What say I? Nothing more than.......

........to keep adding implies infinity hasn't been “gotten”, and infinity “gotten” implies there is no adding, “gotten” tacitly understood to indicate “arrived at”;
.......the pure a priori concept of quantity is far the more a beginning, than the schemata subsumed under it;
......the notion of “other-worldly” is impossible to derive from the predicates contained by the concepts given in “our universe” and “thought by us”, which the emphasis in the originals should have illustrated.

Rhetorically speaking, of course. — Mww

That was too complicated but grant me one question: how do you know this, our, universe isn't, you know, infinite? If I misread you, where?

the world is meaningless — Ross Campbell

This, in my humble opinion, needs some qualification. Meaningless only in the sense that one wasn't conferred to you by, you know, a "higher power" whatever that means to you.

One can, as far as I can tell, always give ourselves a meaning of our own choosing. :chin:

I think I'll make another thread to discuss the book in, this one can remain for more general discussion of emergence. — frank

:ok: Too tired to make sense of anything. Rambling...rambling...but, thankfully, not gambling.

Enjoy the train ride...truth seeker...bon voyage!

Worth pondering but likely to solved only when hell freezes over. The problem is the idea or theory, if you will, is untestable or unverifiable, I can't tell which. The only way to know that a thing exits is to observe it; if so, how can I ever know it exists when I'm not? It's like asking someone to tell us how a particular food item tastes like but without tasting it? Impossible!

Nevertheless, the famous but quite old double-slit experiment suggests a Cartesian divine observer. Electrons, it's safe to say aren't capable of observing either the experimenters, themselves or anything at all for they matter. Yet, their behavior (interference pattern or a single point of light) seems to evince, among other possibilities, a conscious decision to act in one way and not the other. God? Your guess is as good as mine.

I am on a train wearing a mask so I will only write a short response at present because the mask makes my glasses steam up. I will read your full response again later.

But the main point I wish to make for now is that the reason why I was writing about dreams is that Freud's whole approach and methodology was about dreams. — Jack Cummins

And, in that same vein...

Am I man dreaming that I'm a butterfly or am I butterfly dreaming that I am a man — Zhuangzhi

Please enjoy the train ride...wherever it is that you're headed...don't bother replying to my posts...I'm convinced they are the incoherent speech of a raving lunatic — TheMadFool

Given the conditions under which the conception of infinity is thought by us, the question is irrational with respect to our universe — Mww

My two cents worth:

Firstly, that's an odd thing to say. Aren't we part of this universe?

Secondly, our relationship with infinity had modest beginnings: the natural numbers - keep adding 1 and voila! you get infinity. Remember, the "natural" numbers - nothing exotic or highfalutin or, in your terms, other-worldly.

What say you? :chin:

It has variously been considered unhealthy, a drain of vital energies (see books about tantric sex) and precious bodily fluids (see Dr. Strangelove), and a crime — Bitter Crank

Just what I need to make my case Thanks.

I don't think there's a mathematical constraint that limits the number of dimensions to a finite number. I wonder though how infinite axes, all mutually perpendicular to my reckoning, and all meeting at one single point, the origin, would look like? A sphere?

moral duty to the self — IvoryBlackBishop

This, in my humble opinion, suggests some kind of, in Kantian ethics, failure of duty to the self. How? In what sense? I'm completely stumped.

The only duty to the self that seems relevant seems to be not to hurt yourself i.e. avoid self-harm at all costs or thereabouts. Was Kant a coeval of those physicians who held and propagated the belief that masturbation was harmful to one's health? :chin:

Pardon the interruption. Please continue your conversation, I'm sure you guys have made good progress on that front. Good day!

