I was not aware of that, and that’s fine as long as we agree then that:
1. Not all people who lived in the culture of the Amalekites were Amalekites, since an Amalekite is a religious affiliation and those who lack the capacity or choose not to engage in it were not be properly affiliated. — Bob Ross
I find it implausible that no one in an entire city [...] [was] a person that disagrees with the cult but lacks the means to escape... — Bob Ross
No. It’s just regular old everyday knowledge. — T Clark
Okay, well these are clearly two different claims:
1. The cat is on the mat
2. I think that the cat is on the mat
(2) can be true even if (1) is false. — Michael
I think this is an argument I could probably make. Not so much that philosophers don’t have knowledge, but that philosophy does not involve knowledge. Certainly metaphysics doesn’t. Neither do aesthetics or morals. — T Clark
You said it's heresy. — Hanover
But, assuming we don't care about that, I'd say it's perfectly fine to say the OT and NT are incompatible and you've got to choose one, the other, or neither. — Hanover
But to declare which must be chosen because it's the correct one is simply to declare your God the true God and all other believers wrong — Hanover
1. The God of the OT commanded Saul to put the Amalekites under the ban
2. There were innocent children among the Amalekites
3. Therefore, the God of the OT commanded the killing of the innocent
4. The killing of the innocent is unjust
5. Therefore, the God of the OT is unjust — Leontiskos
I can’t help think it must be something like gnosis or one of its cognates - subject of that rather arcane term 'gnoseology' which is comparable to 'epistemology' but with rather more gnostic overtones. In any case, it is knowledge of the kind which conveys a kind of apodictic sense, although that is a good deal easier to write about than to actually attain. — Wayfarer
That is philosophy’s claim*, but it neither claims it “absolutely”, nor “locally”, as these are predetermined, created standards. — Antony Nickles
(* the claim is: "as long as I don't claim knowledge about what the [absolute] conception is, my talk about it can remain "local.")
I was with you all the way, until this. Maybe I'm not understanding you. Let's grant that both "absolute" and "local" are predetermined, created standards. How does this exempt philosophy from nonetheless speaking from one or the other? What would be the third alternative? — J
I do think Bob has clarified. He did say he didn't think the OT God was consistent with what he knew God was. And I do see why a Christian would need to sort out what is pretty clearly a change from OT to NT if there is a commitment they are the same. — Hanover
Marcion preached that the benevolent God of the Gospel who sent Jesus into the world as the savior was the true Supreme Being, different and opposed to the malevolent deity, the Demiurge or creator deity, identified with Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible. — Marcionism | Wikipedia
If your hermeneutic leads to inconsistency, you either (1) live with the inconsistency as not overly relevant, (2) declare humility and lack of grasp of the mystery, or (3) change your hermeneutic. — Hanover
God didn't write the Bible, so inconsistency should be expected and I choose a very non-literalist interpretation. — Hanover
My objection was to the suggestion of an a priori knowledge of God as being consistent with the NT and a declaration of invalidity to all other beliefs in God.
That is, an option 4 was being chosen. The OT was being rejected as invalid. That's the equivalent of me saying the simple solution is to reject the NT. That would work too. — Hanover
Honestly, you're coming across as kind of clueless. — frank
This isn't my position. It's Bob Ross's. He said the OT description of God wasn't God, and I said if it's not, the he saying those who do accept it as God don't believe in God. — Hanover
I never did. I've been consistenly open to other interpretations. I've only pointed out that if one claims to know what the true God is and then you claim others don't adhere to it, then you're just telling me your religion is right and mine wrong. — Hanover
It seems like God in the OT is not really God. — Bob Ross
is where you present Christianity as The truth. If one is Christian, they'll say Amen, if not, then not. — Hanover
not everyone who relies on the Bible relies solely on the Bible for all direction — Hanover
Does this help with the puzzles of how and why and whether they ought? — bongo fury
The vertical part of the symbol is not just signifying some act of judgment it seems, rather “the judgment stroke contains the act of assertion”(I3). This raises the question whether the judgment stroke is a sign signifying an act or whether writing it actually effects the assertion. — Frege, Russell and Wittgenstein on the Judgment Stroke, by Floor Rombout, 11
The issue here is that we reason discursively, and we do not (strictly speaking) ever simultaneously engage in more than one judgment. So when <I judge that I judge that a is F> there is at least a temporal distinction between the two instances of judgment, and in this case there is also a logical priority issue, i.e. one of the two judgments must be logically prior to the other.
