I don't know, the statement Rummy made makes sense logically to me. But as a real answer... It's not. It's evading the question completely. It's like in stats: you never prove the null hypothesis. It's a failure to reject the null hypothesis.
But if you're looking for real answers, this administration is not the place to find them.
I think the point is that it was probably utterly unresponsive to whatever the specific question was. What was the question to which he was responding?
Its one of those darn unknown unknown
Or rather we know it was a question. Does that make it a known unknown. Or is that a unknown known?
Don't ontological arguments have to be used to prove the existence of God or a higher being? I thought that Descarte's ontological argument was one that proved the existence of God, not his own existence.
Could be wrong though...philosophy classes were a few years ago...maybe I should google before I hit "post"...nah, too lazy....
Don't ontological arguments have to be used to prove the existence of God or a higher being? I thought that Descarte's ontological argument was one that proved the existence of God, not his own existence.
Could be wrong though...philosophy classes were a few years ago...maybe I should google before I hit "post"...nah, too lazy....
Ontology has to do with reasons for existence. Descartes's argument "Cogito, ergo sum" essentially means that the only thing he can prove is that he exists, since if he didn't exist, he wouldn't be able to wonder whether or not he existed.
Well, one cannot trust google as the ultimate arbiter, but a search on "ontological arguments" gives you page after page of statements about the ontological argument being related to proving the existence of God, e.g., "One of the most fascinating arguments for the existence of an all-perfect God is the ontological argument" (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Or from Stanford: "Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world ? e.g., from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists."
But perhaps there is a broader use of the term which is not so popular, and therefore less googleariffic. I recall only hearing it in a religious context, but that does not mean it could not also be more general. Still, I would appreciate any references one could provide that specifically talk about ontological arguments *outside* of the realm of god.
Ontology has to do with reasons for existence. Descartes's argument "Cogito, ergo sum" essentially means that the only thing he can prove is that he exists, since if he didn't exist, he wouldn't be able to wonder whether or not he existed.
Yes.
And Fishdoc is right too..
It's all about the ultimate unknowable knowables & the proofs therein.
Putting Rumsfelds' speech into to latin terms would lead to "Incognito Cognito"
Rumsfeld is a philosophical giant & he doesn't even know it....
Well, one cannot trust google as the ultimate arbiter, but a search on "ontological arguments" gives you page after page of statements about the ontological argument being related to proving the existence of God, e.g., "One of the most fascinating arguments for the existence of an all-perfect God is the ontological argument" (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Or from Stanford: "Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world ? e.g., from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists."
But perhaps there is a broader use of the term which is not so popular, and therefore less googleariffic. I recall only hearing it in a religious context, but that does not mean it could not also be more general. Still, I would appreciate any references one could provide that specifically talk about ontological arguments *outside* of the realm of god.
Fish
I think you're talking about two different terms: The "ontological argument" is the name of a specific argument for the existence of God, "ontology" is a branch of philosophy that deals with existence of things in general.
And I think Descartes' "I think therefore I am" business was really an epistemological argument, about what you can know to be true, rather than an ontological one. And so was Rummies', for that matter. I wonder about Cheney, though - epistemologist or ontologist? This could be a new game show.
Comments
But if you're looking for real answers, this administration is not the place to find them.
Originally posted by BRussell
I think the point is that it was probably utterly unresponsive to whatever the specific question was. What was the question to which he was responding?
Its one of those darn unknown unknown
Or rather we know it was a question. Does that make it a known unknown. Or is that a unknown known?
Originally posted by Anders
Or rather we know it was a question. Does that make it a known unknown. Or is that a unknown known?
Wait a minute. Are you trying to win this award for yourself?!
Originally posted by Kickaha
I know you've all gone unknowingly mad.
That would be an unknown unknown, right? Or would it be a known unknown? Or perhaps a known known?
Originally posted by Kickaha
Known unknown...
