Let me look at the works of Aristotle and compare them with modern scientific and mathematical journals. I want to compare science with other areas of knowledge such as philosophy, mathematics, and so on.
Modern scientific journals are compiled and edited by an elite group of scientists. Their contributions are assessed on the basis of mathematical and conceptual methods that are equivalent to the interpretations of Plato and Aristotle.
Mathematics master of everything in science. Thus, all sciences are incomplete, and only mathematics is the absolute in our world.
So what does this have to do with your thesis? What ideas in your own research and what you say about it are wrong? What do you think is not true and how can you learn to understand the world differently?
I have often asked myself this question. While trying to make sense of my research, I found that when I tried to approach my topic scientifically, I completely failed. When I approach it as a pure idea, and not as a real, concrete image, it turns out that it is much easier to understand.
What was my method? I think there are things we can do if we approach our work from a new perspective.
M s can use their own conceptual knowledge. When you look at something in the real world, you can see what it is without trying to put it into words. But when you try to express a concept in words, you see something different, and therefore the translation cannot really reflect reality.
That is why sometimes it is very difficult to understand something, even if we are familiar with it. When someone talks about something, our mind tries to clothe this concept in a simple and understandable form, in words. This is what actually happens when we try to explain something in words. What we mean is not that there is «orange», but there is a whole, complex universe around it. But we dont have a good way to describe such things, so we try to put it into words.
This is a natural thing, and we do it all the time when we try to describe the concepts of life, money, sports or the universe. There is an idea of what it is, but it is not always the same. When our mind tries to put it into words, we see something different. For example, when we try to describe a plate of food, we do not see a plate full of orange dale e k. We see a complex system of shapes, colors and smells. So if we cannot describe it in words, we try to abstract it into symbols. We use our knowledge of this complex system to try to describe what we see.
When we write an essay, the images we are using will be represented in red, the idea will be represented in green, and the idea of abstraction will be represented in blue. We can denote certain objects in orange, some blue, and so on, but on the way to represent these things will be different. We use this symbol to represent various ideas. This is how we conceptualize things, and since we conceptualize them, this is how we interpret them.
What we see is actually a series of real and imaginary things in a complex combination. The world is a complex system that is constantly changing, so the way we try to describe it is constantly changing. This is what I call the illusory universe.
So why dont we just see the world as it really is? Well, because we cant. We do not see it as it really is, and we cannot explain it in words. This is why we use words. This is how we represent what we see.
This is one of the important parts of my approach. I try to approach my topic from a different perspective. I look at this from the point of view of the idea of the object, not from the point of view of how it is actually seen. When my brain tries to explain it, I start looking at it from a different perspective. Im starting to see this as a series of symbols.
How can this understanding be translated? What do we do when we see something we shouldnt see? We must abstract ourselves from this. In other words, we move to another level and interpret the scene in terms of symbols. We use symbols to see things, but symbols are not what they actually appear.
We can see what we shouldnt see, so we interpret the scene and explain it with symbols. To go one level higher, we use these symbols to abstract from the scene and explain it in terms of reality. This level of abstraction is what we have to do to make it easier to understand the world. This level of abstraction is what we have to do to simplify the explanation of the world. The point of this is to help us understand everything we have ever been taught and understand everything that is happening around us.
Logical positivism
Logical positivism, formulated in the 1920s, held that only statements about facts or logical relationships between concepts make sense. These statements are not called sentences, but are said to represent true beliefs.
It should be noted, however, that although «mereological» statements may be false, logical positivists also considered them factual, so the proper name for such statements is «perception».
Logical positivists believe that while such claims are possible, they must be false anyway.
Logical positivism originated in Hegelian philosophy, especially in his dialectics and its criticism. While making some dialectical criticism of determinism, determinism itself was not part of the Marxist analysis.
The philosopher Karl Popper proposed a synthesis of logical positivism, functionalism and socialism. Popper popularized the use of the term «positivism».
Logical positivism, formulated in the 1920s, argued that the truth of a statement is «whatever is consistent with observable facts.»
The concept of a truth principle in modern logic does not imply this for example, the statement that «all numbers are rational» is not really a statement about what is true, but only about what can be proved.
Logical positivists also do not exclude so-called non-empirical statements.
The statement that «x» or «y» is more likely to be true in the case of «X» as opposed to the case «Y» requires that «X» and «Y» be consistent statements, which they claim to be means that logical positivists must argue that «truths» of this kind are not really «truths» or «truths» of the world.
However, most subsequent systems of epistemology, such as realism, positivism, and analytical philosophy, tend to assume that logical positivists were right in saying that there are non-empirical statements that are also true.
Practical applications such as medicine and legal practice tend to focus on statements that can be falsified or supported, and thus the assertion that true statements are necessarily true is removed from the problem of determining whether a particular statement is true or false
However, since modern theories of mind and cognition are still often based on the traditional form of empiricism, the problem of non-empirical statements is still relevant.
The statement that «x» is more likely to be true in the case of «X» than in the case of «Y» is often viewed as an example of a reduction axiom with axioms of the form «x» and «y». truth is perceived as an obvious axiom of the existence of a relationship.
However, it has also been argued that such arguments presuppose the idea that there is no cognitive system and therefore no belief system that can speak of something other than itself, a view that has not gained widespread acceptance.
A particularly important form of logical positivism that is commonly associated with the scientific method has come to be known as logical empiricism and is closely related to the knowledge argument for the existence of God.