• The ultimate significance of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", and most of Friedrich Nietzsche's other books
    Peterson always strikes me as a man having a breakdown in slow motion — Tom Storm

    I agree!

    You might enjoy this article - here's a taste...

    His idea (in chapter six of his book) that what leads to mass shootings in general, and school shootings in particular, is a kind of ahistorical, existential angst, or a “crisis of being” — that’s the phrase he uses! — about the despair and misery and suffering of human beings.

    Peterson thereby takes on a huge burden of explaining why white women, people of color, nonbinary folks, and so on, almost never act on our existential angst and despair in this way. Because, as you know, the vast majority of school shooters have been white men.     — A feminist philosopher makes the case against Jordan Peterson
  • What can I know with 100% certainty?
    ↪Lionino
    OK.
  • Is the Pope to rule America?
    I think you are right. — Athena

    Well, thank you.

    But the "we" might indicate a certain parochial nature in this thread. I am not a 'mercan.

    Dow nunder, we have had a fair run of atheist Prime Ministers, back at least to Whitlam in the early seventies. Only three PM's since then have been overtly Christian, Rudd, Abbott(ed.) and Morrison. Indeed too much of a display of religiosity will count as much against a politician as in their favour. Outright evangelism is a political death sentence.

    My suspicion, and it might be interesting to gather information on this, is that Overt Christianity in democratic political figures is a curiously 'mercan trait. In more democratic countries folk are not much interested in the religious virtues of their politicians. Other things far outweigh them.

    There is a tone of 'Mercan chauvinism in your posts. But your democracy is broken by far more than a touch of religious thinking.
  • What can I know with 100% certainty?
    ↪Lionino
    The ghost in the machine. Ryle took care of that. Odd, that you cite folk who reject dualism, but apparently in its defence.

    We need to be very careful here.

    Is your claim that there are two substances, or that Descartes said there were two substances? If the latter, I will agree. If the former, then I will disagree.

    Also, given the topic, is you claim that you are 100% certain there are two substances?

    If not, then I suggest that this is too far from the OP.
  • What can I know with 100% certainty?
    an enthytema often — Lionino

    It is usual for one to be able to state the missing premise. If not, the enthytema is presumably invalid.

    Labouring the point, we have (I think, ⊢ I am); and the missing premise is "If I think, then I am". Which is, it seems, what was to be proved...

    And as discussed, one might get around this by treating it as a definition, " I am that which is doubting".

    But if we do this, then "I" ceases to be when not doubting.

    And to get around that, as you explained, one needs to move to "I am at least that which is doubting". Hence the doubting self is at least part of, but not the whole of, what exists.

    Is that roughly what you would argue?

    And is dualism always the consequence here?
  • What can I know with 100% certainty?
    Downunder, we stop at the red light...
  • Is the Pope to rule America?
    ↪Fire Ologist
    That just seems credulous. But whatever gets you through the night.
  • Is the Pope to rule America?
    ↪BitconnectCarlos
    Not to the extent that other folk claim. Tolkien is better.
  • Is the Pope to rule America?
    Why would we expect ideological uniformity from over 1000 years of texts? — BitconnectCarlos
    I don't.
    Read it and make your own judgments. — BitconnectCarlos
    I have.
    (God) does reveal certain things within the pages of the Bible. — BitconnectCarlos
    I don't think so. It reads like a patchwork authored by men, not the word of a omniscient being.
    God is inscrutable in his entirety. — BitconnectCarlos
    Yep. And whereof one cannot speak...
  • Is the Pope to rule America?
    I'm just saying you truly have not presented any interesting criticism. — Hanover

    You've gone to a lot of trouble in response to a uninteresting criticism.

    A naive reader might well see the Binding as I have, yet a more sophistic reader, one who is a member of this or that School of Thought, will have arguments aplenty to show the poverty of such naivety. Thus they mark the difference between Us and Them.

    One lesson from the Binding is that faith is strongest when the faithful believe despite the facts, and act without question.

    I think that approach morally dubious.
  • What can I know with 100% certainty?
    The positivists were right. Philosophy is nonsense. We should all learn coding instead. — Lionino

    :wink: The understanding of logic of some here who do coding leaves me doubting this. I taught coding for years, in the hope that it would improve my student's comprehension of and intuition for logic. It may have been to no avail.

