Indeed, some might retain the book they've finished reading but for reasons other than its contents like emotional ones (you mentioned you might miss it). In other words if the book's main purpose is to deliver a message, once you've read it, that purpose is fulfilled.

Yes, how does it lack logic? What makes these questions illogical? — Skalidris

Well, a question specific to justification would've been nice. For example, what evidence do we have for ... ?

Why do you keep it, the book? Assume you've got the message the book contains. Do you need the book now for the message in it? Nope, oui?

P. S. I couldn't come up with a better example. Wait, one springs to mind - disposable syringes (after the drug has been delivered, the syringe can be disposed of).

Nice! A(n) (omni)benevolent being, is benevolence itself (re virtue ethics). Be one with the ball mon ami until no one can tell the difference between you and the ball.

Yet, if God were a being and goodness is an idea (with practical consequences of course), we could offload the responsibility onto a machine; after all morality boils down to a calculus with two variables, vice & virtue. The actual calculations will obviously be extremely complex, but still, doable i.e. computable. I've heard of AI scientists developing a virtual doctor - one has to input one's signs & symptoms, lab & imaging reports, and out pops a diagnosis with, wonder of wonders, a treatment plan. Can we build an AI judge to preside over legal cases? That would be our first step towards an automating God. Sic parvis magna (greatness from small beginning).

Muchas gracias for explaination. Your post makes it crystal clear what Euthyphro's dilemma is.

To All

What do you do with a book that you've read, after you've grokked the book? Some keep it in a library, others lend it to friends, etc. but the point is you don't need the book anymore, at the very least not as much as you needed it before you read it.

What about, if I may ask, modern mythology viz. superheroes & supervillains and their tales that are fed to children and adults alike via comics/animation/toys/movies/books, with, I'm hoping, a positive impact - lessons on morality, social issues, science, older myths, etc.?

A genuine word of God, let's see ... shouldn't it be first and foremost al-Haqq (the truth) about us? Genocides (used herein as the worst-case scenario) I think that's us, yeah, that's definitely us ... the Bible does contain passages on how this tribe wiped out that tribe and how that tribe did the same or so I'm told.

Virtue, as one poster claimed, is to be an excellent (arete) human being. A virtuous/excellent lion would be a perfect predator. :chin:

Wisdom, on the other hand, may sometimes express misanthropic ideas.

:up:

I see now the OP's point, it's a dilemma.

1. Either you accept Christianity OR you reject Christianity
2. If you accept Christianity, you lack intelligence
3. If you reject Christianity, you lack faith
Ergo
4. You either lack intelligence or you lack faith

Nobody likes to lack anything now do they?

I propose a counterdilemma, Protagorian style.

5. If you accept Christianity, you possess faith
6. If you reject Christianity, you possess intelligence

See?

Now, instead of lacking intelligence or faith, you possess intelligence or faith!

Hats off to the amazing Protagoras! Go sophists, go!

Components of philosophy that are present:

1. Ethics: (human) selfishness
2. Epistemology: science, philosophy and their objectivity/subjectivity
3. Metaphysics (ontology): free will, exists/illusory

Components of philosophy that are missing:
4. Logic
5. Aesthetics

Buddhism is agnostic (skepticism) about everything, preferring to remain uncommitted, no taking sides in a debate + Buddhism makes it a point to keep metaphysics at a bare minimum to prop up its ethics (karma, hadta but God, no comment).

Eureka! What ties these 4 questions together is religion.

My post is typical of knowledge without praxis.

I sense a disturbance in the Force. :snicker:

The word 'more' there is excess. — TonesInDeepFreeze

:smile: You're the expert, you would know!

You raise some valid points in re Cantor's mental issues; maybe we need someone else, an arbiter, to sort out the matter between us, si señor tonesindeepfreeze. Medical records are usually confidential and what's released into the public domain maybe only bits & pieces of the whole story.

Yeah, you often sign out of a conversation with that snarky "Good day", while not ingesting a single bit of the information and explanation given to you. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Well, truth is you're too technical for my taste. Not your fault though!

It may go back to the issue of the red zones or 'philosophical dangers'. The new may be forbidden territory and feared. On the hand, it may be about exploration and experimentation. Some ideas may be found accidentally and in wandering into uncharted ideas, even to the point of getting lost, or what my mother accused me of, 'going off the planet.' However, if one stays safe in the boxes of tradition what is the scope for innovation and discovery? — Jack Cummins

Danke for reminding me of red zones (in philosophy). AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL ONLY sign on the fence or a :death: DANGER! CLASS I TOXIN! on the book cover - ideas that can cause revolutions, memes that can cause devastating pandemics (re index librorum prohibitorum). Strict control of ideas is practised especially by authoritarian regimes (re thought police); I don't blame 'em though for the simple reason that it's a do/die situation.

I'll leave you to discuss with the other experts. Good day.

Well, as far as I can tell, your theory hasn't been quantified and unfortunately what John Collier, who you quoted, is bang on target in re Shannon's theory of information. I feel it too! :grin:

I won't waste yer time anymore. I hope I can visit your blog for more information! See ya. Good day.

:up: And if you agree ... you would be a finitist, si señor?

Nice! In being circular with respect to justification, reason, sensu amplissimo is not a hypocrite (practices what it preaches) - it demands arguments and it itself is supported by one. Just curious, what is this argument reason employs to prove itself as the method for discovering truths?

