Hegel wanted to see himself in objects and the objects as Forms, and thus himself as the forms. — Gregory

Gregory, you just proved that Hegel was God. The Pancosmic god.

If people don't go to work, how will production continue at anything like the normal level? — Janus

Did I contradict that? Duhhh.

Best for business how? — Janus

The same way that the aftermath of WWII made the world ten times richer over every ten years.

READ MY POST. Marshall plan. That is the operative part of it.

Explanation:

In WWII almost all machinery in Germany got bombed out or were otherwise destroyed.

The Marshall plan pumped money into Germany to rebuild the economy.

All new machinery was bought and installed... much better than the pre-war ones.

Production levels doubled many times over in the first decade in West Germany.

it became the economic powerhouse of Europe; the production powerhouse; and the envy of all other nations.

The other nations were actually pissed off, having witnessed the reflowering of German life; "Who lost the war, dammit?" People of other nations were saying.
---------------

Without the Marshall plan Germany would have needed hundreds of economic years to rebuild itself to its earlier levels of production.

Can't read it.... too convoluted... arrows mean what? development? Cause/effect relationship? Is this a flow chart of events or causation? Makes no sense. Does not work for me.

Statements don't have truth values, but some have truth labels. — A Seagull

Stop right there. This is misinformation on your part.

A giraffe has a long neck.

A giraffe has a short neck.

Would you call the corresondence to truth a value, or a label? Why? This is not a rhetorical question. I don't know why you would call them labels instead of values. So please explain.

Descartes didn't understand it — Gregory

Aha.

What does the link say? In a few words. I have read literally dozens of them, and they all say the same thing; all watered down, all wishy-washy and hardly saying anything, except for the ones posted for healthcare professionals.

I would like to know where i can find the articles that has tackled this topic — Mathias

Please locate the search box on the upper right. type in Math. it will give you a "hits" screen; with an option of "titles only". pick titles only, and repeat the search. You can use of course any term, and I encourage you to be intuitive in getting the returns you wish for as per your desire. Your specs for your search ought to express your desires.

The first principle as stated by me was not an assumption. It was dead on. It may have been circular, but it was spot on. "A rose is a rose is a rose by any other name is a rose." if something has a principle, it has to have the principle to be in possession of principles. so why not make the principle into an ability to have principles.
There is no assumption needed here. I think this was brilliant. And I don't mind saying so myself.

You have never heard of anyone bigger than life?

A person greater, smarter, and more beautiful than himself?

Then you haven't met me yet.

But to be serious:
A principle is not a truth... it is a principle. a truth is inherent in a statement, a principle is a guide. Guides are imperatives, not statements. Statements have truth values; principles can't.

So... "each truth is contingent upon a higher truth" is (as much as it is not up for debate) does not contradict having a first principle.

Of course if business as usual is not reinstated, then that will surely be best for the planet. — Janus

...and best for business. Provided there will be a Marshall-plan type bail out at the end of it.

Phoenix economy... from its own ashes it gets reborn.

You realize that pumping money into the system will cause inflation, especially if there is a shortage of goods in the system? — Janus

not necessarily... the shortage of goods happens because there is no production, and no salaries, no taxes... the bail-out will enable to sustain a modicum level of trade (commercial) economy (maybe... big maybe), but the goods/moneysupply ratio may actually increase, not decline. Which produces deflation.

And do you think that math are a particular science itself or it is a tool and an instrument for others sciences sake? — Mathias

Mathias, this topic has been done to death on this site. Several threads have been dedicated to this.

But if you like, I'll get the ball rolling... seeing you are new, we ought to humour you. So please consider this declaration (and then I leave this thread, it's your baby from here on) :

Math is not a particular science in itself, it is rather a toool and and instrument employed by scientists and by non-scientists alike.

Continuation of my previous post: The alternative of course is to allow COVID-19 to spread freely. In this case, depending on the nature and efficiency of contacts, the virus will go though everyone, and die out with the last person's hosting the virus.

This has difficulties, too. This presumes no reinfection is possible. But the COVID-19 virus is mutating quickly. If the mutants are impervious to the antibodies in the previously infected surviving people, the thing can go on forever.

(This is part of a post I posted on a different thread. I believe it is worth repeating here.)

