There is the loony left and there is also the gibbering swivel-eyed right. The main reason for this is that it's easier to call people names than to listen to them and answer their arguments. My mother used to parody the position by saying "I think the whole world is mad apart from me and thee. And I'm not so sure about thee."

O brave new world!

The family who just moved in will learn that there are some people who want them dead and others who will expel them if they say nasty things. What a jolly neighbourhood. Bet they wish they'd stayed where they were.

No. It's really interesting.

For example, Moore's paradox. I agree with the general direction of your solution. When I say 'It's raining' then I'm performing a speech act, perhaps more than one. One of the speech acts I'm performing is (usually) to express my belief that it's raining. And when I say 'I don't believe it's raining' I'm performing the act of expressing my belief that it's not raining. Now, the proposition that it's raining is wholly logically consistent with the proposition that I don't believe it's raining. But my expression of a belief that it's raining runs counter to my expression of a contradictory belief. Your example of angrily shouting 'I'm not angry' is very similar.

"Jus' sayin'..." Someone who says they are "jus' sayin'" is very rarely jus' saying something. They are usually disavowing a speech act, for example, making an insinuation or accusation, trying to provoke or similar.

Aristotle means one-to-one correspondence between 'problems' and propositions. He is defining a technical meaning of 'problem' to refer to yes / no questions.

"The difference between a problem and a proposition is a difference in the turn of the phrase.
For if it be put in this way, "'An animal that walks on two feet" is the definition of man, is it not?' or '"Animal" is the genus of man, is it not?' the result is a proposition: but if thus, 'Is "an animal that walks on two feet" a definition of man or no?' [or 'Is "animal" his genus or no?'] the result is a problem. Similarly too in other cases. Naturally, then, problems and propositions are equal in number: for out of every proposition you will make a problem if you change the turn of the phrase."

The context is Aristotle's aim to "find a line of inquiry whereby we shall be able to reason from opinions that are generally accepted about every problem propounded to us, and also shall ourselves, when standing up to an argument, avoid saying anything that will obstruct us."

He is trying to pin down the essence of logic as it applies to arguments about any subject at all, in order to avoid poor reasoning.

Aristotle does not think that the only problems we ever consider are yes / no questions. If that was what he thought, let's stop reading him now because that would be too dumb. And Aristotle may have been many things, but dumb was not one of them.

But something can be highly probable and people can feel uncertain about it. Conversely, people can feel certain about the most improbable things.

Although on reflection I'm not sure I agree with myself entirely.. A statement a belief can presuppose another statement or belief, I think.... It's so tricky that perhaps it's a case for not pushing too hard to find a rule where any rule will have exceptions!

Yes, there are things wrong with it and you've summarised two of those things. It's probably worth pulling them out separately. One is the problem of ascribing moral responsibility in the absence of free will. The other is the problem of distinguishing actions done under compulsion from those that are not, in the absence of free will in both cases.

Only people may suppose or presuppose. An act or process of becoming ("to become...presupposes") may imply or entail something. But an action or a process is not a person and so in a literal sense it cannot suppose, presuppose, assume, infer, assert or deny anything.

And yet it's quite clear what Schopenhauer means, assuming 'presuppose' is a correct translation. It's a harmless solecism or a hidden metaphor.

I am a leopard and look at my stripes!

Oscar Wilde on Dickens: "One must have a heart of stone to read the death of Little Nell without laughing."

Yes, and that self-exoneration is another thing that most of us share with X. We try to duck responsibility by pointing to circumstances or other people beyond our control. For we are sons of Adam and daughters of Eve. But X may be right. He may not be able to stop himself. It's hard enough for each of us to tell in our own case, never mind someone else's.

I mean we all struggle with distinguishing what is in our control from what is not and what is comforting and helpful to us from what is damaging and unhelpful and what is our personal responsibility from what is visited upon us by circumstances.

If the illness is like diabetes, then just as diabetes is incurable but can be managed by rational behaviour, e.g. compliance with a medication regime and lifestyle advice, then so can his OCD. It's not true to say: "I can't help having diabetes therefore nothing I do will affect the course of the disease."

I'm interested that you say you are not patient X. I think most of us are all patient X in one way or another.

Ten pity amulet? Wossat wennisoam eh? Brjzzz.

Schopenhau. Schopenhauer. Schopenhauest.

It's nice to know we are more privileged, better informed and cleverer than future civilisations. We have already established that we are far smarter than any civilisations of the past. So I guess that makes us really top diggety-dog all round. And yet. And yet. I wonder.

Some awkward ones to add to the Zeno card:
The Heraclitus card is a member and is not a member of the pack.
The Russell card both is and is not a member of all packs of cards that are not members of themselves.
The Plato card is not a physical card and can only be apprehended by the mind.
The Berkeley card sounds like a credit card.
No, The Berkeley card is a card only when it's being perceived.

Democritus was laughing because his atomic theory was intended as a joke and everyone took it seriously. If he had lived another 2000 years or so he would have found out it was true then he'd be laughing on the other side of his face.

Heraclitus was crying because he loved swimming but he could never step into the same river twice.

I hope that clears it up.

No. It's saying that it cannot be the case that A equals B and that A equals C and that B does not equal C. 'A' is a brain state and 'B' and 'C' are thoughts.

Yes, that's right. Same neuron-state, different thoughts. Therefore neuron-state does not equal thought.

No, neurons don't think. Here's a thought experiment to establish that.

