P1 or P2, do you have a problem with? — MoK

And I didn't say that you have a problem! — MoK

You did.

What are the relevance between P1) and C1)? How does C1) derive from P1)?

#1 C1 follows since the experience does not have the capacity to be coherent, given its definition. Therefore, we need a substance that contains the information and is also coherent. — MoK

This conclusion doesn't have logical consequence from P1), and sounds ambiguous in its claim.

Both. I don't have problem. Just pointing out the problem in the statements.

C1 and C2 follow from P1 and P2 respectively, each is a form of Modus Ponens. — MoK

You seem to be misunderstanding what Modus Pones is, and how it works.
MP is in the form of,
P -> C
P
C

You must demonstrate and prove why P is the case, before concluding C. You cannot just say something as P, and just because you said P, C follows from P. There is no relevance or any logical consequences or entailment between P and C in your statements. In that case, you cannot come to conclusion C from P.

So you should conclude "Hence the argument is unsound', instead of the following: — Metaphysician Undercover

Doing so without clear evidence or information of the type or nature of the distance in the track would be commiting a fallacy of illicit presumption. Until all is clear and evident, the argument must be judged as invalid.

t if the reasoning is valid and the premise is false, then the argument is valid but unsound. — Metaphysician Undercover

Depending on the type of two points in the distance (which is not clear in the OP), the conclusion can be true, which makes the argument invalid.

Think of the case where the two runners are running around a circle, not a straight line. When A takes over T, he is still behind T in the circle. A must run again to take T over, but when he does, he is still behind T and so on ad infinitum, which makes the conclusion true, and argument invalid.

It's better to say that those conclusions are unsound rather than invalid. — Metaphysician Undercover

Unsound argument means the premise was false, and also invalid reasoning was applied for the conclusion. Here reasoning seems valid, but the premise was false, which led to the false conclusion. Hence the argument is invalid.

To be precise, conclusion is either true or false, but arguments could be either valid or invalid. If the conclusion was true and followed from the premise, then the argument is valid and sound. If the conclusion was false and had false premise, then the argument is invalid and unsound.

Arguments can be valid if it followed from the premise even if the conclusion is false. Argument is invalid, if it didn't follow from the premise even if the premise was true. Do you agree with these points?

The statement P -> Q was false could have been proved via MT.
P -> Q
~Q
~P

That assumption does create a measurement problem. So unless we think that measurement problems are good, then I'd say it's a wrong assumption. — Metaphysician Undercover

Correct. Wrong assumptions lead to invalid conclusions. End of the story. I think I wrote this point a while back in the thread.

, it is simply assumed that divisibility is infinite. — Metaphysician Undercover

An obvious wrong assumption?

logical like Russel or Wittgenstein — Tobias

From my experience of reading the posts written by so called the analytic folks, some of them seem to suffer from total lack of, or narrow and shallow knowledge in history of philosophy, grave misunderstandings on, or total lack of the basic knowledge of logic, and delusions of self grandeur symptoms, which make them think that anyone who doesn't agree with their views must learn from them. Hence the reason, having the second thoughts, reluctance and caution on accepting the school itself as an ideal philosophical methodology, or associating with the name in any degree. It gives impression that whether the symptoms could be the negative effects from reading the philosophy.

I do not know if there is one 'legitimate' conception of philosophical analysis. — Tobias

I would say my philosophical method is not analytical as such, because I have never read analytical philosophy much.

I would rather think my method could be the Socratic methods which utilises the natural reasoning seeking for the proper definitions and commonsensical reasonableness in the discussions.

Having said that, in fact analogy doesn't make much sense, if it is not supported by the arguments and evidence on why something works as it does, why something is the case, and why the analogy makes sense for the points.

Philosophy often asks and explains on "why" something is the case or works the way it does, while science does on "how".

I suggest that if you like to read Hegel you read him on his own terms and not provide your own assumptions as gospel. You reenact some kind of dualist philosophy of mind I guess, but that is not where Hegel is at. He does not abide by the categories of analytic philosophy. — Tobias

There are some common grounds between Hegel's philosophy and Analytic philosophy. They are not totally opposite ends with no common grounds. There are many analytic philosophers who are deeply influenced by Hegel such as Robert Brandom and John McDowell. I found parts of Hegel's writings in SL and PS highly analytic in fact.