I think the quaranteening movement actually can stop the virus from spreading. If all people who have got it are quaranteened for three weeks, the virus will die in them. Some will die with the virus, but the virus in the survivors also will die.

If some of the carriers pass it on, and quaranteening continues, in the next generation of virus infections there will be fewer people infected.

And in the next, even fewer.

Depending on how stringently we do the quaranteening, and the contact avoidance, thus the spread avoidance, the stoppage of the spread and the killling of all viruses will be inversely proportional in time and in number of generations with the stringency and success of quaranteening

Better quaranteening = fewer generations of infections, shorter diesease time before the virus dies out (becomes extinct.)

From what I understand, it's not to stop the spread but to slow the spread. — Pfhorrest

If you slow the spread, the wait to reach the hump will be longer. They are inversely proportional:
Time to wait out the hump = 1/speed of spread.

This means that though the spread will be elongated, it can and will take a long time to reach the passing of the hump.

I think the quaranteening movement actually can stop the virus from spreading. If all people who have got it are quaranteened for three weeks, the virus will die in them. Some will die with the virus, but the virus in the survivors also will die.

If some of the carriers pass it on, in the next generation of virus infections there will be fewer people infected.

And in the next, even fewer.

Depending on how stringently we do the quaranteening, and the contact avoidance, thus the spread avoidance, the stoppage of the spread and the killling of all viruses will be inversely proportional in time and in number of generations with the stringency and success of quaranteening

Better quaranteening = fewer generations of infections, shorter diesease time before the virus dies out (becomes extinct.)

I think mathematics is a precision tool, a tool of refinement of terms in otherwise qualitative relationships, in the service to make the life of grade 6 and of second-year sociology students into living hell.

What are the First Principles of Philosophy?

Implicit in this question is the assumption that philosophy has first principles. — A Seagull

The first principle of philosophy is that philosophy has a first principle.

(That ought to be right.)

PNC is either rejected or violated in the works of many philosophers, e.g. Heraclitus, Kant, Hegel, Wittgenstein. — sime

If PNC is rejected, that can be shown to be wrong by PNC. If it is violated, the perpetrators should be punished.

I don't believe Heraclitus, Kant, Hegel and/or Wittgenstein rejected or violated PNC. You'd have to show this in more detail, Sime, than just stating it as a claim.

It applies to you also. — Frank Apisa

You're in over your head in this, Frank. When you are reduced to comebacks that lose their effectiveness past grade three, you know you have run your course and out of ammunition. Time for you to migrate to Philosophynow.org.

LOL, welcome to the fan club. Trying to argue with the guy is like banging your head against the wall...
— Nobeernolife
Yeah. All Frankie's got is trollin' ... and some of us are bored enough to play whack-a-troll with him. — 180 Proof

When you show him black-on-white, quoting him, that he is wrong, he will call you an asshole and go on with his own beloved self-created stickhorse. His stick-horse, however, is a one-trick pony and we have seen all it could perform, over and over and over again.

I used to know a guy in a social setting back twenty-thirty years ago who very vehemently had some views on the relationship between intellect and literacy; and he proposed it in a very aggressive and provocative way; it always incited someone in the company to respond and argue with him, but that's all he did. He was otherwise a kind, friendly, helpful sort of feller, he was not jealous, greedy, defiant, or unreasonable otherwise.

Reason is a tool to describe, and an ability to perceive descriptions of, cause-effect relationships.

Logic is a tool in language that describes rules of relationships between numbers, sets, and objects (people included, as much as immaterial or phantasy objects) that are true at any time, anywhere, in any possible, or imagined world.

Reason is an ability that manifests in each person to different measures. Logic applies to all person's thinking equally. To absorb logic properly, one must have a reasoning ability to a certain minimum limit. You can tell a ten-year old child that 5 + 7 is the same as 7 + 5, and he will believe you, but you can't tell the same to even an intelligent animal, like a dog, because the dog's reasoning ability has not hit that lower minimum required limit to absorb the logic.

Some people make errrors in reason, yet they can't be shown their own errors, due to their limitations in their ability to reason.

----------------------

That said, many arguments (or all) among people start not because the topics are diverse, with many possible resolutions, but because the people who argue have different limitations to their ability to reason. Even very, very intelligent people can have limitations to their ability to reason, for instance, if they are obsessed or believe a religious dogma that stands in the way of their ability ot accept reason that leads to the contrary solution or resolution to their accepted one which had been dictated to them by their religious dogma.