This connection between logic and use can be summarised as follows: — TVCL

Truth and use?! The only sense I can make of this is that truths are useful. By the way, lies/falsehoods are useful too, even more so on some occasions. So, that's that.

we judge truth by its “usefulness” or regard use as the “measure” of truth because we judge truth by the extent to which our understanding satisfies the parameters of our enquiry — TVCL

As I said, lies can be useful, sometimes more so. What impact does this have on your thesis that the measure of truth is how useful it is? Doesn't it mean, in some sense, at some level, that truths are, it feels weird to say this, lies. Maybe I'm missing something. Care to share?

If logic is the sole measure of truth, it begs the questions because logic alone cannot justify why it should be adhered to. — TVCL

This has been one of my deepest worries, not that I'm a somebody in the field. However, if you ask me, what I'd like to do is to point you in the direction the word "self-justifying" and whatever it means, assumes, entails, etc. I know it looks like the case of the clueless priest who pronounces to his congregation, " the Bible is true because the Bible says so" but whatever the truth is, logic, unlike other systems of thinking, e.g. faith, is, in a very moving and inspiring way, self-judging in the sense it's aware of its own limitations which is more than I can say of other options, the one I'm familiar with being faith.

Therefore, both logic and a regard for use are necessary standards for seeking an understanding of the truth that makes sense. — TVCL

I feel like agreeing despite my views on the critical points of your argument. :smile: Good day. Thanks.

God will permit natural evils, since they are actually opportunities for some creations’ — Isabel Hu

Come to think of it, not only as passive opportunities but actual instances of frank predation. Who's to say disasters don't have agencies behind them, agencies that feed on the bodies and even souls of the hapless victims? Mind you, my imagination is going wild but that's my problem. Feel free to poke holes, holes as large as your own reason and/or imagination permits. :smile:

Given the great disparity in nature, it is not the case that god can favor each creation equally. — Isabel Hu

This is an unfounded assumption. The battle, if I may call it that, between the organisms on this beautiful planet of ours is a no-holds-barred death match with god totally unwilling to assume the role of a referee, firstly because the "arrangement" has no rules - no rules, no referee required and, secondly, god loves us all equally - from worms that zombify their prey to cute, fluffy, bunny rabbits, saints and sinners, all, are equal in god's eyes. God doesn't favor any organism over the other. If fae did, a single organism, faer favorite, should be emerging "victorious" all the time. This is clearly untrue.

If you must believe that god's love isn't impartial then you can do so only if faer "favorite team" in death matches is nothing more than a choice based on his whims and fancies. Even this view eventually reduces to equal love for all creatures, big and small.

Disclaimer: the arguments presented here are my own and is meant to be purely exploratory and don't reflect my actual views. No offense intended. Thank you.

Rational: you decide to buy in a shop because it sells the same products at a better price than another.

Biological: You drink water because you are thirsty. — David Mo

Why is it "because" in both cases? I'm asking because you've spoken as if they're different in the sense that biological motivation is somehow not rational but since it looks like the word "because" or its equivalents can't be avoided in both kinds of motivations and too, their meanings don't seem to be different on both occasions, what gives?

If one belief is more reasonable than another, it ceases to be faith by definition — David Mo

A very good observation on your part but I'm not talking about that kinda reasonableness. To clarify, there seems to be, insofar as reasonableness matters, two kinds of reasons:

1. Reason that justifies a given proposition P (this is
where what you said is relevant)

2. Reason that suggests/recommends a choice between two equally unjustified propositions. This, it seems, requires more explanation. An example might help. There is neither proof that god exists nor proof that god doesn't exist. In other words, the scales of truth, and thus our options for belief, are equally balanced. In this case, it's "reasonable" to believe something despite both god's existence and nonexistence being equally unjustified. Agnosticism is irrelevant for the simple reason that there are believers and nonbelievers i.e. some people think that it's "reasonable" to take a stance, choose a side, without any solid justification at all. (this is where what you said is irrelevant)

:chin:

Psychologists also talk about rational or biological motivation. — David Mo

What are these?

