Yep, your post refers to itself.

is self-reference inherently contradictory — Yohan

Not inherently.
It's just that, with self-reference, you have to be careful.
There are some further implications, like for self-knowledge.


• Self-Reference (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
• Logical Paradoxes » 4. Paradoxes of Self-Reference (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
• Self-reference (Wikipedia)

If I remember right, during the last election debates, Trump more or less threatened Clinton (on TV) due to something about an email server they had at home that might have received confidential emails. Don't recall his words offhand, but something like "Oh we'll be looking into that alright".

Why ain't anyone taking a good hard look at Trump's tax stuff and reporting back? Isn't this kind of relevant for a leader of a civilized society? :brow:

If the button would give relief to someone suffering from bone cancer, then yes; the rest, maybe not.

Well, that's just ...

LET ME BE CLEAR. I’M NOT IN COMPLIANCE. I’M IN DEFIANCE.
— Pastor Greg Locke; Jul 28, 13m:14s facebook av
THEY ARE TRYING TO SHUT OUR CHURCH DOWN. WE WILL NOT BE BULLIED.
— Pastor Greg Locke; Sep 1, 8m:31s facebook av

Is that ↑ what draws an enthusiastic crowd in the US?
Should they just be left to their own devices, and perhaps be asked to self-identify so others can keep a distance?



_{False claim shared by President Trump that only 6% of CDC-reported deaths are from COVID-19 is based on flawed reasoning (Pablo Rougerie; Health Feedback; Aug 29)
Still Confused About Masks? Here’s the Science Behind How Face Masks Prevent Coronavirus (Nina Bai; UC San Francisco; Jul 11)
How Well Do Masks Work? (Schlieren Imaging In Slow Motion!) (Jul 4, 8m:20s youtube)
Conspiracy theorist died Covid after trying to catch it to prove hoax (Jimmy McCloskey; Metro News; Jul 11)
Demagogue (Wikipedia)
Persecutory delusion (Wikipedia)
psychoceramics (Urban Dictionary)}

The worst thing to happen to Christianity as a whole. — Gus Lamarch

Luther's ideas were the initial crack that eventually destroyed christian hegemony in Europe and brought its secularization. A disgrace ... — Gus Lamarch

There's something more basic wrong here.
Those folk in these conflicts are supposedly talking on behalf of an almighty, caring deity, that could set the record straight in a heartbeat for all to see.
It sort of looks a bit like: if you're part of these conflicts, then you're part of the problem.
A presumption among them is that there already is a definite authority, except that authority is absent, quiet. No divine arbiter.
Kind of says something about the centuries of apologia.

All religions have their accepted dogma, or articles of belief, that followers must accept without question. This can lead to inflexibility and intolerance in the face of other beliefs. After all, if it is the word of God, how can one compromise it? At the same time, scripture and dogma are often vague and open to interpretation. Therefore, conflict can arise over whose interpretation is the correct one, a conflict that ultimately cannot be solved because there is no arbiter. — Eric Brahm

… religions create violence over four scarce resources: access to divine will, knowledge, primarily through scripture; sacred space; group privileging; and salvation. Not all religions have or use these four resources. He believes that religious violence is particularly untenable as these resources are never verifiable and, unlike claims to scare resources such a water or land, cannot be adjudicated objectively. — Hector Avalos

… because religions claim to have divine favor for themselves, over and against other groups, this sense of self-righteousness leads to violence because conflicting claims of superiority, based on unverifiable appeals to God, cannot be objectively adjudicated. — Hector Avalos

It is a peculiar habit of God’s that when he wishes to reveal himself to mankind, he will communicate only with a single person. The rest of mankind must learn the truth from that person and thus purchase their knowledge of the divine at the cost of subordination to another human being, who is eventually replaced by a human institution, so that the divine remains under other people’s control. — Patricia Crone

What the heck is going on in the US?

QAnon (Wikipedia)
QAnon has gone from fringe conspiracy to full-blown cult (Julia deCook; openDemocracy; Sep 2020)
Velshi: QAnon’s conspiracy cult has infiltrated the White House (Ali Velshi; MSNBC; Sep 2020)

Seems like a kindergarten, Trump feeds his ego with Christian soccer-mum votes, ...

