There is a subtle difference in some systems of logics between a statement, that is "just made" and a statement which is "proveably true".

In the type of arguments we deal with, an argument is valid if the truth of the premises entails the truth of the conclusion, and an argument is sound if it is valid and its premises are true. — Michael

If that is so clear, why do you say "the truth of the premises" and not just "the premises"?

That is the bit that most people lose, I think, that all conclusions are of necessity assumed in the premises. Logic is useful revealing novel relations given a particular set of rules, but cannot reveal rTruths. — Ennui Elucidator

This made me think a little.
If for example, the grass is wet, it has to have become wet somehow. If we were in a world where this can only happen by rain, the conclusion clearly is that it must have rained.
Though this is different from "it rains" or "it rained" it is an extension knowledge. Both "rules", seen for themselves, do not have a relation to each other and do not tell you that you have to apply them together. The system is more than the sum of the parts, so to speak. If taking the already implied as "given" we forget that someone still has to do the conclusion.

You will not feel the (past) rain because of such a conclusion, of course.

I've said; the premises being true are what make it sound. — Michael

In my mathematical understanding soundness merely means coherence, that is, freedom of contradictions. Logic can determine that a set of premises /cannot/ be true or show that the truth of a given conclusion holds under given premises and derive such already implied conlusions.

This seems to have the advantage, that we can separate "discussable" statements like if the cat is really on the mat or if it is not because two paws are outside already from the purely deductive part of reasoning.
In the OPs example one can disagree with (2) or even with (1), but if agreement is reached on both points the conclusion should be implied. That or we have a very different way of thinking...

What is philosophy? — Bret Bernhoft

This is a really good question. As philosophy has so many shades, this list surely is to be continued:

- The preoccupation with the world without knowing what one is talking about
- The expression of such abysmal boredom that she has to invent her own subject
- The only sience not good for /anything/
- The exploration of possibilities that get never relevant
- The honest search for the nature of absolutely nothing

I do not see how books full of contradictions could be subject of a logical analysis.The result of reciprocity simply has to be that the assumption it was the ultimate codex would lead to the conclusion, that it is not.
Hence (2) does not seem to hold.

Is it possible to give a rigorous definition of 'reality'? — Cidat

Reality is what puts limits upon the possible imageinations of the world. If a rational being cannot make itself believe that "x is true", "x is not true" is reality.

As for misplaced revenge, who do you think pays for most unwanted children? — tim wood

If an "unwanted (by both) child" exists this would indicate either lack of proper health-care or constitutional rape in the form laws. Both I am not concerned with here.
It is not only about money - this is just a form. If, for example, a man had ethical doubts about reproduction and simply does not want to be responsible in any way for children in the current context it is a hoax to take this to mean that, because in raw nature sexual activity seems to have a mainly reproductive function, to take this to mean that sexual activity in a modern social context served no other (function).
As the political climate would hardly permit to even have a serious discussion about the implied duty of a citizen to reproduce the population to have this broken down to purely material claims seems to have the greatest chance of success.
The purpose of sperm objectively seems to be clear, as is the purpose of blood. But that does not mean that a man has to use all his sperm for reproduction and it does not mean that it would prevent anyone to donate some blood to save victims of accidents. If I lend you a piece of property for a given purpose it is my right to withdraw this permission at any time - let alone if you use it for a different purpose. If I would simply give you a piece of property as a gift, you would have no chance to make me responsible in any way for the consequences of you using it in any way.
To cut this short: Sexual activity, due to legislation, always has an implied contractual character. My primary concern here was the analysis of the implied presumptions. I determined the collaboration of equals and the doctrine of free will as relevant social norms and came to the result that even less barbarian judictions than that of the state of Texas fail to provide sufficient reason for the wanted or unwanted material results of such activity. So far, so good - the less regulation, the better?

I would like to put something into consideration: If ashes really are ashes, it must have burnt. This is pure, infallible deduction from the conecpt. The only way to go wrong would be if ashes weren't really ashes. But then you are talking about something else.

That said, because a goal is always a potential future which one strives to make objectively real (here placing goals found in fantasies and dreams aside), a goal as telos is always found in the future. — javra

I kind of have to disagree with this. The intent of a deed is never found in the world. The deed in itself is a means to achieve the intent but never really "wanted", in the sense of being the primary intent or will of the subject. What is objectively found in the future are consequences of deeds, not intents. Consequences are concrete and detailed while intents are abstract and general.

So defining each, however, renders backward causation nonsensical. — javra

That wouldn't matter anyways. The objective reality (of consequences) is nothing that would have anything to do with understanding anyways. You might understand proclaimed intents or not but you surely can't understand matter.