So the choices are: reason as a hypocrisy (it fails to self-justify) OR reason as a circularity (it self-justifies). Can we say that what we're dealing with here is a vicious virtuous cycle?

Yes Agrippa's trilemma is self-refuting but only if you assume it to be true; but then the refutation would be self-refuting; this refutation of the refutation itself is also self-refuting; so on ad infinitum. The bottom line: once we assume Agrippa's trilemma, it precludes logic - no argument is permissible beyond that point and that means you can't refute Agrippa's trilemma. In fact this argument which I just made is also inadmissible and to complicate matters further even this one which I'm making is not to be taken seriously, so on and so on ... ad nauseum/ad infinitum. :zip:

What are our options? We have to prove Agrippa's trilemma is unsound. One way is to say there's a 4^th alternative i.e. Agrippa's trilemma is a false trichotomy. Any ideas what this 4^th option is?

Or we could follow Kuro's lead and say that the circularity isn't vicious but virtuous; at the very least, reason ain't no hypocrite (it demands of itself what it demands of others and ... meets those demands; how exactly, Kuro will tell us).

I'll get back to you Jack.

@Paine :zip:

:zip:

The question may be what role do neurons play? I am sure that it is significant, but what is the relationship between neuroscience and ideas. What is intuition and imagination and can they be traced back to the physical wiring of the brain and the human imagination? — Jack Cummins

We're entering into uncharted territory mon ami! Hic sunt dracones. I plucked the low hanging fruit as you can see.

:zip:

Nope, it doesn't matter who is doing anything unless ... you're ready to commit an ad hominem fallacy or arguing from authority and the like.

I'm just exploring the possibility of escaping from the clutches of skepticism. Do you see a light at the end of this tunnel?

You've lost me. — 180 Proof

I'm lost too bruh! :groan:

As my former boss was wont to say, on every occasion, "we all have 100 billion neurons." His message in a nutshell: If Einstein could do it, so can anyone else! Our brains are practically identical.

Muchas gracias señor Yohan. It's just amazing that you've thought this through so well and in such a short duration. Hats off to you!

Life ain't a joke - people get hurt, many perish - and as I once told a colleague, if one really gives it some thought, it's a tightrope walk without wires & a safety net. Fall and you're a goner.

Anything else you might wanna add?

I like your fallibilism idea better.

Neurath's Boat. — 180 Proof

Ship of Theseus, only now we're making improvements + we're doing it while still sailing. :up: and yet I don't see anyone respond in a satisfying manner to Agrippa's challenge to the dogmatists.

because — Paine

Si, si, señor!

What does PSR refer to? — Paine

The principle of sufficient reason.

Yep, math (Euclid) is axiomatized, to the extent possible. However, assuming a set of axioms in other areas flies against the principle (PSR) that all statements need to be proven (no flat assertions allowed).

God exists! Don't you want to ask why?

:up: Danke!

:zip: I have nothing more to contribute.

works — 180 Proof

A lot rides on that word, I can tell you that. Predictive power has been a much sought after item since antiquity, I'm not sure though, but still what else could "works" mean in this context?

Is the claim reason is the gold standard when it comes to discovering truths justified. This begs for an argument, but that would be assuming what needs to proven (circulus in probando) and that is a cardinal sin as far as reason goes.

Skepticism is self-refuting, I agree, but Cassius did manage to murder Caesar even if he did suicide later on. If you disagree, please explain why?

Our reason tells us to suffer almost anything to avoid death. — Bartricks

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

Animals have been vivisected, by the father of modern philosophy René Descartes even (imagine that!), and yet the thought of suicide never, I mean never, crosses their mind! Curious, very curious!

I'm more interested in what they are not showing us! Does anyone have any expertise in infrared technology? If yes, could you please, please, clue us in.

absence — Gnomon

How many bits (of information) is absence? A hint: Any letter in the English alphabet e.g. "a" is 1 byte in Windows text document. Even empty space (absence) " " is 1 byte.

By the way, arigato gozaimus for the patience you've shown me as you walk me through this.

Don’t get what you’re asking. — schopenhauer1

P:smile: In the long run ... it doesn't even matter.

:smile: I don't wanna repeat myself.

Do you see a distinction between a cause and a reason? — schopenhauer1

A superb question "because" ...

@schopenhauer1

(I think) plants reason (without a brain): I saw this cactus plant outside my sister's house. I noticed that its body is flat & almost vertical. My hypothesis: The catcus has this shape because it wants to present the least surface area to the sun at high noon when it's hottest to reduce water loss via evaporation. However, it needs light for photosynthesis and its flat body ensures that it harvests light maximally during the cooler mornings & evenings.

:cool: :flower: Awesome!

Superb! Even so, in my humble opinion, there hadta be at least one argument for democracy - the PSR requires this to be so. It can't be that the Greeks got outta bed one fine morning and decided let's try democracy for a change - I'm certain that the Greeks knew the aphorism if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I get it that Dewey is merely describing democracy and that, inter alia, it's about "freedom" (it is definitely less oppressive than tyranny, but then, democracy doesn't automatically lead to happiness whatever that is; something's missing, oui? Perhaps we're dealing with pseudo-democracy or something like that).

I could be horribly wrong about all this of course.