The Hotel doesn't derive a contradiction, it's not technically a paradox as such.
But it does derive counter-intuitive implications.
Oddly enough perhaps, some finites also derive counter-intuitive implications.
WL Craig and JP Moreland use terms like absurd about an infinite temporal past in particular.
(I'm guessing intuition is sometimes more or less the principle of sufficient reason.)

Bears noticing: ∞ ∉ R
No, infinites aren't just more numbers (apparently this keeps escaping many folk); you don't add subtract compare them all and call it a day; some rigor is required here, and we already know this.

Capitalism is all about profit-maximization.
For a company, that's often in the scope of the sitting board and shareholders, so a bunch of (living) humans. I guess incentives toward broader concerns and ethics can be put in place, like with giving heavy fines/sentences for money laundering, or rewarding something.
Related to the tragedy of the commons. Might increase the risk of oil spills. :sad:

I guess, technically, in logic/mathematics, proof is truth-preserving reasoning.
But otherwise, a strong justification of something, perhaps meeting some epistemic standard.
A proof to the contrary, i.e. disproof, could be a counter-example.
So, proofs are usually supposed to give knowledge in some context.

Yet, it molded culture in a way that the two of them were intertwined. — Gus Lamarch

Or culture molded Christianity.

Christianity is as brutal as Islam. — Gregory

And yet, here you are, living on the world it helped build... — Gus Lamarch

Shaivism and Christianity are cultural phenomena. Culture isn't a Christian phenomenon.

Incidentally, some time ago, I was trying to do an analysis of some common mind-verbiage, like

subjective - objective
fictional - real
voluntary - involuntary
invented - discovered

Too lazy to transform the original html to forum markup, so I'll just attach an image instead.
Not done though, quickly became a bit wishy-washy, isn't argumentative, more summarizing.
Anyone have suggestions, see errors, clarifications, ...?

You tell me (everyone), , it's your story.
Last time: show your alleged contradiction or move on.

People know about liar's, unrestricted comprehension, curry's, principle of explosion, presuppositional error, what-have-you, . Once more:

Are you going to show the alleged contradiction or not, 3017amen? — jorndoe

The "atemporal god"?

You mean like the liar's unresolved paradox? — 3017amen

Nope, this:

I was both driving and not driving — 3017amen

You keep bringing your car thing up.

Are you going to show the alleged contradiction or not, ?

I was both driving and not driving — 3017amen

intentionally crash — 3017amen

= suicidal tendencies, yes?

intentionally — 3017amen

?

I was both driving and not driving — 3017amen

Nah, you stopped paying attention — jorndoe

Don't you just hate it when you intentionally crash and kill yourself!? — 3017amen

Suicide, then. Unfortunate either way, but not the alleged contradiction.

I was both driving and not driving — 3017amen

Nah, you stopped paying attention.

The Bible does say things about slavery, @Gus Lamarch, just not the right thing.
What about mentioned discrimination, females, gay folk too? Just how much can be justified by a Bible reading should someone be intent on that?
The Bible does not define morals (many seem to pick-and-choose anyway).
You don't "follow" (to use your word), you develop autonomous moral agency (if you justifiably want to be/remain an autonomous actor at least).
But, hey, I certainly prefer this consequence over this/this.

Also, , there seems to be overlap between Ronald Hanko, Thomas Aquinas (← mentioned earlier), Ephesians 5:21-22 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12, for example.
I suppose a relevant question then is: would you go by the Bible as the truth of the matter (by definition), maybe try to make excuses for the Bible, or do the right thing in any case (even if not going by the Bible as the definition)?

[...] which the current socialists and leftists claim as the feats of their ideology, were also accomplished by the effort of Christianity. It must be really desperate to know that by deconstructing the Christian faith, you end up deconstructing yourself... — Gus Lamarch

historical revisionism that favors your tantrum against Christianity — Gus Lamarch

:D You misunderstand. There's no desperation revisionism tantrum. There are a few historical facts that you (seem to intentionally) omit and now downplay (with a bit of raving). I'm not passing judgment in particular, but pointing out a few things your preaching missed; I can post more if you like.
By the way, if Christianity is the divine moral go-to, then why didn't the Bible say "slavery bad, don't"? See The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 4, for example.
What's with the "socialists and leftists" anyway?