    It seems that folk are able to follow the sequent in a deduction, but are unclear as to what the elements represent. Hence not recognising examples of p⊃q, or thinking commands are statements.
  • What can I know with 100% certainty?
    I wonder if folk are interested in summarising where they think we are at, with regard to the title question?
  • What can I know with 100% certainty?
    The issue with a student who is "unavailable for learning" is that they can quickly unsettle a whole class - or in this case a thread. Throwing paper planes or insults, gratuitous comments, and so on. It's not possible to pursue the lesson, or topic, at hand while they are present. Confrontation doesn't help, since it only serves to emphasis the disorder. Removal, if only in order to sort their circumstances, is advised. But if that is not possible, one can try making explicit to the other students what is occurring, encouraging them not to give attention to the misbehaviour.

    or giving attention, even to excess, to the students who are on task, making their day pleasant despite the recalcitrant.
  • What can I know with 100% certainty?
    ↪Metaphyzik
    Not sure what that means.
  • What can I know with 100% certainty?
    woof, woof, growl. — Corvus
  • What can I know with 100% certainty?
    Amongst teachers, there is an expression reserved for some students, diverted by their circumstances to such a degree that nothing can be taught until the circumstance is addresses. Those with parents going through a vicious separation, or with severe health conditions, or who simply missed breakfast and are too hungry to concentrate. they are said to be "unavailable for learning".

    For some reason, unclear to us, @Corvus is "unavailable for learning".

    It is a pattern that can be seen in other threads in which he is involved. He puts up a pretence of paying attention and of understanding the discussion, then after a few days throws up a wall of nonsense. For some reason unknown to us, he is not able to take on new information.

    For a teacher the only workable remedy is to address the circumstances. To give the student breakfast, treat their condition or approach the parents. We can't do that for Corvus.

    Further conversation becomes like a child hitting the dog's cage with a stick. It will bark and growl back at you; fun, but progress will not be made.
  • What can I know with 100% certainty?
    ↪Lionino
    Thanks, but you can save yourself the trouble of finding such references, if they are for my benefit.

    It would be wonderful to listen to Descartes and Wittgenstein discussing certainty.
  • Is the Pope to rule America?
    ↪Hanover
    ,
    ↪Athena
    asked if there were a problem with the "God of Abraham religions that we might resolve with reason.
    ↪Ciceronianus
    suggested that it's "not possible to reason with those who believe they already know what there is to know because their God has told them so". I am just pointing to a common root, the place from whence the idea that faith trumps rationality might issue.

    It makes you uncomfortable. It ought.
  • What can I know with 100% certainty?
    Don't feed the troll?
  • What can I know with 100% certainty?
    ↪Metaphyzik
    I'm not sure you got the point, which had nothing to do with new ideas.

    Here's another p⊃q: "If the milk is sour, then your bank account is empty".

    Or "The first letter of the alphabet is 7, so Fred is a zebra".
  • What can I know with 100% certainty?
    ↪Lionino
    Not all my replies are intended for you. Sometimes the questions and issues raised are rhetorical, or intended for a particular individual in a way that might give them pause in their approach.

    I'm sure you do the same thing. Talking to multiple folk requires talking at different levels, or at least placing differing emphasis.

    You are at pains to defend Descartes against my probing, but there is no need. I respect his system, and have enough of a grasp of it to see it's consistency. But there are problems with it, as I am sure you would acknowledge.

    I seem to be the only one referring back to the topic. My position, again, speaking broadly, is that anything can be brought into doubt; and hence the notion of being "100% certain" is fraught. But also, not everything can be brought into doubt. And hence there are things of which we are certain. We are certain of those things for the purposes of the task at hand.

    To that end I attempted to sow some doubt as to "I think therefore I am", by pointing out that it is difficult to give an account of it as an inference. To some extent that has been a success.

    I'm not at present aware of a part of this discussion where you and I are at great odds.
  • What can I know with 100% certainty?
    ↪Janus
    It was a joke.
  • What can I know with 100% certainty?
    ↪flannel jesus
    It's unusual, but it's been seen before. What is unusual is that Corvus has been around for so long without being banned. There are maybe one or two others in his class.

    One reaches a point where the only thing to do is laugh and walk away.

    ↪flannel jesus
    Thanks for attempting to explain this to @Metaphyzik.

    The other missing bits for them are that p and q in p⊃q need neither be related nor true, and p⊃q might itself be false. Unlike p⊃p , which is always true, and p⊃~p, which is always false.

    ↪Metaphyzik
    , you asked for an example of p⊃q. "That there are green crows implies there are no new ideas" is just that: with "There are green crows" for p and "There are no new ideas" for q. It is intended to show how hollow "p⊃q" is. Have a think on it.
  • What can I know with 100% certainty?
    Meh. I tried.
  • What can I know with 100% certainty?
    ↪Janus
    And some were struggling to get out, only to be pushed back in...

    :wink:
  • What can I know with 100% certainty?
    give me an real world example — Metaphyzik

    I did, you missed it, it's not going to help.

