Anthony Kenny in his book The History of Western Philosophy says that, for Aristotle, the soul is the form of an organic body. Everything psychological hinges on that idea.

There is no "person" AFAIK these are called "demonstratives" or something like that. — the affirmation of strife

:ok:

"This" is not second person. — the affirmation of strife

Third person?

Don't forget T Clark's razor - When you are trying to decide which of two otherwise equal bottles of wine to purchase, buy the one with the twist-off cap. — T Clark

:grin: :up:

I don't understand one thing with so-called self-referential sentences. Let me explain.

Human self-reference
Sarah says:

1. I am a bad, bad girl! (1st person)

2. You are a bad, bad girl, Sarah! (2nd person)

3. Sarah is a bad, bag girl, isn't she? (3rd person)

Linguistic self-reference

4. I am false (1st person) ???

5. This sentence is false (2nd/3rd person?)

Why are self-referential sentences like the liar sentence (5) only in the 2nd/3rd person while we humans can do the same in 3 different ways (1, 2, 3)

Another issue:

If I say "this bag is black", I have to actually point at the bag in question. That is to say we need another piece of information ( :point: ) to clarify what "this" refers to.

Consider now the liar sentence "this sentence is false". How do I know "this" refers to the liar sentence itself? Where's the :point: ?

4. This :point: "Paris is on the moon" sentence is false.

5. This :point: "This sentence is false" sentence is false.

Ambiguity?

I was actually trying to sneak in that what he is really talking about (underneath) is more or less about plain bad luck framed as Stupidity. — I like sushi

:fire: :fire: :fire:

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. — Robert J. Hanlon (Hanlon's Razor)

Never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by bad luck. — I like sushi - (insert your name) Razor

Good one!

Give me your surname if you don't mind and you can have a rule of thumb named after you. You'll join the likes of William of Occam (Occam's razor), Christopher Hitchens (Hitchens' razor)n you already know Robert J. Hanlon (Hanlon's razor), etc. What say you?

:smile:

The first cause couldn't have been something for that something would itself need a cause. Ergo, the first cause is nothing (0). Nothing can't cause anything. Ergo, since God is nothing (the first cause, 0), God is causally impotent. No wonder! All these claims of divine intervention (miracles) is complete bollocks.

As for Cronus, either we've traversed infinity OR time has a beginning OR time isn't real. I prefer the third option. McTaggart would approve.

To add, I don't quite get the rationale behind viewing time arithmetically i.e. as a sequence. Why not take a geometric stance - a cube has no beginning or end. This doesn't seem that bizarre an idea - "the time gap was just too long". What about time as the 4th dimension? Does this have anything to do with the fact that in quantum mechanics the phrase "smeared out" pops up every now and then - motion blur (block time).

Nobody raises an eyebrow when we talk of infinite space. How on earth did we get where we are? The spatial version of the temporal riddle. Space is infinite in all directions.

Questions

1. What is x? [not a statement; ergo, can't be true or false]

can be rephrased as

2. x is p OR x is q OR x is r OR x is...[a statement; ergo, can be true or false]

Metaphysical statements

An example:

3. God exists Or God doesn't exist [we don't know; we cannot know; nevertheless, a statement that can be true or false]

can be rephrased as

4. Does God exist? [not a statement; neither true nor false]

:joke:

"ludic fallacy" — 180 Proof

That's exactly what the doctor ordered! :up:

raw Stupidity and luck. — I like sushi

Gettier problem, kind courtesy of Edmund Gettier.

How do we know that all we know are not Gettier cases?

If one can demonstrate that change, any and all kinds of change, involves going from nothing (Unbeing) to something (Being), change is impossible. Ex nihilo nihil fit.

Yet, some believe creatio ex nihilo.

Of course there are many things that can be said but cannot be meant.

1. Why is there something rather than nothing?

2. Why is there something rather than everything?

indifferent — 180 Proof

The opposite of that would be a nosey parker. We might wanna use the expresssion "mind your own business".

impotent — 180 Proof

Are you wishing for a celestial dictator? Thanks Christopher Hitchens for coining that phrase.