Faith is the motive for believing in a god. They believe that a god exists because of their faith. Since it is not a rational or biological motivation, I believe it is an emotional motivation to believe. — David Mo

I would refrain from saying faith is "...not a rational...motivation". It might be totally reasonable to assume, on faith, certain truths and, theories. :chin:

To those interested

I've arrived at, what to me is, an interesting and also profound conclusion. First things first, "religion", is the wrong word and, dare I say, the prolonged, anticlimactic, ongoing discussion proves this point. "Religion" - the word - is, even if intepreted in the most charitable manner, actually a layman's approximation, liable to be misunderstood in every way imaginable. The word, "religion", is a slippery customer and just won't cut it if we're to answer the question in the OP in a meanignful way.

What are our options here then? This question has an answer that's so obvious that it slips under our radar with ease. The answer, the alternative, is philosophy. If there's anyone at all that can come up with the term that fits the bill insofar as my inquiry is concerned, it's got to be a philosopher worth faer salt.

To cut to the chase, let's look at some philosophical terms that the man on the Clapham omnibus knows like the back of his hand viz. theism and atheism.

The term theism derives from the Greek theos or theoi meaning "god" or "gods". — Wikipedia, Etymology Of Theism

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize that religion when put under the well-trained philosopher's micrcoscope reveals its true form, its essence as it were, and that, as the chosen etymology proves, is that religions are about gods - beings as such, usually with the responsibility of both generating, enforcing, and judging moral codes, their observance and their violation.

Buddhism has no god or gods. Before you raise the objection that there are gods in Buddhism, remember Buddhist gods aren't the source of our morals; in fact they differ from us only in terms of how happy they are and how long they live - basically they're extremely long-lived, extremely happy versions of humans and that's just sad if anything.The Buddha, for some reason, for better or for worse, kept a close and careful watch over his metaphysical claims - I suppose he tried his best to keep the metaphysical content of now his philosophy rather than religion to a bare minimum.

What say you? :chin:

I do believe that most myths and dreams can appear as ridiculous if taken out of the symbolic level. — Jack Cummins

:up: An altogether different ballgame. By the way I have no idea why we're discussing dreams all of a sudden. I'll play along; maybe we might strike gold or something like that. Anyway, if dreams possess symbolic content, who the hell has the key that'll aid us in their decipherment? Without the key, as Wittgenstein once remarked, "no course of action could be determined by a rule, because every course of action can be made out to accord with the rule." or thereabouts.

religious materialism features so strongly in psychotic illness. — Jack Cummins

What's "religious materialism"?

I think that what I am saying is that I reject absolutist arguments in general. I am a bit suspicious of anyone who claims to know the full truth. I do see the various pictures or models of truth as relative in some ways. — Jack Cummins

I'm probably mistaken but from where I stand there seems to be enough room in relativism for absolutism, given that these words are on the mark. The converse seems false.

extreme relativism — Jack Cummins

The punishment for murdering one person is the same as the punishment for murdering a million - death. Just felt like saying that. It appears that I've committed what in your view is a cardinal sin - speaking in absolute terms. Kindly shed some light on the nuances that have escaped my notice.

symbolic truths — Jack Cummins

I don't see how "symbolic truths" have to run contrary to logic and reason. If they do then, perforce, it's impossible to grasp them. We'll be like that dog I saw in a youtube video, cocking its head from side to side - seemingly perplexed - by what was on TV. It would be, simply put, beyond our ken so to speak.

intuitions — Pfhorrest

While I'm a big fan of intuition - it seems to be both the first and last "detective" to arrive at the "crime scene", winning an advantage on both occasions - it is completely useless until and unless its borne out by reason, you know, the part of our psyche that, supposedly, understands stuff.

As for the topic of discussion itself. I suppose it's a clear case of a clash between intuitions rather than the "more common" intuition vs reason scenario everyone, invariably, suspects.

Let's take the lottery example. Suppose someone wins the lottery. No big deal. Suppose that same person wins again next week. Big deal, but it happens sometimes. Suppose they win again. And again. Eventually, you're going to conclude they're cheating or the game is rigged.