    That there are green crows implies there are no new ideas. — Banno
  • What can I know with 100% certainty?
    My overall impression is that logic is not a strong point hereabouts.
  • What can I know with 100% certainty?
    The opposite of p->q is of course p->~q — Metaphyzik

    Actually, it's ~(p→ q).

    What I was pointing to is the triviality of your
    This covers it: q -> (p v~p) — Metaphyzik

    Both ¬q → (p ∨ ¬p) and q → (p ∨ ¬p) are valid.
  • What can I know with 100% certainty?
    Now let me ask you an honest question. Can you say what Descartes meant (or gets credit for for some reason even though any idiot knows “I am” for certain)? What did Descartes mean? — Fire Ologist

    Well, I'm not at all sure - that's somewhat the point.

    Some folk think he was making an inference - you seem to think otherwise, and no one has set the inference out for us in a valid way.

    Some folk think he was setting out an intuition. But if that is what he was doing, then can we coherently say the intuition is justified, as is needed if it is to answer the question in the OP - that we know we exist.

    Some folk think it a definition of "I" - that his argument is that I am what thinks. That has various novel problems, pretty much not considered so far.

    Now I've said quite a few times in this thread that I do not think we need be "100% certain" in order to get on with things. I think the phrase sets up a bad framework for dealing with doubt and certainty. I am being a pain in the arse in order to show that there are issues with the very notion of insisting on being "100% certain".
  • What can I know with 100% certainty?
    ↪Metaphyzik
    That there are green crows implies there are no new ideas.
  • What can I know with 100% certainty?
    But that fact does not invalidate the cogito. — Metaphyzik

    No; nor does it validate it.

    Why should we agree with the cogito?

    This covers it: q -> (p v~p) — Metaphyzik
    But, ¬q → (p ∨ ¬p) is equally valid. Note the negation.
  • What can I know with 100% certainty?
    ↪Metaphyzik
    Sure, all that.

    But what you have not shown is that if P thinks then it exists.

    Have you a proof of that?

    Here we go again.
  • What can I know with 100% certainty?
    ↪Corvus
    Any logic text you choose.

    That's kinda why I have been backing up and checking what I have writ with the tree generator.

    (Edited - I assumed the wrong author)
  • What can I know with 100% certainty?
    ↪wonderer1
    Well, we might re-set by considering what it is to be certain.
    ↪Truth Seeker
    seems to have been satisfied with evolution as a source of certainty, which is a bit weird but perhaps they will not mind a change of direction.

    Certainty is, on some accounts, indubitable belief.

    Now there are all sorts of things that go undoubted. Are we certain of them all?

    Or do we need reason, justification, warrant, to doubt?
  • What can I know with 100% certainty?
    I am just trying to understand your logic here. — Corvus

    It's not just my logic.
  • Is the Pope to rule America?
    ↪Moses
    Sure. So the obvious conclusion is that there is no consistent account of the nature of god as posited.

    Now from this we might conclude either that he doesn't exist or that he does and we just have to accept that he is inscrutable.

    You get to choose.
  • What can I know with 100% certainty?
    No, because if you are able to get through to Corvus, observing how you did so might provide me with insight that I don't have at present. — wonderer1

    Previous experience has shown that Corvus will not correct his errors nor accept any interpretation not at one with his own, apparently now to the point of extremis.

    On the other hand, he has quite successfully made this thread about himself. A tragedy in which we are all implicated.

    We were moving on a bit, until
    ↪Janus
    became involved, leading us back into the mire.
  • What can I know with 100% certainty?
    It is not about follow, it is about introducing assertion and inference. — Corvus

    Yes, Follow.
    Are you still claiming that when you stop thinking, you cease to exist is true? — Corvus
    No, Corvus. That is your confusion. I have never claimed that when you stop thinking, you cease to exist. What I have said, quite explicitly, is that if Descartes' argument is that if you are thinking, you exist, then that this does not, as you have claimed, imply that if you stop thinking you cease to exist.

    I have also attempted to show you that your argument would hold if Descartes' argument is that by definition "I" am the thing that is doing the doubting. This is your out; but it seems you have difficulty seeing it.

    You bite the hand...

    Are we now playing "posts last wins"?
  • What can I know with 100% certainty?
    Hoping to be edified. — wonderer1

    Why - because that would be entertaining?
  • What can I know with 100% certainty?
    ↪Corvus
    , from "If it thinks, then it exists" it does not follow that "If it does not think, it does not exist".

    And from "If it rains, the ground will be wet" it does not follow that "If it does not rain, the ground will not be wet". I can hose the ground, and rocks exist without thinking.
Home » Banno