What about X itself? — TheMadFool

In logic, the sentence "x exists" is ill-formed as the existential quantifier is missing qualification. x is defined by predication. If there is a term like "green(House)" this means being green (likely among others) defines/identifies the house. As far as such primarily sensual constructs go it might seem justified to eliminate the object altogether. However speaking of "senses" or preception can be suspected of being a reification: It makes no sense to say one could see if all one can see is "nothing" (sense without object): Just as "x exists" is ill-formed, so is the term "green" if it does not predicate something.
As far as logical judgement goes a green world cannot as well be blue as being green defines it's identity. It cannot even turn blue as then it would be something completely different.

So Kant differentiates between the reality of appearances, and reality as it is in itself. — Wayfarer

I would rather say he points out the necessity of the idea "thing in itself". This has nothing to do with reality. It is a model of dialectics. Hegel pointed that out in saying the "thing in itself" is not a mysterious unknown but nothing more than a abstraction. "Empty existence".

Does a tree fall in a forest where there is nobody there to see it? — Wayfarer

If it has been standing there before it must have fallen. In general, the tree might have a story to tell.
If I take your argumentative pattern and applied it, you would have a hard time convincing yourself of your own arguments as these words I type do not mean anything. It is just you.

Kant's philosophy has the same problem. He starts from a quite biased point of view, borrows common patterns of understanding and comes to conclusions that would have made those very conclusions impossible if applied in the first place. This, indeed, showcases a problem. But not primarily a problem with the understanding of reality, but in the attempt of coming up with a universal, isolated model of the mind.
Nobody needs to mathematically prove an "objective reality". People on philosophy-forums who, by their own term, cannot recognize themselves in a mirror disqualify themselves in a purely performative manner. Reality has always been a thing to deal with in practice.

To give another example: Whenever you do something on the internet you leave digital traces. It does not require anyone to actually view the logs for the traces to be there.

What I'm saying is that the observer brings an indispensable foundation to whatever understanding you have of the Universe, including the idea of 'an empty universe'. — Wayfarer

But understanding is something different than the actual happening. If archeologists or geologists tell what must once have happened the conclusion is of course an act of understanding. But how does that the affect the volcano? For itself the volcano does not depend on someone calling it "volcano".

A star is not considered alive but it certainly has an active role in sustaining it. — Benj96

Dying is no sufficient criterion for living, however. Plants are really special as they most often lack perceptible response to their environment. However there are plants seeking sunlight, they reproduce and even carnivore plants. Stars just happen.

I am just thinking about your undead universe and which insights applying that seemingly unusual predication may yield. If life is living, mind is dead.

And metaphysically? Being dead has a notion of pure passivity. This seems fitting for an "observer". As for most of the universe.

How could it be insignificant to someone if "alive"or "dead" applies to him? How could it be insignificant if he /is/ alive or dead?

Alright, then. Philosophy obviously did not succeed in developing a concept able to grasp "being". There is the unproven assumption the OP is "aware" as well as the unproven assumption the bricks in the wall are not. How should philosophy come any step further from that? In scientific terms it is easy to say what is alive and what is dead as there are strict criteria. So, given, calling the universe undead as there are only some things fulfilling the "living"-criteria holds, ignoring the problem where to draw lines between organisms and such (think of viruses), is the pure mental observer even "alive"? I guess it's not.

You seem quite obsessed with the life/death and metamorphosis theme. What makes you speak of life and death in the first place?

There's also no reason business has to play such a big role in society in general, especially in terms of owning the government -- which should be of, by, and for the people (supposedly). — Xtrix

That is a little too idealistic, I guess. You are talking about the means of ppl to reproduce themselves. Material conditions. It could be said, the only ethtically responsible opportunity to speak of "the society in general" is when it is about business.

Yet what can be less democratic than a capitalist corporation? Why is that acceptable? — Xtrix

Because it is formally one's own choice to sell one's labor to any single corporation. The argument of "freedom" is often brought when facing ppl doing things that aren't good for them. Referring you to Marx is too easy on this. By voting or working in such corporations ppl implicitely agree to and reproduce how things are handled. Which could be a strong ethical argument for an unconditional basic income if you ask me. On the other hand, again, this is way too idealistic. One would have to turn on the calculator to know for sure if it is an ethical argument or not.

Only if comatose patients retain a unified identity, which arguably they don't. — bert1

How can you even speak of them as the same person then? Either the unconscious peron is the same as the conscious person, or it is not.

I am talking about violence without a solid base. — javi2541997

But what could such a "solid base of violence" be?