Using the logical analysis on the original writings of philosophy is not just for analytic traditional folks. All philosophers do use the analysis for making the texts clearer and more understandable for us. Not doing so would be seen as acts of denying the legitimate philosophical analysis, and could even be regarded as acts of unnecessary and meaningless abstraction of the original texts.

Hegel is a monist. I do not understand what you mean here very well I think... — Tobias

Yes, you misunderstood me there. Everyone knows Hegel is a monist. I meant, from what Hegel was saying, Kant's dualism doesn't make sense, unless of course, Kant believed in the concrete existence of Thing-in-itself. He didn't.

Why saying the world beyond experience is unknowable makes Kant a dualist? "unknowable world" doesn't mean it exists. It is unknowable on whether it exists or not. I have been denying Kant was a dualist. Some other folks think Kant was a dualist. I hope this point makes sense. If not, please let me know.

Your explanation on dreams and awakening comparing with continuity and discontinuity was an analogy not identity you claimed. That is fair enough. But it seems that it could do with further investigation and elaboration on why we dream, and why do we wake up from sleep and dreaming from philosophical point of view would be interesting. It wouldn't be such a huge project for doing so. It would just require a bit further reasonings and inference on the topic I would imagine. It was only a suggestion.

Spirit is the idea that the movement of thought, its dialectical development in a process of position, negation and negation of the negation, permeates the whole of reality. — Tobias

This sounds ambiguous too. The expression "the movement of thought" doesn't make sense at all. Thought is always about something, and it always happens in the thinkers mind. Saying "the movement of thought" without any clarification, who the thinker of the thought is, and what the content of the thought is, saying thought is moving to some direction sounds like a groundless personification of thought, which breaks the logic of thought.

I think you have it the other way around. Spirit is not personified God, not at all, in fact, God is personified spirit. — Tobias

Saying God is personified spirit, that sounds like a religious claim. In philosophy, God is to be proved either via reasoning or presenting the evidence of the existence of God.

It is understandable to say spirit could be personified God as a part of assumptions or inferences for further arguments for the proof of God, but saying God is personified spirit sounds like the claimer has already accepted the existence of God without any proof or evidence blindly, which doesn't quite sound like a philosophical claim.

The comparison of a dream with a removable discontinuity is an analogy, not a complete identity. — Deep Kumar Trivedi

It doesn't seem to explain or help us understand why we dream or what is the nature of our awakening from sleep. You need to try to explain why and how we do so.

It is worth noting that in mathematics, a point is said to be discontinuous, while in the "function" of waking states, the discontinuity spans a duration. This analogy provides an intriguing perspective on the nature of waking states and their relation to dreams. — Deep Kumar Trivedi

Dreaming is a psychological event, and awakening is a biological function of a body. Dreams are devoid of any rational explanations on their origin and nature. Isn't it a categorical error to link dreams and awakenings to continuity and discontinuity, which are the concepts for the physical movements of objects or events?

Yes, Hegel goes beyond those limits. Somewhere, I believe in the Pheno, but perhaps in the Logik, he writes something along the lines of 'if you pull the curtains away, the room where the thing in itself is supposed to be, is empty'. — Tobias

So Hegel criticised Kant setting up his own system of philosophy.  But almost all the philosophers after Hegel criticised Hegel's philosophy, it looks.  Nietzsche doesn't appear to have engaged with Hegel's philosophy directly, but he seemed to have disagreed on Hegel's concept of absolute spirit quite understandably.  I, myself, cannot quite grasp what absolute spirit means.  It sounds like as you said, personified God, or could it be something else. I am new to Hegel, so trying to understand as much as possible from the discussions while reading some of the articles on Hegel as well as the original texts too.

 But why would anyone personify God?  It seems a futile and meaningless attempt.
Kant's thing-in-itself is only dualism, if one looks at Thing-in-itself as some concrete legitimate entity even if it is known to be unknowable.  It is contradictory, and as Hegel saw it as nonexistence and illusion, then it cannot be dualism anymore.