So what is "not completely right" with this riddle? — 180 Proof

What's "not completely right"? Lemme see...that it's good that God leaves us alone and can't do jack shit about how we do things.

Hey 180 Proof, please bear with me if I make silly mistakes. You know me, I'm mad and I'm a fool.

Yeah, in a strange way as they 'better' the 'worseness' :D — I like sushi

:up:

Epicurus was not completely right and he's becoming less and less right as time flies but, I fear, he'll be right on the money all at once again.

Still true but the previous statement was truer if I may say so. Still :confused: though. Nothing that you need to be concerned about, yet. Good day!

those that better their own situation worse and others better were … I forget … I think they were called Helpless. — I like sushi

This does make a whole lot of sense! :confused:

When are you from? — Sarah Connor (Terminator - Dark Fate)

What's the difference between a genius and a time traveler? One term for stupid people is troglodyte.

Le meglio è l'inimico del bene (The perfect is the enemy of the good) — François-Marie Arouet aka Voltaire

If you meet the Buddha, kill him. — Linji Yixuan

The enemy of my enemy is my friend (Arthashastra).

I'm bad. Does this mean the Buddha is my friend? WTF?! :chin:

Was the K-Pg extinction event a mass suicide?

The demand for iridium surged from 2.5 metric tons in 2009 to 10.4 metric tons in 2010, mostly because of electronics-related applications. — Wikipedia

In 1980, a team of researchers led by Nobel prize-winning physicist Luis Alvarez, his son, geologist Walter Alvarez, and chemists Frank Asaro and Helen Vaughn Michel discovered that sedimentary layers found all over the world at the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary (K–Pg boundary, formerly called Cretaceous–Tertiary or K–T boundary) contain a concentration of iridium hundreds of times greater than normal. — Wikipedia

Iridium layer at the K-Pg boundary is the smoking gun as regards dinsoaur extinction. Iridium has applications in the hi-tech industry. Hmmmm... :chin:


Were dinosaurs chronically ill or were they dealt a rough hand or yet, did they realize existence is futile in the grand scheme of things?

What amazes me is that if you're kept, nude, all your nails clipped, alone in an empty, padded room, you simply can't kill yourself. The organ systems in your body that keep you alive - the cardiovascular system and the respiratory system - are completely beyond your control i.e. you ca neither stop your heart and nor can you halt breathing.

Since suicide & euthansia are instances of life negating life, death follows, my question is is life death negating death. Is an infant, for example, born everytime death "suicides"? Poor death. :sad:

The Dao 道 (the “way”) gives birth to one.
One gives birth to Two, 
Two gives birth to Three.. — Daodejing, Chap. 42

It seems Laozi was uninformed about geometric progressions: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32,...

Maybe he was talking about the exponents and not the terms.

Cartoonists/artists can make anything into a cartoon, including and not limited to Mohammed the prophet (PBUH); this at the risk of a fatwa from the grand ayatollah of Iran, something that will turn your world upside down no doubt - a crick in your neck from constantly having to look over your shoulders for assassins will be the least of your worries.

Is, therefore, everything a cartoon?

1. Panopticon

2. Closed-circuit television (CCTV)

3. Weeping Angels (Dr. Who).

Ergo,

4. There's something immoral/bad about waves.

The electron, which is negatively charged, in a sense, knows it's being watched/observed and behaves/acts accordingly. In my experience, only conscious entities do this. Are electrons, by extension everything, conscious? Panpsychism?

:joke:

:up:

Adam & Eve were evicted from the, ooooh!, garden of eden for disobeying. Yeah, gravity! We can fly of course but sooner or later we have to land - the easy way or the hard way.

The word "thing" is,

1. A universal referent i.e. if the universe, universe in the broadest sense, is a set, the word "thing" refers to any and all members of that set, the universal set.

2. a variable, like x or y or z in mathematics it simply designates an unknown.

Do you see what's going on here?

In sense 1, a thing is the value of a variable (x = thing) and in the sense 2, a thing is a variable (x).

If Ax = x is an apple and Px = x is physical,

3. Apples are physical: If something is an apple then it is physical. $(\forall x)(Ax \rightarrow Px)$

4. Things are physical: $(\forall x)Px$ [A variable can't be a value]

What gives?