So if Rodl wants to read that proposition as a non-temporal angelic intellection, it won't make any sense. That is, if we try to make both instances of 'judge' temporally and logically identical, it won't make any sense.
One way for Rodl to dispute true recursivity would be to say that the only way to interpret <I judge that I judge that a is F> in a non-vacuous way is to interpret it as <I judge that I have judged that a is F>. — Leontiskos
Added: Just to be clear the Kimhi quote is against writing ⊢(⊢p → ⊢q), not ⊢⊢(p→q). — Banno
Instead of writing the whole inference, consisting of the three assertions “ ⊢ p”, “ ⊢ (p ⊃ q)” and “ ⊢ q” , Russell and Whitehead propose an abbreviation containing the assertions of the two atomic propositions connected by an implication: “ ⊢ p ⊃⊢ q”. Frege would consider this a category mistake; in the Begriffsschrift it is not possible to have a judgment stroke within the scope of a conditional.
...
A reason why Russell and Whitehead consider this abbreviation acceptable can be found in their explanation of syllogisms... — Rombout, 44-5
But I don’t get it. I can’t even figure out what the question on the table is. — T Clark
I agree with that assessment so far. It's the killing of innocents that my OP is objecting to: I recognize that the Canaanites were doing horrible things and a war against them is justified. However, that doesn't justify purposely attempting to genocide the people in their entirety. — Bob Ross
A nested judgment-stroke would not violate Frege’s logical vision; — Banno
You simply do not know what you are talking about. For Frege the notation is unified and continuous. The horizontal represents the content and the vertical represents the judging or asserting of that content. There is no such thing as a double vertical or a nested judgment-stroke. Here is Kimhi:
Since the vertical does not belong to the functional composition of a proposition, it has no referential import. This distinguishes it, within the Begriffsschrift, as the sole syncategorematic expression. The whole symbol governed by a judgment-stroke, for example, “⊢p,” is itself a syncategorematic unit since it cannot be embedded as a functional or predicative component within a logically complex whole. (In particular, it cannot be either a subject or a predicate term in a proposition.) As such, it cannot be repeated in different logical contexts, but can only stand by itself.
— Irad Kimhi, Thinking and Being, 41-2 — Leontiskos
I agree that it (the solution) must be about recognising the interplay of object- and meta-language. — bongo fury
"⊢the cat is on the mat"
and
"the cat is on the mat"
... A sentence is already an assertion sign. (I assert.) How does it end up needing reinforcement? — bongo fury
The prefix, however we phrase it - "I hereby assert that...", "I think that...", "I judge that..." etc - does seem to iterate naturally. — bongo fury
But we are not forced to that result [that philosophy is absolute knowledge]. The absolute status of philosophy would not be required just by their being some absolute conception of the world, but rather by our knowing that there was, and what it was. We have agreed . . . that we would need some reasonable idea of what such a conception would be like, but we have not agreed that if we have that conception, we have to know that we have it. . . . To ask not just that we should know, but that we should know that we know . . . is to ask for more – very probably for too much. — Williams, 303
In short, I can be right about this, but not assert it as a piece of knowledge. As long as I don't say I know that I've got it right, I've avoided the trap. — J
One problem I see, is that people vote for what's on the table. Not what they want. It's almost assured that any vote does not give us actual public opinion. — AmadeusD
Therefore, lawmakers have to be quite reticent, in lieu of a binding referendum, to give a piss about it. — AmadeusD
I want to at least listen to those 18 minutes to refresh my memory, but I will set out the basic argument after I get around to that. — Leontiskos
Thank you: I will take a look! — Bob Ross
Like I noted before, it seems somewhat plausible but still has issues. — Bob Ross
