"In Roman stoicism..." Can you please cite your sources for this affirmation?

Introduction to Formal Logic by Peter Smith. Covers the basics, from propositional logic to first order logic. Instead of using natural deduction, it focuses on more mechanical proof techniques (such as tableau method)

How to Prove it by Daniel Velleman. Gives a brief introduction to propositional and first order logic. Doesn't delve much into formal logic; it's geared more towards people who need to learn how to prove math theorems.

I agree with you. That is why I asked Terrapin Station to clarify his position, for it seems to me he asserted that the purpose of Philosophy is to gain more knowledge about "what the world is like factually" and thus philosophical writings cannot be used in a therapeutic manner.

I hold that they can be, and often are and have been, used in such a manner. In helping you "understand what the world is, rationally", they can radically change your belief system, the way you think, help you see things more clearly. They can help you "better yourself".

Philosophy helps you acquire facts about the world? i.e it helps you see "what the world is like factually"?

It could well be that " 2+2 =4" is true for all humans, if not " universally true", whatever that would mean. Such relations are just presupposed in our reasoning, a core component in the lens through which we view the world a la Kant.

Slightly different proof:


1- Fx' ∧ ∀y(Fy ⊃ y=x') Existential instantiation (P1)
2- Gy' ∧ ∀y(Gy ⊃ y=y') Existential instantiation (P2)
3- Fx' Simplification (1)
4- ∀y(Fy ⊃ y=x') Simplification (1)
5- Gy' Simplification (2)
6- ∀y(Gy ⊃ y=y') Simplification (2)
7- ¬Fx' ∨ ¬Gx' Universal instantiation (P3)
8- ¬Fy' ∨ ¬Gy' Universal instantiation (P3)
9- ¬Gx' Disjunctive syllogism (3,7)
10- ¬Fy' Disjunctive syllogism (5,8)
11- Fx' ∧ ¬Fy' Adjunction (3,10)
12- ¬(x' = y') Identity (11)
13- Fx' ∨ Gx' Addition (3)
14- Fy' ∨ Gy' Addition (5)
15- ∀y(Fy ⊃ y=x' ∨ y=y') Addition (4)
16- ∀y(Gy ⊃ y=x' ∨ y=y') Addition (6)
17- ∀y(Fy ⊃ y=x'∨y=y') ∧ ∀y(Gy ⊃ y=x' ∨ y=y') Adjunction (15,16)
18- ∀y[(Fy ⊃ y=x'∨y=y') ∧ (Gy ⊃ y=x'∨y=y')] Universal distribution (17)
19- ∀y[(¬Fy ∨(y=x'∨y=y')) ∧ (¬Gy ∨ (y=x'∨y=y'))] Implication (18)
20- ∀y[(¬Fy ∧ ¬Gy) ∨ (y=x'∨y=y')] Distribution law (19)
21- ∀y[(Fy ∨ Gy) ⊃ (y=x'∨y=y')] Implication (20)
C - ∃x∃y[ ( ( (Fx ∨ Gx) ∧ (Fy ∨ Gy) ) ∧ (x≠y) )
∧ ∀z((Fz ∨ Gz) ⊃ (z=x ∨ z=y) )] Existential Generalization (12,13,14,21)

I re expressed some of the formulas. Proving the conclusion using the 3 premises would be equivalent to proving that the initial implication is true.



P1: ∃x(Fx ∧ ∀y(Fy ⊃ y=x) )
P2: ∃x(Gx ∧ ∀y(Gy ⊃ y=x) )
P3: ∀x(¬Fx ∨ ¬Gx )

C1: ∃x∃y[ (
( (Fx ∨ Gx) ∧ (Fy ∨ Gy) )
∧ (x≠y) )
∧ ∀z((Fz ∨ Gz) ⊃ (z=x ∨ z=y) )]

Hi. You could try breaking the implication into smaller expressions and treating them as an argument. You have 3 main conjuncts in the antecedent; treat them as your premises.
Treat your consequent as the conclusion you want to prove using the 3 premises.

