• Arguments in favour of finitism.
    ↪Mephist
    Quite. One halved is two, so by extension 1=2.

    What I've said is valid for finite lengths, but if it sounds incoherent it's due my inability to properly explain. I'm not sure how to remedy that.

    The best way I can put it is that one is the whole and thusly references all lengths without exception, and all lengths individually and as a contingent amount to one. The contingency of the whole amounting to repetition of one which derives distinctions precisely from the twists you mentioned.

    I'm really not sure how to put it better, ironically, as it all amounts to how you put it. :)
  • Is there such a thing as "religion"?
    A shaman is always religious because she or he is by definition a mediator between 'this world' and the entities — Matias
    Is a mailman religious?
  • Arguments in favour of finitism.
    ↪Mephist
    Sure you can.
    To illustrate, you can infinitely divide a finite thing - which provides the notion it is an infinite thing, with infinite parts.

    Now let's bring up the issue at hand.
    Two finite things which are according to the aforementioned - likewise two infinite things, don't intersect.
    But the idea is that two infinite things must intersect.
    And my solution is simple - the halves of the one intersect in sum.
    They are finite and likewise infinite - according to the aforementioned, and intersect either way you look at them.

    And this comes about, due to it all always amounting to one.

    Sure enough, you could just draw two lines that don't intersect and showcase that, but the two non-interlockers along with their void still amount to one.

    Point being, if there is one, the lines can and cannot intersect, and all parts amount to one.
  • Arguments in favour of finitism.
    Which of the two questions do you answer? both? — Mephist
    Quite.

    I thought this is obviously absurd. OK, if I have to say why: because infinite lines always intersect if they are not parallel, and finite segments can be not parallel and not intersect — Mephist
    Yeah, I got that, but don't see the problem with it - if you look at infinite lines as stretched out finite lines.
    You have two finite lines that are too short to intersect; you infinitely stretch them out and they intersect.
  • Is there such a thing as "religion"?
    But what is natural? Why do people yield to authority? — Future Roman Empire II
    donkey-and-his-carrot-vector-3866509.jpg
    Does this provide any insight?
  • Wiser Words Have Never Been Spoken
    ↪Pattern-chaser
    Lest you market it well, to which my faith holds stalwart. :pray:
  • Is there such a thing as "religion"?
    The basis for religion is the basis for science.
    The incentives are identical, though the paths may differ.

    You may cross the street by using the crosswalk, underpass or bridge; nonetheless you will be crossing the street, but you won't be crossing two of the three paths.

    So, to answer the query, there is religion, and it is not instigated by the provided list - but the list provides a sieve; one that may used for any activity.

    Much as how the distinction between technology and magic may be washed away, so the one 'tween religion and science, even if that science happens to be 'slicing bread'.
  • How would a Pragmatist Approach The Abortion Debate?
    To a pragmatist abortion is stagnation.

    Something that is indicated by William:
    What really is at stake in the Free Will debate is whether we believe we have capacity to create novelty. — rickyk95

    You're not saving yourself the trouble, you're sparing yourself the responsibility when you choose to abort.
  • Is positivism still popular?
    It's always popular - even in the dreary hallways of sod's nihilism, positivity persists through inclination.

    Keep your PMA high. :ok:
  • Get Creative!
    NfqWAbW.png
  • Kant's first formulation of the CI forbids LITERALLY everything
    Kant says only to act in ways that you would allow everyone to act, all the time. — Theologian
    And that works well, if you take in to account that Kant was being specific - of 'the box', as it were.
    If you go outside the box, then it might get a little washed out, but not to deny its specific application, as we'd simply end up in another 'box'. I'll hereby honourably name this the Matryoshkant.

    My response to that is that if you apply some creativity, you can describe any action in such a way that your description (or "maxim") also fits some behavior that you would never want to become universal. — Theologian
    Perspectively, you're on point.
    An easy example would be if two people who stood face to face held the maxim of 'always go right'.
    Though they go right, to each other they go left.

    If you blur the lines a bit, Kant's idea is fully valid in use with absolutes - but will get you dizzy if you try to apply it from a point of view/reference.

    Take, for example, what I am doing right now: typing a string of characters into a keyboard. Now, most of the time I'm completely fine with allowing everyone to do that. But if that string of characters happens to be a launch code that kicks off thermonuclear Armageddon, then I am absolutely not! So according to Kant, I must now and forevermore judge typing to be a deeply immoral activity! — Theologian
    No, no, no, my dear.

