Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

I gathered from your reply that you had no interest in the subject… But —

Still, you may be able to think something through:

In what sense does a single event have a probability?

How, if probability is merely a personal propensity to believe, do we understand science, when it is statistical?

When do we say that something is probable, if we can't agree on what "probable" means?

My theory is that the evolution of knowledge occurs within a given ontology.

Science can't claim certitude, because its methods don't give any warrant for absolute certainty. It does, however, claim better and better understanding of the objects it investigates.
Are these objects real? Well, that's part of the investigation. Isn't it?

But it's worse: Your "ontology" has it that everything that can be thought truly must pre-exist as a true thought…as an object of knowledge.

But thoughts require thinkers. And, like it or no, thinkers are -at their best- creative!

For you, one starts by being taught what to think. For some others, one starts by being taught how to think. (The odd thing is that you don't recognize the difference… )

Science can't claim certitude, because its methods don't give any warrant for absolute certainty. It does, however, claim better and better understanding of the objects it investigates.
Are these objects real? Well, that's part of the investigation. Isn't it?

Naive Set Theory vs the Iterative Conception of Sets. Would you talk about such things?

The creativity, if it is to remain relevant, only occurs as a subdivision or subset of the singular original reality. If creativity fails to take note where it's coming from and where it's going, then it spirals into irrelevancy and is better called deviation or malfunction.

Unity makes sense if connecting difference.

My answer is that differences can be unified because there's the potential unity in the first place. And the result of unification is unity, cessation of difference. The difference is just a temporary appearance.

It can work that way...

It does work. Trust me 

If you need more, ersisism is not for you.

Edit2: But seriously, you understand that this "ersisism" is by no means unique to me, but a straightforward corollary to a standard solution to the problem of universals? With slight modifications its adherents are Kant, Aquinas, Augustine, Aristotle, Plotinus, Plato, ...

For long that I've abandoned any attempt of explaining universals that doesn't takes into consideration and recognizes human differences and, very specially, the human capacity for enchantment.
Some of the authors you mention realized it.

I'm still not convinced. And I'm not convinced for a reason, a particular reason that made me to evoke aesthetics - why beauty matters.

On the other hand, I am quite sure that you on your part are missing the way I account for human differences. My treatment of universals may seem sweeping, but this only because you overlook the nuances, and you overlook the nuances because you don't have the eye for them    The fact that my expression is not aesthetical enough to your taste (and how could my expression be aesthetical when I don't have the organ for it?) only augments the discord you perceive. To solve this, identify properly what feels out of place for you and I will prove to you that it only seems this way.

I found the website thelogician.net which contains the writings of a spiritual logician.

I honestly don't grasp the point when someone says "warm colour" and "cold colour".

By assigning warm color depth and mood effects to lightness and chroma, it might seem that the warm/cool contrast is illusory, just a crude way to summarize the lightness and saturation differences between different hues.

But that's the wrong conclusion. The depth and mood effects were grafted onto the warm/cool contrast by late 18th and 19th century "color theorists"; they were not part of the contrast as it was applied in Baroque landscape painting. So we still have the fourth question to answer: why is the warm/cool contrast fundamental to our visual response to color and to the manipulation of colors in painting?

The first step to an answer is that the warm/cool contrast originates in diurnal or climatic changes in illumination, specifically as seen in landscape settings. Thus the Oxford English Dictionary describes 18th century usage to include:

Cold - applied to tints or colouring which suggest a cold sunless day, or the colder effect of evening; esp. to blue and grey, and tints akin to these.

Warm - suggestive of warmth, said especially of red or yellow ... to become 'warmer' or more ruddy: "On a bright morning of July, when the grey of the sky was just beginning to warm with the rising day".

Of course, I should probably add that this all aligns perfectly well with my own personal opinion: that most claims of "warmth" are more about saturation and intensity than color and that the only way to use the terms in a meaningful fashion is to have them refer to the colors associated with warmer and colder seasons or parts of day.

Simply put, the world it's made of inanimate matter, life and ideas. You address matter with the continuum theory and a part of ideas with logic. Very well, but none of those two (continuum and logics) explains the rest.

It results at a partial, unbalanced, incomplete vision that, in my opinion, can't satisfy. By means of logic you arrive to God - and that's done in a right way but it's a very special kind of God, a logic-mechanicist God that is much more close to the Mason Great Architect than to the God made Man that suffers.

You seek explanation as if explanation were a synonymous of inexorability, when it's not. Ultimate explanation must go beyond pure logic-blocks-Lego-playing and go right into the wholeness of Mystery because Man doesn't serve explanations it's the explanation that must serve Man in his entirety.

Quote from: ersi on 2014-08-21, 20:45:02

I found the website thelogician.net which contains the writings of a spiritual logician.

Which contains the writings of an analytic philosopher.
You'll have to discuss it with Oakdale He's the one defending analytic philosophy, I lean much more for the Continental tradition.

Anyway, I'll give the Buddhist sophistry a look.

Quote

Cold - applied to tints or colouring which suggest a cold sunless day, or the colder effect of evening; esp. to blue and grey, and tints akin to these.

Warm - suggestive of warmth, said especially of red or yellow ... to become 'warmer' or more ruddy: "On a bright morning of July, when the grey of the sky was just beginning to warm with the rising day".

Of course, I should probably add that this all aligns perfectly well with my own personal opinion: that most claims of "warmth" are more about saturation and intensity than color and that the only way to use the terms in a meaningful fashion is to have them refer to the colors associated with warmer and colder seasons or parts of day.