Logical regress is a logical problem. An infinite past is not a logical problem because it doesn't have to have a completion like a thought does. Lastly, logical regress does not apply in mathematics. It's purely about logic and how our thoughts must rest in noncontradiction

Yes. I was rereading Hegel and Heidegger today and I'm really annoyed when philosophers hide ideas behind pretention. I try to find the true meaning behind the bullshit

An infinite regress in the real world would simply be past time encompassing the negative numbers as they move by the laws of physics. You might find such a past unsatisfactory without perfect unity undergirding it but that comes from your particular spirituality

I vote that Peirce's works be permanently purged of odd words and replaced with human language

Phenomenology is about the unbreakable connection between the self and the world as long as we are alive. Peirce agrees with this. Kant, Reinhold, Fitche, Schelling, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, and yes Peirce provide variations on this theme. It doesn't seem right to be too dogmatic about the minor details

Thanks for sharing your wisdom on these types of threads

The West needs criticism and suggestions but saying car driving is sinful is going extreme

Phenomenology has been developing since Kant. I don't think Peirce is so different from all those continental thinkers anyway

Risks are not bad. When you swim in the ocean you risk being attacked by jaws. Every society is different. There is no one rule when it comes to safety. It's up to each society to evaluate safety for themselves. I find it meditative to be in the car while I listen to music, Napoleon Hill CDs, ect. My life is good and if other countries feel their poverty is a blessing then don't go after us for being how we are. Having cars gets people to hospitals faster as well btw

I love Hegel. I've read all his published books (except philosophy of right). You just have to be careful because he is easy to abuse

If one is not careful in reading Hegel he will simply get an interpretation of philosophy that is not less than schizophrenic

Hi.

So it seems to me a number is a "unity" and a set is not a noun but more like a verb. It's our action of containing a unity or many unities or unities and containers (verbs). I've been considering the "set of all sets that do not contain themselves" vs the "set of all sets the do contain themselves". This leads to what I see as Hilbert's position (contra Frege) of our rational power of humans to think of thinking of thinking of thinking and on to infinity. The set\verb would take precedence over the unity\number we place before our eyes as an object.

We all get our ideas from giants

There has been debate since ancient Greece and India over when or if something is a pure unity. If it has pure unity does it have parts at all? If something can be potentially divided by us or an angel or God, isn't it divided in itself yet held together by some kind of cohesion? Geometry seems to say that plurality of parts is equal in footing as the object's unity. So math and common sense say anything physical has a 3 fourths of itself in reality. Physics though, quite interestingly, computes the total information in something as proportional to its surface area, not its volume. But anyone who says they have the final answer to these questions has probably lied to himself. Zeno and chariots can be torn apart by the heavens

The op sounds like Hegelian marxism to me

I'm unclear as to what problems this is causing

People are social and so do share spiritual ideas. But does your logic imply a new religion cannot start? Every religion was once new

Working on math problems is computation. What does this oppose? It is concept as act. I don't know how this relates to technology

Explain further why act and concept might be opposed

A vicious regress is one that must begin at the beginning but starts at the other end. So going from A to B to A when it should go on to C and infinity. An actual infinity is not vicious and a vicious regress is an infinite loop that we don't comprehend (and therefore discard). There is nothing that rules out an infinity in nature because infinities make sense in mathematics and nature acts mathematically. Physically this might not be the whole story, but Aristotelean finitism is truly outdated and a little silly. Logic and mathematics seem perfectly capable of understanding how an infinity would work from an infinite past all the way to infinite space.

True mathematics takes philosophical intuition. 5+5 is 5 and 5 and we call it ten. But that is naming, not adding to equal something. Mathematics is a process, not just an identity game. I don't know how a computer does computations if it became alive but it would be another species so we couldn't really know anyway

Try highlighting a sentence by scrolling over it and then click the quote button that appears. Then you'll be all ready for this forum

Effeminate means a perversion of the feminine, but females are generally more submissive to men than the other way around. But I imagine you think that's bad? Anyway it doesn't take away from the potency of what I said or is that a bad word too?

There is a sexual element to it. Most religions have called the highest god a "He" for a reason, which is that piety is making you know God as Father and Husband. That how most traditional religion are

Feminine means passive. Not that all females are or should. Thats just how people process this. Religious people think they are purified because they become passive to an all powerful deity. It doesn't make sense for man to be masculine towards God. That is what Job is about. Best not to be religious

He was a power monger

Click the three dots at the bottom of a post. The reply button appears. If you scroll over a sentence or paragraph you can click "quote" too as it appears

Let me clarify then. As Bede Griffin wrote, finding your deeper feminine side is what religion is about. Spirituality can be good and reading Greek classics on their beliefs can be enlightening for someone. But when this becomes religion it devours you individually in the abyss of "God". Christians even pretend to eat Jesus in a quasi sexual act of love wherein they become the bride of Christ. If you are becoming the bride of God then you have religion. And that's not a good thing whether you are male or female

Every belief has tortured it's enemies. Religion though is the most widespread psychological disease in the world. It obviously is not rational to ask about something higher or beyond physical reality. Religion is effeminate narcissism

What convinces one person because they want the disease of religion to cloud their mind will rightfully look like nonsense to a normal person

Those are statements without evidence. Talking about things part from the world is very strange and unnecessary

You're already crazy

I can make any assertion into steps like that too. You haven't prove things outside the world exist, that I exist outside the world, that matter has no potentiality of life and thought, or anything else

Buddhism was the original structuralism with their idea of utter dependence. Logic and the world, everything in fact, was dependent but not dependent on something

PBS also has one saying bb is correct

If you replace numbers with sets, do you keep the same ontology? What of structuralism?

Then how do satellites work. The Bible never make anything

The previous page I quoted and commented on all of it. It's OK if you can't make an argument but you're too much of a hot head to have a discussion with. Firebrand

I already quoted every sentence of the OP each at a time to show there is no argument presented. Bye

A person on the constraint of a deity is not free. A person who follows his conscience because he was taught to is free.