Hello. Can you please state what you understand to be a tautology?

If someone asks a mathematician or logician to prove "1+1=2", they will do so using axioms and theorems of arithmetic. They will not take it as self-evident.

People do not exist in vacuums. Z entrepreneur is not solely responsible for starting "massive industrial production". He is relying on existing societal systems, technology, knowledge, and on the labour of others.

As such, without X societal conditions, Y entrepreneurial project cannot materialize. Therefore, profits coming from such projects were not generated solely by Z entrepreneur, not even mostly by him, and he doesn't deserve most of the profits.

As others have mentioned, Z is replaceable in regards to whether Y materializes or not. X isn't.

But most Z don't believe this. They believe they come out of vacuum, that they deserve most of the wealth being produced by Y, never taking into account that without education and nurturing provided by society, they wouldn't be Z at all.

I think what Sapientia is saying is that society should, justly, get more of the wealth produced by Ys.

As to what's wrong if 1% of people own 99% of the wealth, Baden and Erik already spoke beautifully on the topic.

"And which of you, by being anxious, can add even one hour to their lifespan?"

Even if a whole society is dysfunctional (which is most probably not the case), you can still choose to persevere and strive for excellence (or so a Stoic would usefully say, I think).

Interestingly, one of the biggest misanthropists of all time, Louis-Ferdinand Destouches, is said to have dedicated much time to medically treating poor people (for free, by some accounts).

We have been put to sleep, as it were, by the mass-media wielding masters of mankind, so that they can more easily go about their business.

At least that is my opinion. It is also my opinion that a change of emphasis in this value-assigning apparatus is needed for a revolution to take place.

It is not enough that the working class realize they're being screwed by an elite. There must be a shift in the general perception of what the "good" is, else a revolution will only breed new systems of oppression and evil.

It is obvious, you've said it on multiple previous occasions, that you don't believe in there being truth or falsity in judgements concerning such things.

But, are you willing to admit the possibility of this being at least partly a result of your being sheltered from other, crappier, uglier, conditions of life? Perhaps being a victim of torture, rape or other forms of extreme suffering would kick start new considerations on moral realism?

Mm, maybe those were too extreme examples, but they get the point across. Much less intense instances of suffering are usually enough to change people's minds.

I'm curious as to how you perceived that chapter in which Alyosha dreams about the marriage at Cana. Well, maybe not how you perceived it, but how did it impact you?

You see, this chapter, along with that scene from Zerkalo which I asked you about in another thread, hold special emotional/intellectual (that's to say, integral) significance for me, such that I dare not bring them to mind in detail unless I believe myself worthy of it (and I'm mostly not).

Never mind, I don't expect them to similarly affect others... but still, I'm curious as to how this particular chapter struck you.

I wonder, is this condition of yours a result of some sort of hyper-normalization of the (I'm assuming) 1st World around you? Not often being aware of crappy and ugly stuff probably keeps that same stuff out of mind. Maybe being more intimately aware of such things would lead to, if not a denial, then at least a decrease of good feeling about the things in the world?

The scene that most stuns me from his films is the ending of Zerkalo. I don't feel at all apt to describe it, but how would you do it?

You cannot stop life. Even if all humans stopped reproducing and went extinct, there would remain most of the animals, which would probably flourish under the absence of humans. There would still be lots of pain and suffering, animals ripping each other to shreds over mating rights, hunting others for food, etc.; and over time, those remaining apes would probably evolve into more complex species similar to humans.

And even if you somehow managed to stop all life on earth, surely there must be life on other planets? We don't have evidence for it, but it seems to me a very plausible inference. But even if there was no life in other planets, the bacteria left over on earth would probably evolve into more and more complex organisms over time again.

Anti-natalist speak of some "solution" to suffering, as if they stand somehow outside of nature, judging it and coming up with ways to manipulate it. But the nature that permeates all is in them as well.

Anyways, just some views on it.