Failure of (your) imagination isn't an argument, O. — 180 Proof

Argument from (personal) incredulity.. It's a short read.

The format for monisms:

Everything is x

You see some apples, apples! You see some apples & bananas, fruits! You see some apples, bananas and meat, food! You see some apples, bananas, meat and bulldozers, things!

"What's that thing you have in your hands?" An unknown, Apollonius of Perga's legacy.

A distinct feeling of ignorance, being in the dark.

Say everything is physical. Light! A transition from ignorance to knowledge. Illusory/ real?

"Bring me that thing over there," said she to Tom.
Tom: :confused: :chin: ???

She clarifies, "if it's physical, bring it."
Tom: :confused: :chin: ???

Animals live in a state of super-consciousness which might also be considered a lack of self-awareness. — James Riley

A novel thought/idea!

There’s a force in the universe that makes things happen. And all you have to do is get in touch with it, stop thinking, let things happen, and be the ball. — Ty Webb (Caddyshack 1980)

No, I haven't left for good and just finished doing house clearance yesterday...It was such a big job and I had to take about 100 teddy bears to charity shops, taking them on buses. So, I am exhausted and finding it hard to concentrate on philosophy but I hope to be able to do so in the next few days — Jack Cummins

:up: :smile:

I play with a toy.
I play with a Roy.
I play.
I slay.

Morality seems more pain/suffering-oriented (negative utilitarianism) — TheMadFool

Laugh, and the world laughs with you;

Weep, and you weep alone; — Ella Wheeler Wilcox (Solitude)

Perhaps morality needs a combination of logic and emotion in order for it to be balanced. Logic or rationality is needed to assess the best course of action, juggling possible effects. However, there may also be need for emotional aspects as a motivating factor to aid an approach which involves empathy or compassion too. — Jack Cummins

Hi Jack Cummins. I was worried you had left us for greener pastures. Good to see you!


The torturer could not torture if...

Who says one can't? (e.g. Socrates, Montaigne, Nietzsche, Cioran, S. Weil, I. Murdoch ...) — 180 Proof

Yeah, ideas/philosophies/theories are like ports to a ship - some are friendly, relaxing, exhilirating places, others are hostile, disturbing, dull as ditchwater - but there really is no reason why a ship must remain at any particular one. As you said, homo viator or, our friend @Wayfarer.

I dunno if this makes sense but the following statements are all different:

1. $A \subseteq B$

2. $A \subset B$

3. $A = B$

It’s just that it’s not relevant to the (admittedly esoteric) point. It’s not as if Buddhism posits any sort of imperishable object. If there is such a condition then it is an attribute of the Tathagata not of any literal object. — Wayfarer

The Tathagata is a synonym for Nagarjuna's tetralemma. You can take him/her (the Tathagata) as a personification of the madhyamaka.

You’re talking about objects. — Wayfarer

What should I have been talking about?

Since animals are not moral agents, I never understood efforts made to explain morality through animal behavior. — Tzeentch

A very good point.

Modal logic:

1. □P $\rightarrow$ ◇P

It's like looking for water in the desert or something like that.

I'll leave it at that.

Compassion arises with the identification of other, as just another self, or an expanded concept of self. — boagie

Expansion from a certain vantage point but contraction from another. When I feel more for others, I feel less for myself.

I've never viewed morality as pain/suffering. — James Riley

Moral theories then, are theories. Whether a theory is a mental reflex or not is yet another conisderation that has nothing to do with the event (pain/suffering). It's you and I sitting around talking about it, thinking about it; not living it. — James Riley

Empathy, does it exist?

David Chalmer's hard problem of consciousness and, more generally, theory vs praxis (Mary's room argument). Why does a discussion on morality end up becoming one on consciousness? Is this some kind of a package deal?

C'mon, Fool. — 180 Proof

:grin: Sometimes I go too far but then some of us don't go to where a path actually leads, preferring to find a comfortable spot and make it their home! I'm a nomad!

A question: Why can't the world of ideas be lived in, experienced as a wanderer? Why do people expect you to, well, settle down in a manner of speaking?