Today's stupidity and incompetence is the result of the secularization of Christianity, not of the christian faith. Christian faith with all its dogmas, laws, morals and values ​​still exists and is there to be studied, the point is that with secularization, decadence arises and with it, nihilism. Without a homogeneous faith, which dictates how life should be lived - according to God - Man gets lost in his own sea of subjectiviness. — Gus Lamarch

Oh dump the blinders already.

History tells those who dare to study it [...] — Gus Lamarch

• Antisemitism in Christianity (Wikipedia)
• during Nazi times, some 94% of Germans were Christian, that's like 19 on a street with 20 people (Wikipedia), give that some thought
• Centuries of Christian anti-Semitism led to Holocaust, landmark Church of England report concludes (Gabriella Swerling; The Telegraph; Nov 2019)
• Victims of the Christian Faith (Kelsos via Church and State; Aug 2002)
• Flesh Inferno: Atrocities of Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition (Simon Whitechapel; Apr 2003)
• Racism in Watchtower publications (John Cedars; Aug 2019)
• America’s Biggest Christian Charity Funnels Tens of Millions to Hate Groups (Alex Kotch; Sludge; Mar 2019)
• Are All Men Created Equal? (Ronald Hanko; Protestant Reformed Churches in America), apparently not, and, with such reasons, discrimination, and worse, are justified
  "femina est aliquid deficiens et occasionatum" (woman is defective and misbegotten)
  — Summa Theologiae (1274), Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
• Study Shows White Evangelicals Want Christian Supremacy, Not “Religious Freedom” (Hemant Mehta; Dec 2019)
• Onward, Christian fascists (Chris Hedges; Jan 2020)

Counterfeit/fake refers to it having been made illegally moreso than its molecular arrangement, yes?

Been watching Good Girls, ? :)

Real is sometimes contrasted by fictional, illusory, or erroneous.
Other times, real versus not real is used like discovered versus invented.
Other times still, real just means exists.
Then there are some cases that overlap with objective/subjective.
All seems very contextual (and Englitch is my 2nd language).

(y)

:

CDC 6% COVID Death Rate?? | A Doctor Explains _{Here's how to actually interpret those CDC #COVID19 mortality numbers.} (8m:53s facebook av) ← a trained medical professional explains

False claim shared by President Trump that only 6% of CDC-reported deaths are from COVID-19 is based on flawed reasoning (Pablo Rougerie; Health Feedback; Aug 2020) ← fact check

Misrepresentation is this → ← close to lying (or it's bullshitting).

I'd say there are at least some grounds for positing noumena...

1. you cannot experience another's self-awareness, since then you'd be them instead ^{(self-awarenesses are indexical)}
2. so there are things you cannot experience, always just over the horizon, noumena
3. you are not everything, self-identity, individuation, self versus other
4. but you can know thereof by interaction, be it the rubble in the driveway or others

(Could likely be expressed better.)

Well ironically enough, in Christianity, Jesus was once a boy. :chin: — 3017amen

In Christianity... What was he in Australian Aboriginal culture then? Mesoamerican religion? Inuit faith? :chin:

But ostriches still use their wings for other purposes like mating displays. — Harry Hindu

Hence when purpose is just use.

We often use things for which the object wasnt initially, or primarily, designed to do, but something in that design permits one to use the object in some other way but not in every way. — Harry Hindu

Surely you're not suggesting that there was a bad blueprint for ostriches, but it just so happened that ostriches found a different use for their wings?

I question the distinction and the conceit of ‘apparent’ purpose. I think it all goes back to the abandonment of Aristotle’s fourfold causation as an aspect a consequence of the scientific revolution. This wants to see literally everything in terms of the non-intentional causation that can be understood through the paradigm of physics.

Note also the implications for the nature of reason. Whereas in the Aristotelian attitude, ‘things happen for a reason’, in the modern view, things are determined by material causes - for no reason, in the classical sense. — Wayfarer

Conceit? Nah, that's ↑ just (primitive) personification, "seeing faces in the clouds", magical thinking, ... If you want to assert such intelligent pre-planning, then you have the usual burden of proof. Which is fine of course, just have to justify. Or, I suppose you could go down a semiotic sort of path like @apokrisis.

, I was thinking whether this stuff would be a better fit over in the language section.

Purpose is a language game we play to try to make sense of the world. It's useful, and it's value extends only as far as it's usefulness. — Voyeur

Maybe something similar could be said for causation...