Brain A in Human A. Brain A is in state S in 2018. Human A is wondering where his phone charger is.

Brain B in Human B. Brain B is in exact same state S in 1967 - every neuron, every chemical reaction identical. Human B is not wondering where his phone charger is.

I wish I could get elected simply by people reacting against other people who don't like me. I find it easy enough to get disliked and so success should be assured.

An inability to recognise metaphor is my own Achilles heel. Who would have thought that the inability to do something would reside in the foot?

Perhaps he hated someone so much that he could gas them without caring who else got gassed in the process. No more devious motive needed for explanation, surely? As to means, it seems that he had some gas. As far as opportunity goes, Assad and his buddies are right there in Syria.

As to winning the war, someone should point out to Assad that he has nearly won and that after he has finally won everyone will settle down nicely and no more violence or gassing will be necessary. Syrians will sit outside coffee shops reading the Arabic edition of The Guardian and playing Angry Birds on their smartphones. Perhaps we could give that job to Blair?

Well it does, but I'd rather it meant what you thought it did. Lord, I am unerstwhile.

Food for thought. Assad would have to be some kind of wildly crazy person to use chemical weapons whilst he is winning the war. Who would imagine that the despotic ruler of a country torn apart by violent fanaticism and tribal hatred could behave so immoderately?

That approach appeals to the core vote. He is the brave soldier at the frontier fighting against the self-serving hypocrisy of federalism. It's the Civil War brought up to date and transferred to the Oval Office.

Maybe if you had said all that in the original post you wrote and not tried to cram it implicitly into the single question Do Black Holes S*ck? then it would have got a more sympathetic hearing. Tell us about Kuhn and Zeno. Start a thread already.

Ha ha! I too remember reproachful looks from tutors, um, 40 years ago in my case, and I too wish I could pursue the discussion with more confidence rather than sinking into shame and pride...

I still think Aristotle, read as an answer to Plato's view, has a lot to teach us in this debate as in many others. He cuts to the quick. We know something is wrong or bad for us. We do it anyhow. Why? Well, bad habits.

How did you interpret the reproachful look? It might have meant "Aristotle solved this problem a long time ago, so there's no need to go over it all again." Or it might have meant "Go and read Aristotle and then come back with your critique of his arguments." Or any number of other things. I suggest asking him and then posting the answer here. The Stanford entry on desire and the list of citations suggest a philosophical ball in play rather than dropped.

Good questions. I think the way to influence the trajectory of a culture is first to adopt a different trajectory and then to gain the respect of others so that they will listen to you, then to rally a few followers and finally to promote your alternative way of living more widely. I have never seldom seen it done any other way. But most people don't even get to the first stage.

Bitcoin. I now realise that I cannot realise my assets.

Ambuggd - if I know what any of it means

I thought zing was how your heartstrings go on the bus when you're in St Louis.

http://www.metrolyrics.com/trolley-song-lyrics-judy-garland.html

I think the first trouble with the argument is that it slips from comparing humans "in many ways" to comparing them in one vague general way - "better / worse". Horses are better than lions at carrying heavy loads. We cannot conclude that horses are better than lions or that lions have less value than horses or that neighing quadrupeds have more worth than the roaring kinds.

Secondly, the argument equates moral value with other kinds of worth, e.g. wealth and intelligence. A separate argument would be needed to show that these two kinds of value are actually the same. I lose to you in every comparison of intelligence etc. And I am of exactly equal worth and human value. We need to see how those statements are inconsistent, if they are.

Sure, but the general point that "modern physics is up to its eyeballs in metaphysical commitments it has nothing to say about" perhaps applies. I hear the impatience in the replies of physicists to the question 'What came before the Big Bang?' or 'What caused the Big Bang to happen when it did?' and an apparent lack of awareness by both physicists and questioners that these are metaphysical questions but not necessarily irrelevant ones.

I think the idea of an initial singularity entails that the principle of sufficient reason is false but I've never seen a discussion of that problem - maybe because I haven't looked hard enough or because there is no entailment. Or because we can jettison sufficient reason without caring much. I don't know.

Sorry about the demeaning tone, Rob. I hid it behind Wittgenstein but it was there. That is a fact and cannot be denied. Irrefutable, even if I tried to refute it.

So let's grant for the sake of argument that there are no facts and nothing is true. Now what?

You did ask for something I consider a fact and my offering was based on your OP.

I quite like heebie-jeebies. The word, not the experience.

As we are posting gifs lifted from the internet of 1994, here is a dancing garden gnome:

[gif]Dancing garden gnome[/gif]

(Obviously you have to imagine it. Delicate sensibilities.)

I'll go for 2 + 2 = 4 or, if you prefer, 2 + 2 is not equal to a million camels. It's a sign that you are "doing philosophy" that you would even consider suggesting anything else. In life you would not dream of talking nonsense like that. But it is equal nonsense when "doing philosophy". One way of doing philosophy is recognising when you've started talking nonsense and asking why. In this case it's probably because you've got attached to this theory:

There are no facts.

The theory commits you to believing that 2 + 2 might not equal four. And so you go to ridiculous lengths to make the obvious falsehood consistent with the theory.

It's an example of what Wittgenstein calls being 'bewitched' by language. “The confusions which occupy us arise when language is like an engine idling, not when it is doing work.” (Philosophical Investigations 132).

For example, someone asks you if you have enough money for the cab home and your answer is - "I might have a million camels or four dollars." If it doesn't work in life it won't work in the philosophy lab either.