Do woman get freebies by becoming wives?

No way offended. Sometimes the mind can say "you can do this" but the will really cannot. Sometimes the will says "I can't do this" but the reason knows it can. To each his own compass

Pascal's Wager is intellectual trolling. People try to take something away from others by an illegal logical move folks. Plain and simple

Life is a destination, not a depot.

I sometimes wonder what kind of job being a priest is. They get into questions like whether it's wrong to test yourself with temptation. If philosophy makes it easier to be good, playing video games gives you a harder temptation. You're unprepared.

The two great laws are the Golden Rule and Do what Thou wilt. I don't even think Nietzsche himself would have approved of Americanism, where IQ tests prove who is smartest. In Descartes's days and after it was believed commonly that everyone had their own smarts. The only dunces were the ones who violated moral rules.

I also wonder if doing philosophy is really a more brainy activity than say being really good at video games

Im the truck guy at a fast food joint. The guys and girls who take orders and make food don't have it easier. I don't know how to compare that kind of work to like my lawyer cousin, for example. I think about it sometimes

When we understand something, the object is "projected upon its possibilities". That's what Heidegger says. "The world is the wherein of already-being". In other cultures mentally ill people are deemed holy. They are expected to give a blessing back. I put away and coordinate what to order from our trucking team at a local McDonalds.

I have a so-called illess: schizoaffective. I do manual labor for a living. I do love to read philosophy on my spare time and l do sound authoritative in my posts sometimes, although I didn't even finish my assocoates, but that is just me pressing a point. Heidegger says potentiality-for-being is its end result, i.e. being. And this because of the "disclosedness of the for-the-sake-of-which in general (being-ahead-of-oneself". Ancients called it fate.

1) necessary truths
2) contingent truths (univetse)
A) infinite truths
B) finite truths.

1 is infinite because it includes mathematics. Leibniz thought the world infinite, so contingent truths are infinite in his system. Fish fry is right that you can't ad hoc apply Godel to the world though

My understanding of Brouwer is that only those things that are capable of an infinity of proof are properly mathematical. The intuition part comes into play for the "observer"

Good points fishfry. An eternally falling piano with only it in existence and with no beginning.. is possible! Math doesn't work this way though

For Plato, the pattern that holds 4, 6, 8, and 20 together is 12. Sounds right to me. Those thinkers get confused with 7's versus triangles. But the 12 thing feels syllogistic. I don't think you can prove irrationality from logic structures and math equations alone. Who shaves the barber who shaves all and only those who shaves themselves. Through out the misleading "all" and walls the barber can't shave himself

If math is infinite, it could be understood by an infinite intelligence. Godel is claiming that even God could not prove math is self consistent. What a strange creation of God then, like randomness. Instead of 4 for fire, 6 for earth, 8 for air, and 20 for water, we have random spontaneity for all four. Dasein. Theoretical physics is actually philosophy. So that was Hawkings point. He was the best philosopher at physics ever!

Why limit Godel? Why not let it run wild throughout math? Pi does not have repetition in it, so is ill-ordered in a sense. Since it starts on the left side always in the same way, going off into infinity, it might be a pattern, if you believe in such things. it can be controlled. Russell's paradox is not a paradox . Whether we say "the sets of all sets that ARE members of themselves" or "the set of all sets that are NOT members of themselves" is null. A set being in containing itself is what it is about, and this is possible. IF the set is wellordered. And sets don't fall in a necessary way says the Platonic identification problem, so there are options here in containing Godel too

Who proved the rule that if there is an uncountable infinity in addition to another countable infimity, it is greater than another countable infinity. Is that what Cantor proved diagonallly? Someone can say infinity is just infinity still

Or Godel is beautiful. I bet the Godel supporters get hung up reconciling Wittgenstein with linguistic relativism. Reading GEB..

Beauty trumps Godel

Benacerraf thought platonic objects were like a cathedral, where there has to a certain pattern. However patterns spiral into uncountable infinities, and the ultimate mathematical truth would be a beatific vision of... what?