---------------------

People on this website hate me for being an atheist and decrying religion. They went as far as telling me in public spaces and in private email that I am a fucking asshole.

I don't hate religion. I hate inability to reason.

Those who are not able to reason well, due to mental (intellectual) limitations, I don't condemn. I feel pity for them.

Those who are not able to reason well due to the limitations of their religion, I show them precisely where they make a mistake in reasoning. They hate me for that. They can't stand the fact that their own world view, their very philosophy is being threatened by unassailable reason and logic.

I normally abandon all arguments sooner or later, after I have had my say. I abandon the arguments becasue 1. I don't think I can change anyone's thinking, values, or ability to think and 2. They can't change mine.

If I am found in the wrong, in terms of logic, insight, facts, or reason, I capitulate. I do admit I was wrong. There are many instances on this website of my having done so, so I am not simply or falsely boasting.

PFHorrest, I swore to never touch meaning and language.

The moment people start putting quotes around single expressions I leave the topic.

The moment people omit to put single quotes around expressions while they ought to, I leave the topic.

Here, I don't mean using quote marks to quote. I mean when people use quote marks to denote that the meaning they convey is not the actual meaning of the words in quotes.

Two examples for you:

"For instance, I can use, quote, idioms, unquote, without using idioms, but when one ponders about it for a minute, the whole language consists of nothing but idioms, when you look at it. Symbolic languages, only."

"When the so-called "smart" phones become really smart, they will outsmart the smartest smartie on earth. And that smarts."

Different reason why I avoid talking about the meaning of meaning:

Due to the language conveying meaning, you can't convey super-meaning over the already conveyed meaning. That is simply silly. You can read between the lines, above the lines, below the lines, or not the lines at all, but you can't analyze the analysis of the lines.

In other words: Talking about the philosophy of language using language is similar to, to quote my friend Paul Spenser, "unzipping your pants using nothing but your penis." Language is perfect to convey meaning and information, but it ought not to be used to convey meaning and information about what the meaning and information is of meaning and information.

Even a porcupine can do that...and there is a lot more danger involved. — Frank Apisa

:-)

The question is why as a whole species we follow regulations that were created to serve the needs of an older society?....why have we become so passive? Why have we accepted that this is the way things are supposed to be. Who said that we need to work 5 or 6 days per week? Who said that people need to get married? Why don't we break down the whole economy? It's easy. Just stop showing up for 1 month. Politicians have no power. Their power is just an illusion deriving from our numbness. So what keeps us down and why do we still accept it? — Futuristic Anarchist

Once a guy asked a similar question to the Prime Minister of Canada. (Trudeau the Elder and Wiser.) His reply? "Guy, go ahead. Do it. I won't stop you."

why as a whole species we follow regulations that were created to serve the needs of an older society? I challenge you to show there are regulations to enforce lifestyles.

1. There are no regulations that say you must work 5 or 6 days per week.
2. There is no regulation requiring anyone to get married.
3. There is no regulation that forbids he breakdown of the economy**.
4. There is no regulation to keep us down and there is no regulation for you and for us to accept it.

** There is a set of complicated and intricate regulations, which together stops us from breaking down the economy, and each of which is insignificant in and by itself, but is powerful only in accordance with the enforcement of the other seemingly powerless and limp regulations in the set.

Please look back to the previous page for the answer of your question. It is quoted in the same fucking goddamned post I left that you are questioning me about.

The position of the Christian = There is a God (by faith).
The position of the Atheist = There is no God. (by faith).
The position of the Agnostic = I am God (faithlessness). — Antidote

I asked 1 clever person, who said the following, not verbatim, because I can't remember rote stuff:

The positions of the Christian and the of the Atheist are rightly asserted.

The position of the agnostic as written in the proposition is the only position an agnostic can't claim or assert. If I am agnostic, I claim no knowledge of god. But god would certainly have knowledge of god. So to claim that an agnostic thinks he or she is god while he claims no knowledge of god despite being god himself or herself is the stupidest conclusion anyone could draw.

I lack a "belief" in any gods. I also lack a "belief" that there are no gods...
The notion that the reason one uses atheist is because of the lack of belief is almost certainly BULLSHIT. — Frank Apisa

Did you just assert that your position is firmly planted on BULLSHIT?