This a problem we have to face then. This is why I want to develop a criteria where probably ethics can lead us in a more pacific relationship. Despite the fact most of the people want confrontation, doesn't mean endless discussions are clueless or worthless. To be honest I defend if we develop more dialogues probably we would limit or avoid wars, riots, chaos, etc... — javi2541997

So you think that riots, war and chaos in themselves are "the problem"? I do not buy this for just one second. There have been to many of those who were legitimated by history.

What you don't want yourself, don't do to others. This is the Golden Rule with negatives, and so sometimes is called the "Silver Rule." This version is more in the right spirit of morality, which is to prohibit harmful and unjust actions or violations moral autonomy. — javi2541997

You have to see the shortcomings of such platitudes. A very raw person might actually prefer a bodily confrontation to endless discussions. The range of what is deemed socially acceptable is defined by the neccessary conditions for the reproduction of the ruling class.
Anything threatening those conditions gets suppressed by means of force far beyond a single persons abilities. Even democratic ideology tends to (falsely) recur to "quantitative justifications" (i.e. greater benefit for more people) when confronted with this.

Are we “free” in a society?

It has always been a prime directive of philosophy to show that people are free not just despite any regulations or limitations but because of them.

There is a difference in meaning between ‘it is warm’ , which doesnt necessary require a subjective experience ( I could be looking at a thermostat) and proclaiming that it is I who feel warm. — Joshs

There is.

And what about my pain?Does it make sense to ask if it is ‘I’ who am in pain? — Joshs

Not if you are a solipsist, for example.

Is my pain the same thing as ‘there is pain’? — Joshs

That also depends on certain assumptions.

We all do, according to studies. — Joshs

But this was not exactly the initial question.

And what about the use of the world ‘I’ here? — Joshs

Is that also related to "modalities"?

We can talk about the feeling of warmth in the abstract , in third personal terms, but when I have a personal feeling of warmth, does it makes sense to ask the question, ‘is it ‘I’ who is feeling warm’? — Joshs

It makes sense to ask if it is warm. If you say "it is", where is you?

You are not only aware of the warmth. — Joshs

This again is an assumption. It just is warm.

You are also aware of the mode of subjective access to the experience. — Joshs

Experience? Do you mean the existence of the warmth? I try not to make an assumption here.

One is not only aware of an experience but can report what modality the experience arose from. — Joshs

So you relate the existence of the warmth to "modalities"?

I am not only are aware of smelling the rose, I am aware that it is I use smell the rose. Ther is what, after Nagel, they call the feeling of what it is like to experience anything, a quality of for-meness’ that attaches to all my encounters with the world. — Joshs

Of course you can just say it is that way. You say it is your encouters therefor there must be you - but where is the proof? Maybe the warmth just IS warm.

when we search for ourselves what we find is always reshaped by exposure to an outside — Joshs

Where do you find yourself at all? All there is is the things that are there...

Consider the following: two people from thousands of years ago can meaningfully talk about their minds, agreed? — RogueAI

I would not agree to that. It was already pointed out that all content that could be meaningfully be talked about is something that is for sure not the mind. And of what two people are you talking? You cannot even prove or be sure there is anyone to talk with. Who of both is you?

Although the 1914 Black Notebooks already include some anti-Semitic paragraphs, it would be very difficult to see them reflected in Being and Time. — David Mo

May be, may be not. E.g. Kant pointed out that synthetic judgements are an ability, not a necessity.

I'm not familiar with those. I read Nietzsche at 14, and haven't found the need to read him again. I'm mostly interested in eastern philosophy. — Pop

Really? I wouldn't think of his works as literature for under-aged. But I guess that doesn't matter if it was useful... As for the eastern philosophy - I'm afraid I cannot help you with that: I barely know the yin-yang principle.

In the context of the times, I think it was a step forward, though ultimately it was the wrong step.
In the east they landed on consciousness, and I think this resulted in a much better understanding. — Pop

I cannot help but associate the "thinking oneself" with Heidegger's Nietzsche Lectures in Nazi-Germany. I'm sorry.

I think its a matter of interpretation. I believe he could have gone further, and landed on consciousness, but then he would have challenged the soul and the clergy, so we have what we have. — Pop

So... you do not arrive where you started? Then it was a step forward!

I think its fairly obvious that all is ineffable without consciousness, beyond this I'm not really sure what you are asking? — Pop

Oh, that's really Descartes matter, I guess. He lands at "being", not at thinking. He did not state a tautology.

It would be impossible to reach such a conclusion without consciousness, hence we start with consciousness. — Pop

Okay, and... do you make the conclusion?

I have simply stated that B will continue to vary with A. — Pop

Okay, you didn't take this from the text, though. In fact, in the example given above, B may apply while A does not.

Are you arguing that being is a fixed quantity? — Pop

I am arguing that from
1. A=>B and
2. A
B can be concluded.