Here's another interesting example: suppose a new lottery is rolled out. On the first draw, the lottery numbers spell out the first 10 digits of Pi. That lottery would immediately be shut down because it would be obvious someone rigged it, even though a Pi result in a lottery is perfectly within the realm of chance. The reason you would shut the lottery down in the Pi example is because
Probability("fair lottery") <! Probability("rigged lottery").

The point is, the longer the odds get, the more the "cheating" hypothesis becomes viable. Another example: suppose someone shows you (what they call) a "fair coin". And they proceed to get 20 heads in a row when they flip it. That outcome COULD be chance. But nobody would believe it. — RogueAI

The crux of your argument rests on improbability of certain events but the fact that you have to consider is that improbable doesn't mean impossible. If you're impressed by lady improbable, you're going to love miss impossible. Right? :chin:

A problem I have with Freud and Oedipus is there is not an equal story for females. It is normal for the mother and daughter to clash and for jealousy to become a problem that drives the daughter from the house. This is far more complex than two women competing for the favored position with the male head of household. While some women count on their daughters to be caregivers, typically they do not get along. In the East, typically the old mother goes to the son's home, not the daughters. Having to depend on a daughter or son can be extremely trying for all involved. The Biblical advice that the young go their own way seems well suited to our nature. — Athena

I was/am under the impression that the Oedipus complex is perfectly mirrored in father-daughter relationship. Did Freud slip up or did he think it too obvious to mention or, it gets interesting, he couldn't, like all men, figure out what women were all about? With Freud having left us a long time ago, the question is probably going to remain forever unanswered unless, of course, there's a Sherlock Holmes or a Hercule Poirot in our midst we could press into our service to deduce the truth. Mind you, this is all pure speculation. I haven't read Freud save for the wikipedia entry and that too very superficially.

As for the east-west divide on this issue, I feel it all turns on where countries and their people are on the graph of so-called civilization, civilization defined by the west. As the east plays catch-up with the west, we see an erosion of "eastern values" and the spread of western culture. I suppose there's an equal but opposite flow of "material". Anyway, the point is we'll probably reach some kind of equilibrium with the best of both worlds. This is me going off on a tangent.

He is mostly talked about for his views on sexuality. These could be seen as sexist and the whole idea of the Oedipus complex is open to question. I would argue that despite the limitations of his view his thinking at least sparked off a lot of debate in this area. — Jack Cummins

If I must say something on Freud and the Oedipus complex it's that the whole idea makes sense, at whatever level it does, even if not to everybody. This is either a sign of Freud's genius or evidence that all is not well, if one isn't, even in the slightest sense, "adventurous".

I would suggest that the role of a thinker is not necessarily to come up with a completely coherent answer but to sketch out a panorama for questioning. — Jack Cummins

That, sir, seems to be the true end of everything and anything we've done, we do, and ever will do but, I fear, for the wrong reasons.

Eros and Thanatos — Jack Cummins

I'm too ignorant to question the premise therein but I wonder, in my own small way, whether or not, the human mind, the greatest mystery of all, can be reduced to, may I say, a dance between sex and death. I suppose, despite how superficial it appears, between the lovers' bed and the death bed, a deep, perhaps disturbing but nevertheless profound, truth is waiting to be discovered. I don't know.

Part of the difficulty lies within developing a concrete definition of “life” or “living systems” in the first place. To date the cell has typically been considered the fundamental unit of life as it possesses characteristics common across the board. However even these characteristics - reproduction , response, structure, excretion, nutrition, etc lie in a grey area. For example viruses sometimes possess all the characteristic but only in conjunction with a living host on which it depends to reproduce. — Benj96

I maybe talking out of my hat here but I sense a deep flaw in this, may I call it, attitude, towards life. I don't know if biologists are doing this knowingly/unwittingly but it seems the logic is fractal in nature in the sense that biologists are of the opinion that once no similarities can be discerned between two objects relevant to this discussion, one being the body, as a whole, and the other being some unit of life, here the cell, they believe, perhaps "feel" is a better word, that that's where they should draw the line between life and non-life.