    I would say, that even though typing a string of characters leads to a thermonuclear Armageddon, the string itself is harmless. So you should not be judging the writing, but the intent behind it - which I would think is the whole reasoning behind Kant's proposition.

    In somewhat short: Typing is a neutral tool, like a stone. You may use it to build walls and temples or kill others.
    You should not be judging the stone, and thus applying your maxim to the stone - but to its intentions, building or killing. So 'tis not writing to be found deeply immoral, but the intent to harm - regardless of the activity.

    Or, in the immortal words of Saint Bartholomew, who himself was quoting from Homer, "You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't!" — Theologian
    That's a good one.
    But, the trick therein lies with 'You're damned'. You're damned a priori, so that's all that matters and the rest is filler. It would be the same if you weren't damned.

    You're six feet tall if you do eat an apple and you're six feet tall if you do not eat an apple.

    But will you be six feet tall if you do eat an apple or don't? This I do not know.

    Finally,
    Therefore acting on maxims is itself immoral! — Theologian
    I would be inclined to say this applies to vernacular maxims and their connotations, but not to absolutes who pertain but to themselves.
  • Arguments in favour of finitism.
    ↪Mephist
    They are. If you think otherwise, do please tell me why.
  • Kant's first formulation of the CI forbids LITERALLY everything
    Again, lying is wrong, so lying is always wrong, and it doesn’t matter what else the lie may happen to be: a beautiful sonnet, a sublime haiku, or an order for steamed hams. It’s a lie, so it’s wrong: end of discussion. — Theologian
    Lying through all those examples, is dirtying those examples.
    Which is to say, if in lying you happen to gift someone a gold ingot, you'd be gifting it with dirty hands.
    Yes, you're giving something precious and beneficial - but you're giving it away dirtied.
    So you're always detracting?

    As to the topic title, there's a bit of an issue.
    Let's run the ferris wheel again; I say it cannot forbid literally everything, without forbidding 'forbidding literally everything'. It nulls itself out, and allots for not everything - but anything.
    If it forbids literally anything, it would grant all choices, rather than null them out; and would make the statement much more practical, in the sense that you could maintain a stance of absolute good.
    Whereas you can't, if it forbids everything.
  • Wiser Words Have Never Been Spoken
    if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a dick, it's probably a duck — Pattern-chaser
    4PIH6OQ2.jpg
  • What is the difference between God and Canada?
    Incidentally, that means my own argument form is automatically valid, and everything I'm saying is true. Therefore you're wrong. — Theologian
    Could be. Could be that it's the opposite.
    But to be possibly either, it has to be both - is the absurdity I'm espousing.

    So to me, we're both right in a way - and we're both wrong in a way.
    Certainly, I understand the validity of every comment I am dissentive towards, if based on the author's meaning - though my vehemency masks that, and that's part of the game; the whole flux-crux-back-and-forth. It'd be awfully boring, and I believe incomprehensible, if I should be solely right - as then everything is nulled to a still frame, and it'd be kind of impossible for me to propose anything.

    So yeah, in a way I'm wrong; I would have to be.

    But that's not just a "neat trick:" it's a fundamental problem with your position. What you call "flux" I'm more tempted to call paradox. — Theologian
    As aforementioned, I get it - based on your perspective, but your paradox is not paradoxical to me.
    I've reconciled every paradox I've come across, so I'm neither livid nor avid of them.

    Here's another something: Take an object, make that object move in all directions with equal speed and that object won't move. The object is both moving and not moving. That's a subtle flux, one that applies to that 'neat trick'.

    Going back to that 'neat trick':
    Everything being objective allows for everything to be subjective by consequence; so the statement is just a trick of perspective, asking whether you view the whole or the sum of the parts.
    When you outline one, you inadvertently outline the other, with the same outline.
    Remove the distinction and the homogeneous relationship dissipates.

    Because I'm possibly a bad illustrator, try and think of it through the whole 'wavelength and particle' idea.
    Maybe that explains it better.

    I began with an a priori analytic argument in which I pointed out that your position can only be self-defeating. But I would like to conclude with an a posteriori synthetic one. — Theologian
    Not only self-defeating. But sure enough that's half of what it is, consequent of the other half.

