Into the jungle, @Nils Loc!

Well, I don't think there are any issues anymore. So, let's wait to hear from @Fooloso4...

What do you think about Wittgenstein's answer to Hume's problem of induction in the Tractatus?

Disgraceful. Continuing false allegations against Fooloso4. And the ignoring of same. — Amity

I never said anything against Fooloso4. I even said in my previous comments that I think he is right.

Anyway, I hope Fooloso4 might be able to contribute more to these issues. Quite interested in his input.

But is that the case? — Nils Loc

Well, even Wittgenstein maintained that there might be a rhinoceros in the room.

What are your thoughts about the following propositions?

6.362 What can be described can happen too: and what the law of causality is meant to exclude cannot even be described.

6.363 The procedure of induction consists in accepting as true the simplest law that can be reconciled with our experiences.

6.3631 This procedure, however, has no logical justification but only a psychological one. It is clear that there are no grounds for believing that the simplest eventuality will in fact be realized.

6.36311 It is an hypothesis that the sun will rise tomorrow: and this means that we do not know whether it will rise.

6.37 There is no compulsion making one thing happen because another has happened. The only necessity that exists is logical necessity.

Yes, it's puzzling what goes on in Meinong's jungle.

We can imagine things that aren't the case. — Terrapin Station

Like Plato's beard?

I think that he is doing a good job, but partly. For the other part, its really bad: he makes his own views pass as W's, most commonly they appear at the end of a paragraph. — Pussycat

What do you disagree with?

So you see now its purpose? — Pussycat

Anyway, what do you make out of this exchange so far? Does it seem like Fooloso4 is doing a good job no?

So you see now its purpose? — Pussycat

Not yet. @Fooloso4 care to expand on "a priori metaphysics"?

Tapir...

Semantics...

How do you prevent the capitalists from being too close to the government?

Mayth this thread rest in peace.

Do not fret. Alan Greenspan was a devout believer in objectivism. I suspect Trump may have read her Atlas Shrugged too. Rand is very popular among most Republicans...

Yes, I see that Ayn Rand is beaming right through you. It's a pity philosophers don't take her more seriously.

Rhethoric aside, why is laissez faire economics better than some regulation in place?

Indeed. Compared to Purple Pond I have something like 315 topics in total. I practically live here.

Of course it may be argued that since everything is passing why not prepone the inevitable death. To that the answer would be that realizing the truth of impermanence and the foolishness of craving actually, paradoxically, produces contentment and not depression, making us happier than if we didn't know it.

I don't know of any other religion that is more rational than Buddhism. It's 2000 years old and still makes sense.

This is strange: To understand death makes life happier — TheMadFool

Hear hear. This is good. Why do you think the answer of impermanence and the foolishness of craving produce paradoxically contentment and satisfaction?

I no longer want anything to do with this thread. — Banno

Hmm, am I to blame or what's the issue here?

If people really cared about unborn fetuses, then they would have made the world a better place for them instead of denying their existence.

@Fooloso4,

What do you think about Proposition's 6.5 and 6.53?

6.5

For an answer which cannot be expressed the question too cannot be expressed.
The riddle does not exist.

If a question can be put at all, then it can also be answered.

====
6.53

The right method of philosophy would be this: To say nothing except what can be said, i.e. the propositions of natural science, i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy: and then always, when someone else wished to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had given no meaning to certain signs in his propositions. This method would be unsatisfying to the other -- he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy -- but it would be the only strictly correct method.

Well, @Banno point is still on point. Namely, if we don't call Nixon by the same name, we're still talking about Nixon.

However, I take another step back and ask, that if we're talking about Nixon by assigning a different name, then how is that possible.

I assume the answer is straightforward...

Yes, nowadays it's all shiet.

Impressive analysis.

Thanks.

Or, more briefly, thank you! — tim wood

:)

Wow, you and @Snakes Alive need to chill out against the name calling. Please stop.

You'll thank me later for this Playlist if you have lots of free time on your hand.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXBQRuMfs2E&list=PLFF9E7ADD88FBA144

It has been a long time since I was a graduate student. If I was still in school I would not have time for this. — Fooloso4

Cheers.

:up:

What? You've never heard of counterfactuals?

Can you opensource anything to enable sharing of the database?

Is the quality of the population ('a good or a great student') adequately captured by tests like the SAT or GMAT that limit admittance to schools with higher ranking?

Logic.

p v ~p

:rofl:

Hm. The length of the metre is rigidly designated by the name "metre". "The length of this stick" is a definite description. Keep the quotes in, to show we are talking about the words, and not the length of the stick. — Banno

I propose that "the length of this stick" attains its meaning from the fact that a meter is defined as the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second. A second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.

So, a "meter" is the same as the definite description that is empirically true in any possible world where the above relations are the same or "actualized" as in the actual world where they obtain.

The Barcan Formula is what Occam's Razer is to quantified modal logic.

So there are things we can do in English that are ruled out by the Barcan formula. Hence, logics which include the Barcan formula cannot parse some sentences of English. — Banno

If you want to take a hard reading of the Barcan Formula, then the stuff that is beyond the scope of the Barcan Formula, are known unknowns or metaphysics if you will. Did I mention that the Barcan Formula applies to The Simplest Quantified Modal Logic?

Compare this thread: All A is B and all A is C, therefore some B is C, where things are said to appear in a puff of logic. — Banno

Yeah, and the Barcan Formula eliminates such confusions with asserting properties that exist and can be stipulated, not properties belonging to the realm of stuff existing in Meinong's Jungle or Plato's Beard.

I would like to start a conversation discussing what the value of depression is, if it has any? — NKBJ

I think that the value of depression is the ability (once out of it), to appreciate what we have and be thankful for the things we don't have. This sort of runs along the lines of stating that suffering is inherently meaningful because we know what it is like to suffer and when we don't we can be glad that we are no longer suffering.

However, if the suffering is unremitting, and renders existence as ultimate torture, then, by all means, suicide can be justified; but, the majority of cases with depression erroneously conclude that their suffering will never end.

The description is not a rigid designator. — Banno

Going back to the example of the meter-stick, the length of the meter stick is the definite description, not the meter stick itself.

Anyway, what I've seen going on in the other thread is the matter of placing the horse behind the cart. Namely, if we are to talk about rigid designators, then it seems to me that the description of it is what guarantees its rigidity in possible worlds where they obtain.