may be
affirmed of other objects. Now an universal criterion of truth would
be that which is valid for all cognitions, without distinction of
their objects. But it is evident that since, in the case of such a
criterion, we make abstraction of all the content of a cognition (that
is, of all relation to its object), and truth relates precisely to
this content, it must be utterly absurd to ask for a mark of the truth
of this content of cognition; and that, accordingly, a sufficient,
and at the same time universal, test of truth cannot possibly be found.
As we have already termed the content of a cognition its matter, we
shall say: "Of the truth of our cognitions in respect of their matter,
no universal test can be demanded, because such a demand is
self-contradictory."
I decided I needed to think about it a bit more.

Gee, why, you could not have stated your position more clearly.

All the Best, Tom

izzarina · Post by **izzarina** » Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:01 am

Bloomfield wrote:Yes, that was me. Here is my pm:

Bloomfield wrote:If truth consists in the accordance of a cognition with its
object, this object must be, ipso facto, distinguished from all
others; for a cognition is false if it does not accord with the object
to which it relates, although it contains something which may be
affirmed of other objects. Now an universal criterion of truth would
be that which is valid for all cognitions, without distinction of
their objects. But it is evident that since, in the case of such a
criterion, we make abstraction of all the content of a cognition (that
is, of all relation to its object), and truth relates precisely to
this content, it must be utterly absurd to ask for a mark of the truth
of this content of cognition; and that, accordingly, a sufficient,
and at the same time universal, test of truth cannot possibly be found.
As we have already termed the content of a cognition its matter, we
shall say: "Of the truth of our cognitions in respect of their matter,
no universal test can be demanded, because such a demand is
self-contradictory."
I decided I needed to think about it a bit more.

well said, Bloom...I think

carrie · Post by **carrie** » Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:10 am

Bloomfield,

I think it's fine as far as it goes...but shouldn't you consider adding something like the following?

On the other hand, with regard to our cognition in respect of its mere form (excluding all content), it is equally manifest that logic, in so far as it exhibits the universal and necessary laws of the understanding, must in these very laws present us with criteria of truth. Whatever contradicts these rules is false, because thereby the understanding is made to contradict its own universal laws of thought; that is, to contradict itself. These criteria, however, apply solely to the form of truth, that is, of thought in general, and in so far they are perfectly accurate, yet not sufficient. For although a cognition may be perfectly accurate as to logical form, that is, not self-contradictory, it is notwithstanding quite possible that it may not stand in agreement with its object. Consequently, the merely logical criterion of truth, namely, the accordance of a cognition with the universal and formal laws of understanding and reason, is nothing more than the conditio sine qua non, or negative condition of all truth. Farther than this logic cannot go, and the error which depends not on the form, but on the content of the cognition, it has no test to discover.

You know, to give the other side...

Just a thought; it's your business, of course.

Carol

dubhlinn · Post by **dubhlinn** » Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:14 am

cskinner wrote:Bloomfield,

I think it's fine as far as it goes...but shouldn't you consider adding something like the following?

On the other hand, with regard to our cognition in respect of its mere form (excluding all content), it is equally manifest that logic, in so far as it exhibits the universal and necessary laws of the understanding, must in these very laws present us with criteria of truth. Whatever contradicts these rules is false, because thereby the understanding is made to contradict its own universal laws of thought; that is, to contradict itself. These criteria, however, apply solely to the form of truth, that is, of thought in general, and in so far they are perfectly accurate, yet not sufficient. For although a cognition may be perfectly accurate as to logical form, that is, not self-contradictory, it is notwithstanding quite possible that it may not stand in agreement with its object. Consequently, the merely logical criterion of truth, namely, the accordance of a cognition with the universal and formal laws of understanding and reason, is nothing more than the conditio sine qua non, or negative condition of all truth. Farther than this logic cannot go, and the error which depends not on the form, but on the content of the cognition, it has no test to discover.

You know, to give the other side...

Just a thought; it's your business, of course.

Carol

That explains everything,

Thanks Carol.

Slan,
D.

izzarina · Post by **izzarina** » Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:14 am

cskinner wrote:You know, to give the other side...

Just a thought; it's your business, of course.

Carol

You know, Bloom, Carol does have a point. You might want to consider it.

TomB · Post by **TomB** » Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:19 am

izzarina wrote:
cskinner wrote:You know, to give the other side...

Just a thought; it's your business, of course.

Carol
You know, Bloom, Carol does have a point. You might want to consider it.

There's a point to all this? Why didn't anyone tell me??

Tom

glauber · Post by **glauber** » Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:22 am

I did not try to post-mortem you.

Bloomfield · Post by **Bloomfield** » Fri Feb 18, 2005 11:27 am

cskinner wrote:Bloomfield,

I think it's fine as far as it goes...but shouldn't you consider adding something like the following?

On the other hand, with regard to our cognition in respect of its mere form (excluding all content), it is equally manifest that logic, in so far as it exhibits the universal and necessary laws of the understanding, must in these very laws present us with criteria of truth. Whatever contradicts these rules is false, because thereby the understanding is made to contradict its own universal laws of thought; that is, to contradict itself. These criteria, however, apply solely to the form of truth, that is, of thought in general, and in so far they are perfectly accurate, yet not sufficient. For although a cognition may be perfectly accurate as to logical form, that is, not self-contradictory, it is notwithstanding quite possible that it may not stand in agreement with its object. Consequently, the merely logical criterion of truth, namely, the accordance of a cognition with the universal and formal laws of understanding and reason, is nothing more than the conditio sine qua non, or negative condition of all truth. Farther than this logic cannot go, and the error which depends not on the form, but on the content of the cognition, it has no test to discover.

You know, to give the other side...

Just a thought; it's your business, of course.

Carol

Fair enough. And I've considered it. But really, if I'd go that far, I'd like to take the next step, reference the Organon and call the general logic dialectic. Just a thought, of course.

carrie · Post by **carrie** » Fri Feb 18, 2005 11:47 am

Bloomfield wrote: Fair enough. And I've considered it. But really, if I'd go that far, I'd like to take the next step, reference the Organon and call the general logic dialectic. Just a thought, of course.

Hey, look. It's your private exchange with Wombat anyway. If you feel you must drag in the Organon and all that, then go for it. I kant stop you.

Carol, using the raspberry emoticon for the first time in her life