I put that laugh down when I read something that actually makes me laugh, as your statement did — Garrett Travers
I make you laugh, huh? God has answered my prayers. Praise the lord! — Agent Smith
Oh, just praise that big ole, sweet, sky-baby, making on the fermaments, and killing his own kids, talking through donkeys and bushes about being worshipped, and not being gay cuz eww, hims just so sweet.
(now imagine me saying this to you in the voice of Zack Galifinakis in The Campaign) — Garrett Travers
That's true, arguments not propositions. But no, you're still wrong: — Garrett Travers
"A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid. — Garrett Travers
Not replying to anyone but what's up with the philosophical hero worship? Who has the time!? — SkyLeach
That is specifically why he isn't a philosopher. — Garrett Travers
The Academy is overrun with social-constructionists, Marxists, relativists, Kantians, Cartesians, Nietzscheans and all other manner of plagiarised, deformed, Christian-Mysticism adapted bullshit used by the controllers to ensure a faith in a non-reality. Which is why I started this thread, to provide an example of a real philosopher, and the most important in the history of the tradition. — Garrett Travers
What I said is that if a deductively valid argument has a false conclusion, then at least one premise is false. — Bartricks
Quite. In this particular case it is really a form of Garret Travers self-love, for Epicurus is the philosopher that Garret Travers has been most influenced by and thus he is the most influential philosopher of all, even though he obviously isn't. — Bartricks
Here are Epicurus's arguments:
1. To be harmed by something you have to experience the harm
2. You can't experience your own death
3. Therefore, you can't be harmed by your own death — Bartricks
That's a shit argument because premise 1 is false. There is nothing inconsistent in God existing and evil existing. For example, there is no logical inconsistency in God existing and a person with an evil disposition existing. God would not have created such a person, but nothing in the definition of God entails that he created anyone. And thus God can exist and another person can exist that God did not create and that person can have an evil disposition. And thus evil can exist consistent with God existing. — Bartricks
The rest of what Epicurus had to teach was really more to do with how best to make oneself happy, and as such it is not really philosopher proper, but therapy. Don't fear death (for the bad reasons given above). Recognize that there is no God or divine retribution (partly for the bad reason given above). Recognize that most pain is either intense but short lived, or dull and easy to cope with. And don't cultivate expensive tastes or hard to satisfy desires. And don't fall in love or have sex. — Bartricks
But I am. — Bartricks
Social constructivists and marxists and relativists and Nietzscheans are mainly in English departments and other disney disciplines. Needless to say, they should all be shut down. — Bartricks
I am quite a fan of Descartes and think he was quite right about the immateriality of the mind and the existence of God. But most analytic philosophers would reject immaterialism about the mind and don't believe in God and don't generally have much time for Descartes. So you clearly don't know much about the academy, at least not the philosophy end of it. — Bartricks
Be honest, all you've done is read some popular science books by people talking outside their areas of expertise and some of them have mentioned Epicurus in approving terms (even though that's a bit odd, given his materialism comes from Democritus) and you've thereby decided that Epicurus is the bee's knees, even though no serious philosopher in their right mind would declare him the most influential of all. I mean, have you heard of Plato? What did he do again? Oh, started the first university and provided the metaphysical foundations of Christianity. Whatever happened to those? Did universities take off? They're called Academies, not Gardens. — Bartricks
Oh, I see. That makes a bit more sense. You've spoken a good deal of horse shit, hard to sift through. Yes, this is true. — Garrett Travers
This is not his argument. You'll find his argument here — Garrett Travers
No, it's a first good start for something the vast majority of the population still doesn't understand nearly 2000 years later. And, it's a perfectly good argument because no rational human would create a world with evil in it, and where as god would have to be beyond rational capabilities of any man, then it's not possible for there to be a god. And no, god cannot exist, he will have to be demonstrated to exist, thus both of your arguments are shit, but yours is shittier as it has been 2000 years. — Garrett Travers
These aren't arguments against Epicurus' positions, they're angry tantrums at his superiority over the philosophers you worship that plagiarised him. Again, his societies are the most successful ever. There's no arguing with the record. — Garrett Travers
But I am.
— Bartricks
That remains to be seen. — Garrett Travers
I'm in the Academy. I know exactly what is going on. — Garrett Travers
It does not make 'more' sense - it has the same sense it always had, it is just that now you see it, whereas before you loudly declared what I said to be false. — Bartricks
Seems you don't understand Epicurus either. — Bartricks
Do you think that it is impossible for God to exist and for an evilly disposed person to exist? If so, why? Don't tell me God wouldn't create such a person, for I have not suggested he would. — Bartricks
I explicitly said that they weren't even philosophical points he was making, but therapeutic ones. But again, understanding is not strong with this one. — Bartricks
No. I am. — Bartricks
Well, there are kitchens in the Academy and burgers won't flip themselves. — Bartricks
Anyway, you clearly don't a clue. You've just been watching too much Jordan Peterson or something. — Bartricks
The rest was just silly. — Bartricks
The premise claims that to be [deleterious effect] by [thing] you must [experience pro/con effect] of [thing] but never mentions the axiomatic truth that nothing in the universe has ever been observed to be composed of a pure or base elment. — SkyLeach
I would put forward that it's the unknown and our experience with the negative side of facing the unknown without preparation that we fear (as well as quite possibly the painful transition). — SkyLeach
This is not what any premise of his states. This is his argument right here:
Death is nothing to us; for the body, when it has been resolved into its elements, has no feeling, and that which has no feeling is nothing to us. — Garrett Travers
Here are Epicurus's arguments:
1. To be harmed by something you have to experience the harm
2. You can't experience your own death
3. Therefore, you can't be harmed by your own death — Bartricks
. that's just a totally different epicurean quote vs. a paraphrase of Bartricks summary: — SkyLeach
his rationale is more shallow than my 9yo's. — SkyLeach
specious and subjective to an excessively biased portrayal of all humanity from his own personal perspective which itself is incredibly limited in understanding compared to ... say ... Aristotle's — SkyLeach
I haven't read deeply enough to say if E was an atheist or not, I only know he didn't believe in an afterlife and we already know that some very religious sects (like the Sadducees of Judaism) were theists but didn't believe in an afterlife. It's very rare for a greek not to believe in the gods, as you alluded to. — SkyLeach
At any rate I wanted to encourage both you and Bartricks to stop taking things so personally. We are human and our emotions, once they get volitile, will prevent us from being objective and carefully considering the arguments in front of us. — SkyLeach
Aristotle did it first and was obviously a very clear and direct first-cause for Epicureanism. — SkyLeach
I'm finding it really hard to see where he actually added anything substantial to what Aristotle taught. I'm not implying worthless contribution, far from it, merely that as an intigation rather than a natural propagation and growth your argument seems lacking. — SkyLeach
Given that I haven't studied him and I have no intention of studying what he taught and wrote on my own please allow me to clearly state our impasse — SkyLeach
I don't want to know what some fatuous fanboy wrote (not you, your links). I don't want to read appaels to fame or appeals to authority... I want a quote or two. — SkyLeach
Otherwise I just don't have sufficient reason to put any time into investigating this. I'm curious, but it takes a very profound insight to get me to rearrange my insane learning schedule. — SkyLeach
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.