Does anything exist?

[The Man]

You're simply not understanding my point, despite me repeating and clarifying it over and over.

The point is that I've been told multiple times in this thread that logic is a discipline of philosophy. What I've responded to that is that the workings of boolean algebra cannot work any other way than they work now, so they must be true regardless of what one thinks or says about them. So while you can certainly "study" logic, the fact that X and ~X cannot be both true at the same time is axiomatic to philosophy, which kind of makes its study by philosophers pointless.

While you think you may have told me that "multiple times". I ain't read it directed to me, once, otherwise I would have addressed it. Again, axioms are just statements you hold as true to define the system you wish to work within. You are then bound be that system.

Dialetheism claims that logical contradictions are possible? I would love to see a demonstration of this.

You asked for an answer, I gave you that. Do those goalposts have a starting and ending point?

Much as I appreciate your posts, Belz..., I'm forced to conclude your question wasn't entirely honest. What did you expect, a question of philosophy (as you queried) not to be given in philosophical terms? I've got no stake in this, just relating facts I learned in researching my posts for another thread. Again, about the only philosophy I've tried to look into. You may note that in the kink I provided, paraconsistent logic tends to be trivial (why I didn't look into it long). It may deal with a paradox or two (so I've read) but you give up a lot more. like reductio ad absurdum, your thinking, if I'm not mistaken.

You can't rephrase what I said and claim I said it. The post is there for all to see, and I've explained the contradiction. Something cannot be an axiom of philosophy and also a subset or result of it.

Come on, I've not tried to rephrase anything you've said. I've taken you at your word However, much as it pains me to say, you have tried to portray your own words as coming from my mouth.


ETA: Out of time, booze and cigars, well, time at least. muddle through the rest of the thread when I can.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Much as I appreciate your posts, Belz..., I'm forced to conclude your question wasn't entirely honest. What did you expect, a question of philosophy (as you queried) not to be given in philosophical terms?

Dafrick? This is some "You have to agree with me before the discussion begins" nonsense. This is like the theists arguing that just pointing at the Bible and grunting is an answer when the topic is God.

Belz's (and mine and a few others) entire point is that philosophy (as the term as nebulous as it is is normally used) doesn't really have any of the answers it pretends to (or has redefined the concept of "answer" into pure meaninglessness.)

So yeah the fact that you can can't give an acceptable answer "in philosophical terms" is literally the point being proved.

 

[Belz...]

While you think you may have told me that "multiple times". I ain't read it directed to me, once, otherwise I would have addressed it.

Fair enough.

Again, axioms are just statements you hold as true to define the system you wish to work within. You are then bound be that system.

Exactly my point.

You asked for an answer, I gave you that. Do those goalposts have a starting and ending point?

What are you talking about? This is the exact question that I've been asking since the beginning. My larger point is that there's no way to conclude, in any way, shape or form, that X and ~X can both be true at once. It's impossible. Philosophy has nothing to do with this.

Much as I appreciate your posts, Belz..., I'm forced to conclude your question wasn't entirely honest.

If you knew me, you'd know that such an accusation is risible. But you don't.

What did you expect, a question of philosophy (as you queried) not to be given in philosophical terms?

I have no idea what that means. The whole deal started when someone made the claim that "logic" is part of philosophy; that it's a branch of it. I responded that while you can study logic philosophically (you can pretty much study anything you like philosophically), the rules of logic have not been established by philosophers; they are just innate to existence. And my way of demonstrating this is trying to show people that there's no way to argue that X and ~X can possibly be both true at once. So far no one's tried because it's patently obvious.

 

[IanS]

Did philosophers consider this when they devised the trolley problem?

Well jokes aside ... we have had several recent threads about the Trolley Problem as well, and the further we went with that, the more obvious it became that it was not a problem or conundrum at all ... it's an imaginary hypothetical which almost certainly would not have worked out as suggested in any actual real situation ... in any real situation all sorts of other possibilities and likelihoods would arise that completely nullified the original philosophically claimed dilemma.

IOW, it was yet another philosophy “fail” that even a 12 year-old should easily spot!

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Nice set of useful, actually meaningful standards that work in the real world you've got there. Sure would be a shame if someone where to try to apply them to insane hypothetical edge cases." - Philosophy.