You did say (see quote, please) that the lack of belief is almost certainly BULLSHIT,
and you did say that you lack a belief in all possible cases of gods' existence.

Has anyone else arrived at the same conclusion, why or why not? — Shawn

I actually got very confused reading your script, and never got to the conclusion part. Or I did but I missed it.

Is this philosophy? — jgill

Now, that's a doser of a question. We know "you can't step twice in a river with the same foot forward" is philosophy, but "what is our first response to events" takes thousands of years to debate whether it's philosophy or not.

I use the following practical guide to decide what's philosophy and what's something else:

"Philosophy... is a walk on a slippery rock, religion... is a light in fog. Philosophy... is a talk on some cereal box, religion... is a smile on a dog." -- Edie Brickell.

This actually gives more of a definition to religion than to philosophy... it gives some limitations to what philosophy has as characteristics (in the first of Brickell's sentences), but it gives no guiding descriptive meaning in its definition.

So... very sorry, but you are on your own in finding the answer to your question.

Beware binary, either-or, thinking.
Beware classification as an extension of binary thinking.
Beware thinking as avoidance of living. — tim wood

... Beware thinking as a replacement for thinking.

What does everyone else think? — ZhouBoTong

Heavy question. Only possible TRUE answer would either attract 7 billion responses, or else one or more mind-readers.

If it is selective, though (some religious people claim a personal revelation)...the person would have to prove he/she is not delusional. — Frank Apisa

here is another proof that you require for the proof of the first thing, and you yourself admit that this proof is also suspect even when it's complete.

I am lost. You insist we don't know if there is a god or not; I agree. You insist the existence of god can't be known either way; and you capitulated on that, without saying anything, but showing proofs that would prove the existence either way, and then you proceeded to debunk those proofs.

So... if you don't know that god exists or not, and you don't know if it can be known, why do you say you don't have faith in either existence or non-existence of gods? Are you saying that nobody else logically ought to have faith either, either way? Nobody on Earth is claiming knowledge of the existence of god. It's all beliefs. You seem to be the sole and only one, who denies that beliefs are acceptable.

Okay...so you are close to 100% one or the other. — Frank Apisa

Your math is incorrect. Aside from that, my percentages change daily.

This quote is so "begging the question" or "begging the answer." I said something that is not what you stated later I said; and you took your own answer erroneously as truly what I had said.

You can convince yourself this way very easily, but your fallacious thinking and mechanism of putting together an argument is very apparent.

There is NO WAY to establish with any certainty that at least one god exists...or that no gods exist. There is NO WAY to establish with any certainty that IT IS MORE LIKELY one way or the other. — Frank Apisa

I don't see where your enthusiastic commitment to no possibility of knowledge comes from. What makes you to be so sure of no possibility of certainty? I am curious, more than I am challenging. Is there a foolproof proof that proves that?

Here is the matter upon which we need an estimate: What percentage of the people who identify as “atheist” are part of the group who “believe there are no gods” or “believe it is more likely that there are no gods… — Frank Apisa

I'm 28 percent the former, and 59 percent the latter.

The rest of the missing percentages are due to rounding.

Why are atheists like this? Why do they buy into their own bullshit? — Frank Apisa

It's not a question of buying into anything. It is a question of not buying into some other type of bullshit.

If a belief is “to think something is true,” then a belief cannot be “to think something is not true.” — Pinprick

"I think it is true that X is not true." How about that.

You want my primary, or secondary reaction to your OP?

The primary is that it makes my hair wants to escape my scalp.

The secondary is non-existent (MY secondary; I am not speaking for others), because please see my "agnosticism" thread. I tried to prove, inconclusively at best, that you must believe in something; but some people debunked my argument, and now I am freed to not believe anything.

Freedom is liberating, but it hurts.

Whoa Nelly.

I think you preceded me in creating my ultimate invention: a parser, that takes nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, etc. etc. at random, and arranges them into syntactically proper sentences, with no regard to semantic meaning. Then watch the outcome.

You are looking at this back to front. We cannot prove there is a creator, only to prove if there isn't one. — Antidote

I don't think it's possible to prove that there is no creator. Or god, or whatever you want to call it.

Proof either way by empirical methods is impossible, and by a priori methods is also impossible.

At least this is what I heard. Don't quote me on this, please.