Putting Two and Two Together

[urogard]

hmm wouldn't the ultimate goal of a debate be to persuade the other side to accept your point (or maybe some hybrid version of both sides)

I don't ever intend to participate in a good-for-nothing-just-for-show debate, that's waste of time.

[agapooka]

One could make the argument that it's pretty useless to convince someone else of your point of view. Apart from stroking your own ego, that is... but everyone apart from the one whose ego is stroked thinks that that's useless too.

NB: That's a general truth. Although it specifically targets you, it also specifically targets everyone who will ever come across this statement. That's just how awesome I am. *strokes own ego in order to prove own point, which will result in a further flattering of said ego*

[Mister Sandman]

2+2=4 Simple.

IT also depends on the context of the sum.

[agapooka]

Sum argument ya got, thar.

[Ashu]

According to quantum phisics,anything is posible.I can give you a full answer but are you sure you want me to?

[agapooka]

As long as it's theoretically plausible, or at least if you can make it look that way, sure.

[TheWay]

This discussion is awesome some of the best arguments I have see on this forum yet. Way to think outside the box folks and great topic.

Being the philosophical guy that I am I would like to explore the Epistemological approach to this equation, by addressing three opposing views on this question. Of course this is purely for comedy as the whole debate for me is jest and enjoyable in that context.

Rationalism - Mathematical logic clearly answer this question and as such 2+2=4

Empiricism - I take four eggs place two into a basket and I have two eggs in a basket, I then take the next two eggs and place them in the basket and now I have four eggs.

Nihilism – What does it matter there is no point anyways; none of us are objective so we cannot actually know anything, let alone whether this equation is true or even whether there is an equation at all.

[fireball37]

If you wanted to disprove this, you could just say that it depends on the level of accuracy involved, if you only use 1dp than 2+2 could mean 2.4 +2.4, this equals 4.8 which rounds to 5, not 4.

[agapooka]

TheWay, I've always loved the Nihilistic point of view, you know!

One thing that we can learn from it is that it teaches us to question everything, right down to our own existence. I personally believe that I exist (o wow, big leap of faith it took, I know), but that doesn't mean that I can even pretend to understand the nature of that existence. What am I? What is the role of my physical body, if any? Am I limited to that physical body or do I also have a spiritual existence? What is life, consciousness? Not original questions, but the fact that no certain answer has been found to date does make it worth asking them.

According to the gnostic philosophy, (which, by the way, is an umbrella term), the spiritual world was created by an all-powerful spiritual being and was therefore a part of that being. Something happened and part of that realm defected and started believing that it was a completely separate entity. It isolated itself from the rest of creation and created a world of its own, which includes the physical world. It trapped some of the spiritual creation in earthly bodies and has them reincarnate indefinately until it breaks their soul. The purpose of this is to extract energy from them and become more powerful. Matrixy, but to a whole 'nother level. I like.

[Thriller]

I agree, it is flawed with incorrect assumptions. That's the point.

Debating isn't the art of discovering the truth. It's the art of dressing *anything* as the truth. Of course, anyone able to see beyond the words can realise that and I'm glad that I'm not surrounded by complete idiots, but I wish that they'd also understand what a debate is and see this, not as spam, but as a debate, although in a somewhat exaggerated form.

Thriller, you obviously haven't read the Wednesday debate, have you? (If you have, I'm surprised that you haven't been able to see a pattern by now ) Mind you, it's in the "Official league, judged, debates" section.

The reason why debates were never meant to arrive at a truthful conclusion is that we have conflicting parties who are biased towards their respective points of view. (EDIT ADD-IN: That is, the purpose is to selfishly promote one's subjective point of view, as opposed to agreeing to work towards a truthful conclusion and admitting that they may not have it.) I have never liked to argue something that I believe, because I find it boring. In the spirit of debate, however, I am willing to argue any nonsensical thing I can come up with, just to see how far it will go. The reason why I am mentioning this is that the spirit of debate was broken when *someone* questioned the validity of this debate/discussion. I am therefore compelled to defend not only the validity of this debate, but also the message that it conveys about what debating is.

Come to think of it, is there anything more difficult to argue than "2+2 is not equal to 4"? Haha. I have to say, I don't think I did too bad in that light. On the other hand, all anyone else had to do was prove that 2+2=4. Try bragging about that.

*On a side note, I was taught in school that anything divided by infinity was zero. Maybe they were too lazy to give a different answer, because I do find yours much more accurate in that regard. As for the inverse, that everythign divided by infinity is zero, I deduced that based on the flawed former. It would be a contradiction to teach one and not the other, so I'm glad that you (Thriller) addressed both.

can you give me a link to the Wednesday debate because i just assumed you were trolling.

I look at debate as a way to find truth in conflicting view points. That's why i think it's important for them to be moderated and backed with factual evidence. Discussion on the other hand..... arguing for arguments sake is okay with me. As long as your having fun.

If you meant to start this as way to get a discussion going about the meaningfulness of debate/discussion then my hat is off to you.

[agapooka]

lol, me trolling. Sure, here's a linkie to the Wednesday Debate:

viewtopic.php?f=166&t=100883

(Is it my "Banned Because He Was a Meanie" that confuzzled you? 'coz I put that when I stepped down from being forum admin... )

[TheWay]

I have always enjoyed Nihilism and existentialism for that matter, they share some interesting qualities in that at the end of both you might as well die like a dog as Kafka said.

As of Gnostics beliefs well those beliefs where labeled as heretical long ago and I for one and very glad lol wasn’t it the Gnostics that died of because they didn’t believe in sex and hence didn’t believe in procreation.

I honestly think you would line up better with Descartes then anyone else given what you just said

[agapooka]

Well, the name "Gnostic" is given to a bunch of groups who have varying beliefs, but have certain fundamental beliefs in common. It's quite possible that there were some Gnostic sects that didn't believe in sex, but that's quite irrelevant to the beliefs they had in common that gave them the name meaning "knowledge".

Anyway, I personally find the concept of a demiurge fascinating and I'm planning on reading what Plato wrote on it. Which means that I probably never will... *sigh*

[TheWay]

oh some of plato's stuff on the meta realm was facsinating and his view on forms is very interesting and well worth reading.

[Juliette]

One requires half a brain and a search engine to be able to defend their own opinions.
To create and credibly defend positions you do not support requires a complete brain. Search engine optional.
I think all those in the upper percentile of the second group know what the next step would be?