You mentioned how cells perform functions like nutrition, excretion, respiration, etc and these are the similarities between them and the body, itself composed of cells, that, in my humble opinion, lead biologists to the conclusion that once they arrive at subcellular structures that don't exhibit these functions they should then make the distinction life and non-life. In other words, the fractal self-similarity breaks down at the subcellular level...or does it? God know!

Bacteriophages can even reanimate/ resurrect dead bacteria adding to the strangeness that is the line between dead and alive. — Benj96

In other words, what is miraculous at the human scale is just an ordinary occurrence at another scale. Makes one wonder about religion, doesn't it? Jesus would've been an average bloke in the world of bacteriophages or, if you don't mind a little, perhaps dry, joke , bacteriophages, all of them, are sons of god.

So how is it that inanimate chemicals can form a living thing. — Benj96

Quit the fractal logic?! :chin:

What does "fae" mean? Fairy? — David Mo

I'm trying to avoid having to write he/she, him/her, using gender-neutral words that I picked up from a website.

Fae = he/she
Faer = him/her
Faers = his/hers
Faerself = himself/herself

It's got to do with the LGBT movement and so I see it as a win win.

men would do nothing - knowledge included - without emotional motivation — David Mo

Isn't that a tautology?

Faith is a kind of emotional motivation — David Mo

I'm more inclined to think faith is a mode of belief acquisition but it's no secret that it has emotional underpinnings. That said, is the whole enterprise of seeking proof of god more rationalizing then ratiocinating? @Philosophim Perhaps both. It doesn't hurt to discover one was right all along.

That's my theory — Bitter Crank

An amazing, wonderful, possibly more accurate than you yourself suppose, theory! :up:

Peace has reigned between my ears now for — Bitter Crank

Congratulations! Ah...peace...the most wanted, rarest among rarest, "piece of art"...people are willing to pay a fortune for it...if only it were available.

So, ONE OF THE TASKS OF PSYCHOTHERAPY OR SELF-ANALYSIS is to learn how our minds actually are working--especially if they don't seem to be working all that well. — Bitter Crank

This information is for the "front office", right?

Why couldn't I figure all this out when I was 30? — Bitter Crank

Because the "front office" was overwhelmed in a manner of speaking.

To my knowledge, this matter was settled a long time ago with the aid of the ubiquitous game of chance - lotteries.

The chance of winning the jackpot in an average game of lottery maybe arounf 1/10,000,000. You have a better chance of getting hit by lightning I guess. Anyway, the point is someone always wins.

It's shocking for the winner for the simple reason that the odds of winning are near-zero. However, given the number of players, a winner is assured. :chin:

del

From the little that I know of Freud, it makes me want to give him my vote for creativity. Did he or did he not develop his psychological theories like scientists do - only after careful observation? I don't know but to build up theory of psychology from scratch, that too without the help of hard data, not to mention how his theory seems to work in many cases, strongly suggests Freud was deeply insightful, had a poweful imagination, learned in relevant fields, and also had luck on his side. :chin:

Non-materialists. There are many varieties. — Wayfarer

You seem like a non-materialist. Why? Was/is there anything that led you down that path?

physics has assumed as paradigmatic for science generally. — Wayfarer

`
It shows in my posts and probably in those of other members.

What physics offers is unprecedented clarity, certainty and control with respect to the objects of its analysis. — Wayfarer

This is why.

Hence the influence of physicalism in modern culture and the phenomenon of ‘physics envy’ which is the desire for other scientific disciplines to attain the same level of clarity and certainty as physics. — Wayfarer

This seems inevitable given what you said but, on analysis, seems like a Zohnerism.