 

[Thermal]

"I don't want to be bothered with all that thinking if it doesn't help me build a better mousetrap". -Spongebob

 

[JoeMorgue]

"I don't want to be bothered with all that thinking if it doesn't help me build a better mousetrap". -Spongebob

Again there are people who when they tell me I am thinking wrong on a base level I would listen.

And there are people who I don't.

 

[Thermal]

Again there are people who when they tell me I am thinking wrong on a base level I would listen.

And there are people who I don't.

Ad hom. You could really benefit from a philosophy course to discipline your thinking.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Ad hom. You could really benefit from a philosophy course to discipline your thinking.

Call it whatever helps you sleep at night.

When you're wrong all the time, like you're trying to get gold in the "Being Wrong" Olympics you can't just walk around and tell other people they are thinking wrong on a base level.

I don't care what Little Mister "I Found a Stupid Hill To Die Defending" thinks.

I don't know how to say that in Latin so it's philosophy.

 

[abaddon]

"I don't want to be bothered with all that thinking if it doesn't help me build a better mousetrap". -Spongebob

You are citing the philosophy of SpongeBob now?

Put down the shovel.

 

[Belz...]

"I don't want to be bothered with all that thinking if it doesn't help me build a better mousetrap". -Spongebob

Well, if all that thinking leads to nothing, then aside from entertainment value it's indeed useless.

But some people believe that just thinking about an issue is the same as helping.

 

[Thermal]

Well, if all that thinking leads to nothing, then aside from entertainment value it's indeed useless.

But some people believe that just thinking about an issue is the same as helping.

Why should it lead to nothing? My political philosophy hits the road, much as my philosophy of self defense. I mention those two frequently because they are a hands-on application that even the most dedicated anti-intellectualist would acknowledge are practical.

And yes, trying to dismiss philosophy across the board is textbook anti-intellectual.

 

[Thermal]

You are citing the philosophy of SpongeBob now?

Put down the shovel.

Look out! Something just went flying over your head!

 

[Thermal]

Call it whatever helps you sleep at night.

It's got nothing to do with me. It's classic fallacious thinking, which is becoming the hallmark of your arguments.

When you're wrong all the time, like you're trying to get gold in the "Being Wrong" Olympics you can't just walk around and tell other people they are thinking wrong on a base level.

Begging the Question, false conclusion. You're awful at this logic thing.

I don't care what Little Mister "I Found a Stupid Hill To Die Defending" thinks.

I don't know how to say that in Latin so it's philosophy.

Says the poster who has been dying on this hill with copious repetitive posts that are convincing no one, and does the same thing year after year.

 

[Belz...]

Why should it lead to nothing?

I don't understand your question. It seems to have nothing to do with what you quoted.

My political philosophy hits the road, much as my philosophy of self defense. I mention those two frequently because they are a hands-on application that even the most dedicated anti-intellectualist would acknowledge are practical.

...and?

And yes, trying to dismiss philosophy across the board is textbook anti-intellectual.

No it isn't. Anti-intellectualism usually takes the form of anti-science.

 

[IanS]

Why should it lead to nothing? My political philosophy hits the road, much as my philosophy of self defense. I mention those two frequently because they are a hands-on application that even the most dedicated anti-intellectualist would acknowledge are practical.

And yes, trying to dismiss philosophy across the board is textbook anti-intellectual.

I don't know what happens in the USA (are you in the US?), but in the UK AFAIK politicians don't typically have philosophy degrees (they usually have other degrees, often in Law). They certainly don't need any philosophy degrees, and nor is it ever even mentioned. We also have lots of political discussion here on BBC radio and in the UK media in general, and I usually listen to it all day long (whilst working), but I've never heard anyone even mention philosophy amongst the many thousands of hours of broadcasts. Though, come to think of it, there is actually now a lot of the discussion about science since Coronavirus, and before that, since Climate Change.

Self Defence? Do you mean like boxing or martial arts? As it happens I watch a lot of boxing, and I listen to a lot of interviews with boxers and all sorts of people in that industry, and I doubt if hardly any of them even have the faintest idea of what philosophy is LOL.

So, No! Philosophy is really of zero interest in either of those pursuits.

 

[The Common Potato]

I don't know what happens in the USA (are you in the US?), but in the UK AFAIK politicians don't typically have philosophy degrees (they usually have other degrees, often in Law). They certainly don't need any philosophy degrees, and nor is it ever even mentioned. We also have lots of political discussion here on BBC radio and in the UK media in general, and I usually listen to it all day long (whilst working), but I've never heard anyone even mention philosophy amongst the many thousands of hours of broadcasts. Though, come to think of it, there is actually now a lot of the discussion about science since Coronavirus, and before that, since Climate Change.