But we are not forced to that result [that philosophy is absolute knowledge]. The absolute status of philosophy would not be required just by their being some absolute conception of the world, but rather by our knowing that there was, and what it was. We have agreed . . . that we would need some reasonable idea of what such a conception would be like, but we have not agreed that if we have that conception, we have to know that we have it. . . . To ask not just that we should know, but that we should know that we know . . . is to ask for more – very probably for too much. — Williams, 303
I think this is ingenious. — J
[Philosophy can't] claim to be absolute knowledge. — J
But what if we accept the idea that science aims to provide that knowledge, and may be qualified to do it? What does that leave for philosophy to do? — J
Amusingly, the refutation could also go the other way – philosophy would be shown not to be an absolute conception! — J
Yes, your summary of my argument is correct. I am curious what your thoughts are on it. — Bob Ross
I listened to Jimmy's video, and it was good: I could see that as a semi-viable solution to the conquest of Canaan. However, the fact that... — Bob Ross
I would be interested to hear Leontiskos response to this. — Bob Ross
Regardless though, exceedingly few religions do (2) as (1) says.
Those who practice according to the Old Testamant, those who practice according to the New Testament, and those who rely upon no text at all for some reason pretty much lives their lives the same morally. — Hanover
This is the argument that appears here every few months if not more often. — Hanover
I already said what I did say... — Banno
If you reject the notion that philosophy has aims, then how do you avoid the implication that philosophy is aimless? — Leontiskos
A nested judgment-stroke would not violate Frege’s logical vision; — Banno
Since the vertical does not belong to the functional composition of a proposition, it has no referential import. This distinguishes it, within the Begriffsschrift, as the sole syncategorematic expression. The whole symbol governed by a judgment-stroke, for example, “⊢p,” is itself a syncategorematic unit since it cannot be embedded as a functional or predicative component within a logically complex whole. (In particular, it cannot be either a subject or a predicate term in a proposition.) As such, it cannot be repeated in different logical contexts, but can only stand by itself. — Irad Kimhi, Thinking and Being, 41-2
VISITOR: I think I see a large, difficult type of ignorance marked off from
the others and overshadowing all of them.
THEAETETUS: What’s it like?
VISITOR: Not knowing, but thinking that you know. That’s what probably
causes all the mistakes we make when we think. — Plato, Sophist, 229c, tr. Nicholas P. White
What do you guys think? — Bob Ross
Good and evil creatures like pleasure and suffering, respectively, and dislike suffering and pleasure, respectively, as well. — MoK
Williamson begins by claiming (uncontroversially) a shared lineage for science and philosophy, and he mentions the relation of science to philosophy at several points. — Srap Tasmaner
I don't think one can discuss "better or worse" while denying ends completely. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Exactly.
Banno, you seem to be rejecting the ‘best’ and the ‘worst’, while seeking to retain the ‘better than’ and the ‘worse than’.
But to do this, you are saying “one thing is better” which means, between the two things, one is best and the other isn’t. — Fire Ologist
we don't need an absolute standard in order to be able to say that one thing is better or worse than some other. — Banno
This is the modus operandi of J and @Banno. Someone claims that there must be some criteria and in response there is an immediate equivocation between some criteria and specialized or qualified criteria. For example... — Leontiskos
There's a difference between a standard and an end. — Banno
Further, I'm not sure if "how a practice normally works," allows us to speak of "better or worse." It merely tells us about what current practice is, and if we are deviating from it. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Oh, Leon. That's so far from what was actually said. — Banno
We need not assume [...] that we must have an aim. — Banno