Knowledge of knowledge?  Knowledge must be true and verifiable as truth.  If not, it is not knowledge.  There are different types of knowledge.  Analytic knowledge is from math and geometry.  Empirical knowledge is from the observation of the world. There are also types of knowledge which is neither analytic nor empirical such as self knowledge or subjective knowledge on one's own mental state, which is private to oneself the owner of the mental state. But knowledge on God or the universe doesn't belong to any of these. Does Hegel deny then knowledge of God?

No, not at all. He uses spirit in a similar way like he could use a concept like 'substance'. However with 'spirit' he indicates that substance is not dead matter, but living, as in a 'spirited individual'. — Tobias

Not many folks used the concept "spirit" in their philosophy in history. Even Aristotle doesn't appear to have used it. Aristotle used the concept of soul which is close to spirit, but not quite the same. But then you mention substance and spirit, and I wonder what the relationship between the two concepts could be. Substance sounds like material stuff that things and objects are made of. Spirit sounds mental in its nature. Perhaps you could elaborate more on the two?

That we do not know something does not mean that we cannot know it. for Hegel we can know it as there cannot be anything apart from knowledge. — Tobias

In Kant, our knowledge is limited to what we can experience. Beyond that is the world of unknown. Some say that it is Kant giving room for faith alongside knowledge. Does Hegel go beyond the limit? How and what sort of knowledge is possible on the world of unknown in Hegel?

Reasoning is going on, but what reasoning is is itself a manifestation of spirit, the flow of the idea. — Tobias

I was thinking about what reasoning could be. There is no such things as reason, but reasonable acts, rational decisions and thoughts about the world, objects and movements.

Spirit sounds like the mind of the ghosts, i.e. the dead. Reasoning is the mind of the living. The fact that Hegel wrote about spirit sounds like he must have had believed in the life after death.

My idea on Will is in line with both Schopenhauer and Nietzsche's. I am still trying to find out on Hegel's idea on will.

This is interesting: — Gregory

Indeed. :grin:

Even Kant was branded as an idiot by Nietzsche.

Kant was already dead, when both were active in the univ. lecturing. Hegel's class was full with the students, while Schopenhauer class had 3 - 4. Schopen wasn't pleased.
Schopen's philosophy was largely based on Kant's system, hence he couldn't have had been overly and unfairly critical to Kant.

It’s important to be precise when discussing logical fallacies, as they depend on the exact logical structure in question. Hope this helps clarify! — Mrinmoy Roy

Your description seems to be based on the classical logic. Have you read about Relevance Logic and also the Entailment Logic, which use axiomatic proofs in the inferences?

I am going to keep it short, and if you want further discussion open a new thread on the topic, and I will engage with you, since FJ is one of the interlocutors I don't engage with on any philosophical topics.

You can read this article, if you are further interested on the topic before opening a new thread.

They say Schopenhauer hated Hegel for some peculiar reasons. :)

But the question I wish to ask is, in some sense, aren't all universal moral systems inevitably going to be flawed in some way and therefore rendered futile? — Dorrian

There had been some mad and deranged moral systems in practice in some parts of the world in the past. Who knows how the future generations will judge the current moral systems in place in the world.

They work together but also have their autonomy. Will is setting down the law of action in view of something seen by Reason for the reason that it wants it because it wants to exercise freedom. Reason is the seeing into truth — Gregory

Julian Young's book on Schopenhauer says Schopenhauer's Will was Kant's Thing-in-Itself (pp.54, Routledge, 2005, Schopenhauer, juilian young), and he was wrong.

but merely the manifestation of reason in the world. — Tobias

How does reason manifest in the world without reasoner or reasoning?

The world is not without reason, in the sense that what happens is rationally understandable. — Tobias

Isn't some parts of the world unknown, irrational and mysterious? We don't exactly know why the world exists, or how it began. Who was the first ever folk in the world? Does God exist?

So there might be a point that the paradox breaks-down as you move from physics to maths. An infinite geometric series in maths is inapplicable to a physically real distance. — Nemo2124

Isn't this an example where the false premises lead to wrong conclusions? Even if the argument appears valid in the form, it cannot reflect the true reality of the world.