    Have you ever been... dare I say it... wrong? Have you ever, for example, gotten up to go to the fridge to get a drink, thinking that there was one there, only to discover that there... wasn't? — Theologian
    Have I been wrong? In a way, to this day.
    Have I gotten up to go to the fridge to get a drink, thinking that there was one there, only to discover that there...wasn't? Not that I can remember, no.

    I'm a fumbling child, and that's my dance.

    Incidentally... You ever play Mage: The Ascension? — Theologian
    Incidentally... no.
    But I might, now that you've mentioned it... got tips?
  • What is the difference between God and Canada?
    But what then is a belief? — Theologian
    A thing that outlines another thing, supposedly.

    Are beliefs propositional? To an extent, everything is - this statement being indicative of that.
    So why does it matter?

    We may, perhaps, simply paint a picture that recomposes many different real-world elements that we have encountered. Dragons, for example, recompose the elements of reptilian scales, cyclopean size, and so on. All of which exist, but the totality of which does not. That seems fairly reasonable to me. — Theologian
    Again, I get your incentive.
    But I am inclined to repeat myself and say that the totality of it clearly exists, as the idea of dragons clearly exists. That it is not evident in the way that dogs are evident is irrelevant.

    To paint something, it is required that that something exists, otherwise as I noted - it is void of void.

    To say that that we cannot believe in that which is not objectively real creates all sorts of problems; the most obvious being what do we do when two different beliefs are flatly contradictory? — Theologian
    I don't see a problem. Relativity allows for both beliefs to hold true.
    Jon ate the apple and Jon did not eat the apple, are equally right.

    You can't reference something that, for lack of a better word, isn't.
    So both beliefs reference something that is; that is objectively real.

    A neat trick you could employ here is "It is objectively real, that there is no objective reality".
    And what that self-defeating position shows, if I should stand by my earlier statements, is the flux of things. It confirms and denies itself, one after the other. That's natural; life kills and death births.

    Because all propositions are true and are only true, the only logic that is applicable for describing such a world is a monovalent logic in which all propositions are true, and all inferences are therefore valid. — Theologian
    All propositions are true, but not only true. That's flux.

    The moon is made of green cheese
    Therefore Shamshir is wrong.     — Theologian
    Sure, in a way.
  • What is the difference between God and Canada?
    I can, after all, draw a picture of a dragon on a piece of paper. It does not follow from this that dragons objectively exist. — Theologian
    Well, yes - it does follow.

    What does not follow is that they can be found outside in the street - which would be subjective.

    How do you conceive what does not objectively exist? It's void of even void.
  • Values And Misuses Of Values
    morality was a bad thing because it, like everything else, can be used for wrong. — Ilya B Shambat
    How so?
    Morality by itself adheres to right-being; so without the addition of naivete it fails to harm.

    To elaborate, how is right used for wrong without being wrong?
  • Existence is relative, not absolute.
    asserted as a fancy word for "is" or "to be". — Merkwurdichliebe
    Deus Ex ist Machina. :up:
  • Art highlights the elitism of opinion
    ↪Arne
    Art is art - shapes and shades.

    All opinion does is fill up one's bag with groceries. Whether you fill it with oranges or mangos, portraits or a few squiggly lines, is all the same.
  • Get Creative!
    Here the tale, hears that ale - which does speak of doves at peaks never reached by the one who peeks at the never won.

    A fool afoot walks these lands, with lamb's wit and limbs for hands. A man's amends says 'I am end' and sways seas, seized by seeds. See, it is by them who bite him the nut racks, then it cracks.

    The breeze it breathes in to its lung that it slung over right, as to overt - I'd think it so, a thin kit of salt and asphalt under sole.
    Like bees it stings its things to defend its deaf end clouded out by the clowns who clawed it out, a crown in the sky, in disguise.

    So the stone fumbles down and this tone's mumbles drown out in draught or drought, by slot or sloth. Such is fate, for who searches of faith - he is last of eight who ate his fae. His time is lost, this time he lost.
  • Arguments in favour of finitism.
    ↪Wittgenstein
    No, I am not kidding.

    Here's an example - take a picture, 100 by 100 pixels.
    Infinitely zoom in - the picture is now infinitely large.
    Infinitely zoom out - the picture is now infinitely small.
    Each pixel within that picture is its own picture and has its own pixels.
    In the end - it all converges in to one; one picture, one pixel.
  • Arguments in favour of finitism.
    ↪Wittgenstein
    Infinity amounts to one.
    You take one and you start stretching it out; that's infinity.
  • Anti-Realism
    "When I look at the sky, the sky I see is inside my head. This means that my skull must be beyond the sky!"
    - Lehar     — Michael McMahon
    Or your skull is below the sky, and notes the sky through the imprint the sky leaves upon it - though it cannot directly note the sky.
    Of course going back to the original query, that begs the question, how does what shouldn't be there leave an imprint? And a different question: are you incapable of directly seeing the sky, even if you haven't done so yet?