If Godel is a Platonist, is he sabotaging it with math\logic? How is his approach different from the " indentification problem"

General question, does Godel assume negation or cancelling precedes positing? He ends up saying there are incorrect equations that can be used properly noneleless, bringing monsters to the math party

What's the different between logical atomism and Hilbert's program? I thought they were the same. It seems to me Godel threw the same monkey wrench into the latter the Russell through into the former, although Godel's theorem threw Russell while his own did not. I think it was just more techniquely drawn out, which is why Wittgenstein said it was the same

I knew what you meant lol

Aristotle to Aquinas to Scotus thought an eternity in the future to be impossible to complete, so how in the past then? Saying "God did it" doesn't explain how it works temporally. Imagine an eternal falling piano. In fact gravity alone seems sufficient to explain it without God, except the infinity part. Perhaps infinity in time is impossible to fathom, because breaking it up, or breaking it down, you have only intermediate moments and no first. Our minds want a well behaved infinity-etermity. I don't see how the liar paradox proves that math is unstable. Truth is unstable, but not math. Ye..

Aristotle thought the universe eternal for no other reason at least than that time seemed more sublime that way. How could time be infinite from counting? How could we be in the middle of time? These questions left Aristotle no choice than to posit a prime mover, and as many as around 60 equal prime movers possibly. This question has to to do wiith how our minds work with infinity. Did Godel prove that the infinity of math is unstable and that nihilism is true? Those are gray oceans

Godel sets up an impossible scenario without proving it necessary to to go there. Math can do weird things. The jello of non Euclidean geometry is weird. What applies to the universe is impossible to ascertain with one hundred percent certainty.

Godel is talking about set theory, that has a physical counter part in eternal time. Aristotle said an infinity of days is only well behaved of there is a timeless person behind it. We are that person to set theory

I just want to get clear what Godel proved. You can use arithmetic without sets, and this theorem only applies to set theory.

A set is merely a rationalized image in the imagination which represents one's intellect. It seems to me that we have freedom to do whatever we want with Godels theorem. What kind of cut can negative self reference do to a living consciousness?

Leibniz said contingent proofs take an eternity to prove, but not all truths are this way. Maybe there are things math can't touch

Let's get "negative self reference" clarified sufficiently first. A set can cover itself infinitely and still have control of the procedure

People are allowed to inflict pain on someone to give them sexual pleasure,.But up to a point because there is a discrete difference between enjoying sex and being suicidal. There is no soul though because truth is relative, coming from within since it is unsubstantial

"Of course , innerworldly beings in the sense of what is real, as merely objectively present, can still remain covered up. However, what is real, too, is discoverable only on the basis of a world already disclosed. And only on this basis can what is real still remain concealed." Heidegger

The idea reflects itself in the imagination the way poetry works

"As something factical [real, factual], the understanding self-projection of Being is always already together with a discovered world." Heidegger

Yet how can you be together with what you are? Welcome to modern philosophy my friends, a beautiful garden. When Hegel says the world is thought, he in no ways means it, yet he does. Modern philosophy deals with the accidents of truth, and in the end rejects the substance, creating a self-consistent system that sounds like a Buddhism traditional sung mantra

Descartes found his own victory over his real relativism thru the cogito. I often doubt if I exist. But truth is not a thing, so it has no substance. So where is the victory of the cogito?

I am reminded of the 1940's Jungle Book film with real people. Especially Ka

Relativism sounds consistent but mechanical. If it is true I am on this computer, it is also not, but is it true that we have both trues (or falsehoods)? No. Therefore the only truth is the one truth that relativism is true!

Self-consistent

Instead of knowing the cause of what you want to believe in, what about direct experience of it's Dasein? I've never heard to anyone saying that the future can't exist because it's "indexical". That's interesting. Sounds like Parmenides. Alice could have won the lottery however and that reality, or unreality, would have made her happy.

But is it relative that I am happy this morning?

They are forms of relativism, a popular philosophy these days

Intuition has to have content though. And this content could be relative, with one truth, that all things are relative. Relative means it comes from within. Aquinas said the intellect was greater than the will because it brings happiness, even though the will is more actual. If happiness is the goal of being, then there is one thing that is true