Whether will is truly free with or without Reason is a good debate. — Gregory

The fact that we can perform actions driven by will means that will could combine with reasoning.
When reason and will combine, they become motivated actions.

But there are wills which operate in the bodily level seeking pleasures, comforts and life.

Schopenhauer's "Will" was without direction, ultimately free. Hegel says there is Fate founded on Reason. They are both right in a way — Gregory

It sounds like Will is some sort of agent or force with no principle on its operation. Is it something that is contrary to rationality or intelligence? All biological creatures seem to have will to life. For example, a spider will run for its life, when it is about to be stepped on, or vacuumed off from the floor.

Sun flowers keep turning to the direction of the Sun lights. All for their survival and growth i.e. will to life.
Could it be life force prior to intelligence or reasoning founded under the bio structured all living bodies?
Or could it be even one of the principles for the existence of the universe and world?

Or maybe will doesn't exist at all. It could be an illusion believing in the existence of will? Would it be rather intentions or motivations for the actions performed by the intelligent beings? There are reasoned actions as well as willed actions.

I recall reading that Schopenhauer criticised Hegel a lot. What was the main point of the criticism?

I never said I was better than anyone.  Maybe that's what you feel for some strange reasons. My postings are not about claiming one is better than the other.  They are about the different ideas on the topics from what I read from the other sources.

If you cannot accept that, then you can stop reading my postings.  I already have been staying away from your postings.

OK, good citing from Science of Logic. It is amazing to realise how Hegel's philosophy is largely based on the critique of Kant. That little edition of "Science of Logic" printed by Amazon is quite nice actually. Very concise and clearly translated.

When he performed that experiment, he discovered he could not make metaphysics a science in the same manner as the established sciences, — Mww

Doesn't Kant acknowledge that Metaphysics is not the same type of Science as the other Sciences?
To start, Metaphysics doesn't use experiments, observations, testing, measurements for its methodology. The methodology for Metaphysics is reasoning and logical thinking with the categorial a priori concepts.

So….what are those boundaries? Therein lay the key. — Mww

The full detail is in Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics.

even if it was my opinion, by recognizing the subjective natural of it, I’d keep it to myself. — Mww

I only mentioned it only as a response. A regrettable point not initiated by me. However, I welcome all arguments purely on the philosophical point of views supported by reasoning, logic and evidence on the topics and relating to the topics.

We don’t care that metaphysics works as a science just fine with respect to possible experience; we’d be in trouble if it didn’t. — Mww

It is not so much of our issue at this time of history whether metaphysics works as science or not.
We know what science and metaphysics are, and their shortcomings and capabilities too.

But you must be aware of the situation when Kant was alive. At the time physical science was taking over, revolutionizing the world, making the dominant subject metaphysics uncertain for its future.

Kant thought he could make metaphysics a legitimate science as physics or chemistry, by establishing its boundaries and domains where our reasoning can be applied like the other sciences, hence he wrote CPR.

Ehhhhh…..that’s a subjective judgement, better known as mere opinion, to which of course you are entitled. I don’t see it, — Mww

Of course you don't see it because you are not named in his scornful posts, and he treats you with respect for your condoning his nonsense. :D

It is not necessary to scorn and belittle others in the posting as he does. It is not the first time, and many folks noticed his problematic posts in that way in the past, and expressed their anger and frustration about the nonsense, but he still seems doing it.

I wouldn't have time to mention his name, if he didn't on mine. But he keeps doing it, hence just pointing it out hoping that he would stop self harming himself wasting his own time. If I find someone's posts poor quality and full posing with no substance in them, I would just walk away stop engaging rather than making any sort of personal comment on the poster. Life is too short for that sort of nonsense.

As usual Janus posts are filled with scorn, anger and hatred towards others, rather than anything philosophical. I was only giving the best answer to Paine, when he asked as if he were a school master interrogating his pupils.

We have had many discussions on CPR itself citing the original texts in CPR for months and months with @RussellA and yourself, if you recall. But the outcome was not very clear, at which point forced me switch to reading the academic commentaries on Kant.

In Kainz (GWF Hegel), spirit is divided into,

1) Subjective
2) Objective
3) Absolute

Which spirit has the esoteric aspects?