Self Defence? Do you mean like boxing or martial arts? As it happens I watch a lot of boxing, and I listen to a lot of interviews with boxers and all sorts of people in that industry, and I doubt if hardly any of them even have the faintest idea of what philosophy is LOL.

So, No! Philosophy is really of zero interest in either of those pursuits.

I have the thought that some people - including many politicians - use evidence to support their pre-decided conclusion rather than letting the data lead inexorably to any conclusion - and they don't quite see what they're getting wrong. Backtofront-itis.

This is an unevidenced assertion, though!

Source: Me! From yesterday.

From the G. https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-facts-fraudulent-character#comment-150156868

 

[Steve]

All I can say is that not hugely well so far.

Nietzsche, and I don't much even like him, and Schopenhauer et al, even Heidegger do a much better job, and obviously the heavenly Kant, and Hume - and literature and art even a better one than any of these. Nature's world is flat, factual, devoid of meaning.

Python said it best:

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table.
David Hume could out-consume
Schopenhauer and Hegel,
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.
There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist.

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away
Half a crate of whiskey every day.
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
Hobbes was fond of his dram,
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart:
"I drink, therefore I am"
Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed!

 

[Thermal]

I don't understand your question. It seems to have nothing to do with what you quoted.

You said:

Well, if all that thinking leads to nothing, then aside from entertainment value it's indeed useless.

...to which I asked, why do you say it leads to nothing? Is it your position that philosophy leads to nothing, despite the examples of its practicality given for dozens of pages? If you are back on that *some* of philosophy leads to nothing thing, that did not follow the context of my post. Non-sequitur, that.

...and?

See above. If I am posing practical philosophy that most of us employ, and you answer by saying if it leads nowhere, it's useless, what the hell are you talking about? I am referring directly and clearly to philosophy that leads somewhere practical.

No it isn't. Anti-intellectualism usually takes the form of anti-science.

Wiki, Miriam-Webster and others have no such limitation. From ye olde Wiki:

Anti-intellectualism has been defined as, "A philosophic doctrine that assigns reason or intellect a subordinate place in the scheme of things and questions or denies the ability of the intellect to comprehend the true nature of things ... Anything that celebrates feeling over thought, intuition over logic, action over contemplation, results over means, experience over tradition and order tends toward anti-intellectualism."

Sure sounds like philosophy falls under that umbrella to me. Sure doesn't sound limited to science deniers. But I'm open to your evidence.

 

[Thermal]

I don't know what happens in the USA (are you in the US?)

Under my avatar, I conveniently indicate my location as USA, yes.

but in the UK AFAIK politicians don't typically have philosophy degrees (they usually have other degrees, often in Law). They certainly don't need any philosophy degrees, and nor is it ever even mentioned. We also have lots of political discussion here on BBC radio and in the UK media in general, and I usually listen to it all day long (whilst working), but I've never heard anyone even mention philosophy amongst the many thousands of hours of broadcasts. Though, come to think of it, there is actually now a lot of the discussion about science since Coronavirus, and before that, since Climate Change.

Um...I'm not talking about what degrees a politician might have. Or degrees at all. Or politicians, for that matter. I'm talking about anyone who has a personal political philosophy, as most of us do. You can have a personal philosophy without a freaking degree in it, or a degree in anything for that matter.

Wait...you do agree with that, don't you?

Self Defence? Do you mean like boxing or martial arts?

No, I meant what I said. Sport Boxing on the TV has virtually nothing to do with a personal philosophy of self defense.

As it happens I watch a lot of boxing, and I listen to a lot of interviews with boxers and all sorts of people in that industry, and I doubt if hardly any of them even have the faintest idea of what philosophy is LOL.

Disagreed. While they might not use the word, they likely have very complex and sophisticated philosophies regarding their sport, training and bout strategies.

But again, the professional sport boxing industry has pretty much nothing to do with an individual's philosophy of self defense.

So, No! Philosophy is really of zero interest in either of those pursuits.

Try the pursuits I actually referred to, and see if you come up with the same answer.

eta: I note under your screen name, you identify as a philosopher. Checkmate