In the house example, we start from purpose, have no hesitation to assign purpose, including when the house is not used or built yet.
In the wings example, we come to speak of purpose from observed plain use, what they do, then suppose or impose. In an alternate universe, ostrich wings have turned out used for deterring and combating predators, and so their purpose might be said to be weapons.
My heart pumps blood around the body, so we say that's its purpose, because that's what it's doing; but the purpose of an artificial heart is to replace the heart.
Some might go as far as to say that a purpose of trees is oxygen production from carbon dioxide.

Houses, wings, photosynthesis, etc are along for the ride; houses are ours at least.
Is there a faint residue of sufficient reason in such thinking, in seeing teleology via purposes (that are plain use), like the principle accidentally betrayed us?

Can you account for any opinion that there is no supernatural component in our origin, I can't see one? — Punshhh

See here, here, here, here, here in a parallel thread (you can likely find others).

With "god did it" and "supernatural magic" anything goes. :sparkle:
Could literally be raised to explain anything, and therefore explains nothing.
Might as well be replaced with "don’t know", which incurs no information loss.
Is not itself explicable, cannot readily be exemplified (verified), does not derive anything differentiable in particular, and has consistently been falsified in the past.
Literally a non-explanation.
That's ↑ not a dis/proof, but just explicates the vacuity of such utterings.

I take it you are new to philosophy, and that's perfectly fine. You may want to Google it on your own time; Subjectivity v. Objectivity. — 3017amen

Doesn't take long studies in philosophy, does it?

• x is subjective = x's existence is mind-dependent (e.g. fictional (fictions exist too))
• x is objective = x's existence is mind-independent (e.g. real)

That's not every use of the words, but those are common in philosophy.

Mr Smith agrees. :)

Agent Smith - Humans Are Virus (1m:18s youtube)

My conclusion is that the initial assertion stands. — Marco Colombini

A bit like The Emperor's New Clothes?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/443851
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/443873
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/443892
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/443895
...

(your responses have to be on point and adequate to be of much consequence)

By Jove, , you brought up necessary (possible worlds, modal logic, the usual).
If you know what you're commenting about, then you ought to be able to understand the argument in that comment.
This comment lists some of the claims it applies to.
If you're still confused, then maybe read up on it?

is that your way of saying [...] — 3017amen

Nope.
It's observing that you didn't address the argument in that comment; heck, you didn't really respond to it, just went off on your own. The argument pertains to some number of claims of yours.
_{(I suppose it's understandable that you'd rather just reiterate your own narrative, but this is a discussion, and not just anything goes, especially bare assertions shown to not hold water.)}
Furthermore, this isn't about me (at all), it's about the propositions. Not about you or me, but about the statements. (Hit the bar if you want to get down and personal. :wink:) Hence, please address what it's about.

None of which addresses the (simple) deductive argument, . :)
There's not even any reference thereto or mention thereof, instead you run seem to with a script that you could have posted as a response to more or less anything.
In fact, it follows logically that your (relatively) lengthier commentary has errors, I'll just say non-sequiturs (take it as an exercise to spot them).

Bit of backpedalling there, , ?
The modal logic — possible, necessary — aren't about you, I, homo sapiens, the universe we know of, in particular.
Consciousness is not necessary in general because there's a (simple) possible world without — that's the (simple) logic. And that's intuitive as well. Why on Earth would anyone think that consciousness figures in all possible worlds, must be? There's an element of self-elevation, of conceit in that.
What may or may not be necessary specifically for us, Earth, the observable galaxies, this (no hypotheticals, skip modal logic), is another matter. And, either way, the rubble in the driveway is evidently not conscious. In the case of a human life (like us), we can track things from start to end, what was involved, needed, etc.
These claims ...

consciousness [...] is [...] logically necessary to exist — 3017amen

consciousness [...] is [...] logically necessary to exist — 3017amen

consciousness [...] is [...] logically necessary to exist — 3017amen

consciousness [...] is [...] logically necessary to exist. — 3017amen

... are hence overstated as shown.
I suppose we might ask the old existential problem, why something, why anything at all? Why Yahweh and not Shiva? Why Shiva and not panpsychism? Why ... and not The Force? ...? And, technically, the modal logic dispenses with most postulates of something necessary. Not consistency though.

, I'm guessing it was due to repetition, but that's just conjecture on my part.
Maybe if something new and cool was added...? (Or just something different...?)