In recognition of his experiment, journalist James K. Glassman coined the term "Zohnerism" to refer to "the use of a true fact to lead a scientifically and mathematically ignorant public to a false conclusion". — Wikipedia

Dihydrogen Monoxide Parody

I mean to become a adherent of physicalism just because physics in particular and science in general is highly accurate in its predictions is like thinking the best sharpshooter in the army has the answer to every conceivable question. Bad analogy? I don't know. Just saying.

There’s an important distinction to be made between methodological and metaphysical naturalism. The former is simply the judicious assumption to leave aside, or bracket out, factors which are not reasonably in scope for scientific method. — Wayfarer

A wise decision - avoids controversies which might otherwise distract and no useful scientific work will ever get done.

But methodological naturalism morphs into metaphysical naturalism when those methodological assumptions are treated as ‘statements about reality’. That is why physicalism can be compared to a ‘Procrustean bed’ (Procrustes being a mythological Greek bandit who would stretch or squeeze hapless travellers into his iron bed.) — Wayfarer

Do you have any examples, instances, of the "travellers" that don't fit in physicalism's Procrustes? If you have the time that is.

Methodological naturalism, by contrast, has a kind of Socratic modesty - it doesn’t make assumptions beyond its warrant or make statements beyond its domain. But you don’t see a lot of that. Rather the spirit of science nowadays is Promethean rather than Socratic; having displaced God, we now want to replace him. (A journalist once asked Craig Venter, synthesiser of DNA, whether he was concerned by the accusation that scientists like himself were ‘playing God’. ‘We’re not playing’, was the response - with a wink, I suspect, but still...) — Wayfarer

Interesting take on the issue. Thanks a ton!

But I do believe that if you can rationalize, you have the potential to be rational. — Philosophim

That's what I was going for.

They may talk a good game, or create a system that fits within narrow confines, but in the end is not really rational. — Philosophim

If you ask me, people rationalize about personal matters. I suppose philosophers are deeply attached to their ideas, theories, etc., this making them prone to rationalization - you know comforting themselves that what they're doing is for a reason other than their real motives which may range from fear of being proved wrong to a desire for fame and glory.

Being rational requires a self-awareness of your emotional bias and desires. — Philosophim

Easier said than done, don't you think? It's a huge step going from theory to practice, from reading stuff in books and actually doing them.

Anyone can come up with reasons that confirm what they desire to be — Philosophim

Confirmation bias - a known cognitive issue.

All in all, my take on this issue is simple: No one, including philosophers and other breeds of thinkers from the world of science and other fields, will ever undertake anything worthwhile if fae doesn't have a stake in it whatever that may be. It would be superfluous to mention the man on the Clapham omnibus at this point. Given this is so, rationalization seems inevitable and is likely to be universal - happening everywhere, anywhere, to anybody.

Modern science, and modern thinking generally, rejects teleology, which is the idea that ‘things happen for a reason’ or that beings have a reason for existence. Or rather, the kinds of reasons which science deals with are what in Aristotelian philosophy are called efficient and material causes. ‘Formal’ cause and ‘final’ cause were both thrown out along with Aristotelian physics, which was inextricably bound up with Ptolemaic cosmology and geo-centrism. ‘Ancient and medieval ethics, argues MacIntyre in After Virtue, relied wholly on the teleological idea that human life had a proper end or character, and that human beings could not reach this natural end without preparation, that being the foundation of virtue ethics. Renaissance science rejected Aristotle's teleological physics as an incorrect and unnecessary account, which led Renaissance philosophy to make a similar rejection in the realm of ethics.‘ — Wayfarer

Permit me to do a quick recap of Aristotelian causes (the better word as per wiki is "explanation"):

The answer to why? in re a wooden table
1. Material cause: made of (wood)
2. Efficient cause: maker (carpentry)
3. Formal cause: design (table's shape, proportion, etc.)
4. Final cause: purpose (eating)

As you said, science seems to be about 1 and 2, only a little bit or not at all about 3 and definitely never about 4.