    Superdeterminism: "not only is our behaviour determined, but it is determined precisely in such a way as to prevent us from seeing that the world is deterministic". — Michael McMahon
    Look at a multiple choice test.
    All the answers are predetermined, but you're free to pick whichever one you like.
    There's choice in chance and chance in choice. You're free to make of it what you will.

    Going back to:
    An antirealist is "a person who denies the existence of an objective reality". — Michael McMahon
    That would be self-denial.
    An anti-realist would have to deny his anti-realism to comply with it.
    Any imposition against reality is inescapably objective by itself, and likewise subjective when viewed as a part.
  • What is the difference between God and Canada?
    There is no God objectively, He only exists (arguably, but I hold atheism) if one believes in him — Grre
    Wouldn't something have to objectively exist as a prerequisite, to be believed in?
  • Counselling sub-forum?
    But, I think that at the very least we should have a counseling sub-forum for newbies seeking to further their interest in the field of philosophy. Many other forums, where rational enquiry is encouraged, have some form of counselling sub-forum to guide the youth of the world. — Wallows
    Wouldn't the Learning Centre fit that purpose?
    Specifically the Questions section?

    Plus I don’t think many people here are equipped to ‘teach’. — I like sushi
    A teacher's merit is his student.
  • What should be considered alive?
    Are you suggesting that if I pick up a baseball bat, then that bat would be part of me and therefore alive? — TheHedoMinimalist
    Yes, you would vivify the bat by extension; the bat will live through and as you.
  • Anti-Realism
    It gets deceived while dreaming — Michael McMahon
    How so?
  • What is the difference between God and Canada?
    Non-human creatures that are capable of valuing things I'd consider people. I wouldn't say that persons are/personhood is necessarily limited to humans. — Terrapin Station
    That's fair. :ok:
    Carry on.
  • What should be considered alive?
    ↪TheHedoMinimalist
    A stretch? Like how the arm is divided in to parts, and each part is just the arm extending or stretching itself out.

    And though you could consider the finger as an autonomous unit, it is a part of the arm and so virtually the arm. And its consequential action being autonomous as stemming (being a part of) from some autonomous action.
  • Anti-Realism
    ↪Michael McMahon
    Well, if consciousness cannot be an illusion, all that stems from it would be equally genuine.
  • Anti-Realism
    I was referring to metaphysical antirealism which is the idea that "nothing exists outside the mind". I was wondering what the scientific implications would be of such a viewpoint. — Michael McMahon
    Wouldn't the mind remain objectively real?
  • What is the difference between God and Canada?
    Only people value things. — Terrapin Station
    Well, not people - just creatures; but I digress.
  • What is the difference between God and Canada?
    And in the past the chemical that we currently call "salt" existed, but "salt," the name, the concept, etc. did not exist. — Terrapin Station
    Well, it probably did, but 'we' didn't know about it - so it wouldn't matter, much.
  • Get Creative!
    ↪Wallows
    You've done a fine service then; thank you! :up:
    One day that oat moat, will become an oat boat - so says the oat oath, brother. :pray:
  • Get Creative!
    ↪Wallows
    An auxiliary tale. :clap:
    Will you be releasing a sequel, maybe a prequel?
  • What should be considered alive?
    ↪TheHedoMinimalist
    Hence
    It too lives - perhaps in a different way — Shamshir

    The corpse lives on, imperceptibly so - if we should compare its life with a non-corpse's.

    On the side, you should consider the consequences of autonomous motion as extensions of the autonomous; simply put, vivifying the possibly otherwise dead.
  • What should be considered alive?
    That which motions - lives.
    Of course, what about that which motions not of its own accord - like a corpse rolling down a hill? It too lives - perhaps in a different way, it still remains an active participant.

    I suppose you could, given the aforementioned, deduce life is interactive.
  • Existence is relative, not absolute.
    ↪Banno
    Alright, continue wanting not wanting. :victory:
  • Arguments in favour of finitism.
    infinity is clearly not a number — Wittgenstein
    The number is one.
Home » Shamshir