That's better...my head doesn't hurt anymore now
But I give him a special mention prize for ontological arguments... the most famous of which is Rene Descartes.." I think therefore I am "
Either way,
Rumsfeld as Segovius noted....would have made a great poet...
Or in my opinion....a Jedi Knight using Yoda speak...8)
OMG, don't do that when I'm drinking coffee, I about got a nasal caffeination.
Oh the *imagery*! *hee*
(Waiting for the first SW fan to take offense at comparing Rumsfeld to a Jedi... hee)
"Evacuate Now? On the brink of crrrussshing the rebellion?"
Could be wrong though...philosophy classes were a few years ago...maybe I should google before I hit "post"...nah, too lazy....
Originally posted by fishdoc
Don't ontological arguments have to be used to prove the existence of God or a higher being? I thought that Descarte's ontological argument was one that proved the existence of God, not his own existence.
Could be wrong though...philosophy classes were a few years ago...maybe I should google before I hit "post"...nah, too lazy....
Ontology has to do with reasons for existence. Descartes's argument "Cogito, ergo sum" essentially means that the only thing he can prove is that he exists, since if he didn't exist, he wouldn't be able to wonder whether or not he existed.
Well, one cannot trust google as the ultimate arbiter, but a search on "ontological arguments" gives you page after page of statements about the ontological argument being related to proving the existence of God, e.g., "One of the most fascinating arguments for the existence of an all-perfect God is the ontological argument" (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Or from Stanford: "Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world ? e.g., from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists."
But perhaps there is a broader use of the term which is not so popular, and therefore less googleariffic. I recall only hearing it in a religious context, but that does not mean it could not also be more general. Still, I would appreciate any references one could provide that specifically talk about ontological arguments *outside* of the realm of god.
Fish
Originally posted by midwinter
Ontology has to do with reasons for existence. Descartes's argument "Cogito, ergo sum" essentially means that the only thing he can prove is that he exists, since if he didn't exist, he wouldn't be able to wonder whether or not he existed.
Yes.
And Fishdoc is right too..
It's all about the ultimate unknowable knowables & the proofs therein.
Putting Rumsfelds' speech into to latin terms would lead to "Incognito Cognito"
Rumsfeld is a philosophical giant & he doesn't even know it....
*snort*
Originally posted by fishdoc
Still, I would appreciate any references one could provide that specifically talk about ontological arguments *outside* of the realm of god.
Try the encyclopedia britannica or a dictionary.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Jedi Rummy. *hee*
*snort*
DARTH RUMSFELD
Originally posted by fishdoc
OK, now you have forced me to actually google
Well, one cannot trust google as the ultimate arbiter, but a search on "ontological arguments" gives you page after page of statements about the ontological argument being related to proving the existence of God, e.g., "One of the most fascinating arguments for the existence of an all-perfect God is the ontological argument" (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Or from Stanford: "Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world ? e.g., from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists."
But perhaps there is a broader use of the term which is not so popular, and therefore less googleariffic. I recall only hearing it in a religious context, but that does not mean it could not also be more general. Still, I would appreciate any references one could provide that specifically talk about ontological arguments *outside* of the realm of god.
Fish
I think you're talking about two different terms: The "ontological argument" is the name of a specific argument for the existence of God, "ontology" is a branch of philosophy that deals with existence of things in general.
And I think Descartes' "I think therefore I am" business was really an epistemological argument, about what you can know to be true, rather than an ontological one. And so was Rummies', for that matter. I wonder about Cheney, though - epistemologist or ontologist? This could be a new game show.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
DARTH RUMSFELD
Naw, it's funnier to imagine him as Yoda. Short, green, furry ears...
*hee*
Blast! The Yoda translator won't take more than a few words at a time.
"God exists... we have eveidence."... "Intell from our Allies says so."
Originally posted by Kickaha
Naw, it's funnier to imagine him as Yoda. Short, green, furry ears...
*hee*
Blast! The Yoda translator won't take more than a few words at a time.
" Always with you there is doubt hrrmmm..there is only know or unknow " Yoda Rumsfeld
8)