Amen!↪TonesInDeepFreeze
Sometimes all you can do is laugh and walk away. — Aristotle — Banno
TonesInDeepFreeze
Sometimes all you can do is laugh and walk away. — Aristotle
— Banno
Amen! — Gnomon
I don't know what set Tones off on his "Gnomon said" rant. — Gnomon
Gnomon didn't say or mean whatever knocked the chip off his shoulder. — Gnomon
I certainly had no intention to insult him, or to debate the technicalities of higher math with him. — Gnomon
I was about to mention that he's gnawing on an imaginary bone, with no nutritional value. But such a light-hearted tongue-in-cheek remark — Gnomon
I'll take [banno's] advice to just laugh quietly and walk away. [...] — Gnomon
[italics original]PS___Since he's bursting at the seems — Gnomon
I'll let Tones have the last word : fill-in the blank [ . . . . . . . ] — Gnomon
, I can't apologize on behalf of the TPF forum. But personally, I'm sorry you got mired in the quicksand of the Literal Mind; of which there are several pits on this "meeting place of ideas". Personally, I saw some merit in your hypothetical, metaphorical, and symbolic approach to a "perennial" philosophical conundrum : "how did the observed chain of causation get started?". Or, in other words, "why is there something instead of nothing"?As far as I see it neither a first cause nor infinite causes solve the problem of infinite causality, but visual aids help to a certain extent, in the end were left with a circle … asking where the circle came from is a valid question and it’s representation of circular logic in a way answers it. — invicta
some pseudo-philosopher posters are limited in their thinking to finite physical Reality : no place for metaphysical Ideality. Consequently, intimations of anything outside the physical/material system of Cause & Effect amounts to blasphemy against their personal belief system (their creed). — Gnomon
where to put the diamond that indicates the thing that is K only exists contingently? — Banno
I think Russell is saying that you don't put modal operators in front of terms, only in front of formulas. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Earlier he makes it clear thatI conclude that, so far as appears, there is no one fundamental logical notion of necessity, nor consequently of possibility. If this conclusion is valid, the subject of modality ought to be banished from logic, since propositions are simply true or false, and there is no such comparative and superlative of truth as is implied by the notions of contingency and necessity.
Russell puts much of the blame for the confusion down to Kant. In this, at least, he seems to be in agreement with Kripke.Necessity and possibility, to begin with, must be primarily predicates of propositions. When we say (for example) "God is a necessary Being", we must be regarded as meaning "That God is is necessary". We must distinguish between a necessary proposition and a proposition which predicates necessity.
ey — TonesInDeepFreeze
what does he mean by "fundamental logical notion" — TonesInDeepFreeze
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.