For my money, science doesn't answer a particular variety of why questions, ones that ask for an explanation for why scientific descriptive laws are the way they are. To reiterate, the scientific descriptions of gravity, how it works, is accurate to, if memory serves, to the 12th decimal place. However, ask scientists, "why there's gravity?" and they're as stumped as we are. FYI, Einstein managed to answer that question - mass causes space to curve but that doesn't help at all since the next question is "why does mass cause space to curve?". I gather even Einstein had no answer to that question.

Nonetheless, there seems to be a fundamental flaw in such questions because take the scenario in which an observation Z is given a scientific description Y. We could ask, "why Y?" and that would prompt scientists to explain Y with X but then we can ask, "why X?" and scientists would've to come up with an explanation W for X which would prompt the question, "why W?", so on ad infinitum. At some point scientists would have to put their feet down so to speak and say "no more why questions"!!

Thanks. :up:

Yet both were and are still knowledge. — Outlander

Not to contradict you but truth is only one facet of knowledge, right? Are you forgetting or purposely avoiding justified, true, belief? Either way, it seems important.

Would you be so kind as to define both "instances of knowledge" and "criterion for knowledge". — Outlander

A criterion for knowledge is, as far as I can tell, just the definition of knowledge. Quite naturally, instances of knowledge would be propositions that fit the bill as in the criterion in the definition of knowledge are fulfilled by said propositions.

Why would anyone subscribe to a criterion if it can't or wasn't proven to be reliable beforehand? It doesn't matter what word "X" uses to describe a "tree" per the details you described, it's more of a semantic reference. Whether or not a "tree" is a "tree" because something not a tree happens to fit the description perfectly (say a faux model of a tree or an illusion/mirage) the point is hardly lost. — Outlander

The thought experiment is, sorry for the lack of clarity, limited in its scope, as all thought experiments are and should be. What I mean is the domain of discourse is real trees. Faux trees and the confusion they cause with the simple definition of trees I'm working with come later. I mean a faux tree has meaning only if we know what real trees are.

What is known about Pyrrhon is basically through Diogenes Laertius, who doesn't mention mathematics at all, much less the mathematical probabilities of truth - this is a concept that comes much later than Pyrrhon. If you read what Laertius says (the ninth book of the Lives of Illustrious Philosophers) you will realise that he is full of "striking" anecdotes that present him as a character of integrity, but rather as an extravagant one. That is why I said that it is like a "joke" among philosophers.
As Theodosius (quoted by Laercio) says in his time, nothing is known about Pyrrhon's "disposition", so Pyrrhonians should be called "pyrrhonist-like". — David Mo

:up: Your explanation was to the point and helpful. I find it more interesting to know how the philosophy of given philosophers affected their lives. Practice what you preach, something I haven't got the hang off till date. :up:

Don't buy into that. It's an ad hoc fallacy used to defend religious fervour. Your belief in the device on which you are reading this and their belief in an invisible friend are not of the same order. — Banno

Thanks for the advice. Very kind of you.

Although Pyrrhonism's objective is eudaimonia, it is best known for its epistemological arguments, particularly the problem of the criterion, and for being the first Western school of philosophy to identify the problem of induction and the Münchhausen trilemma. — Wikipedia

Gave me a fright when I found out Pyrrhonism was first to mention in enough detail the trio underlined above. Do I really not know anything?

pragmatism — Outlander

Is about truth I believe, not knowledge. Do you have any comments specific to my post? What's wrong with it and let's not lower the bar as of yet.

Thanks for posting though. Appreciate it. :up:

Think that through a bit. Either we're reasonable or we're not. If reasonable, it hasn't been doing much of a job. If not reasonable, then reason hasn't been doing much of a job. Back to square one on the argument. There seems to have some good effect on newer generations from sex ed. in schools, and heightened awareness of health, well-being, and risk, which is to way education and fear - but these not quite the same things as reason. Education standing in for reason, fear against passion.

Sex can be neither banished nor controlled, which suggests to my mind that what people of every age need is excellent age-appropriate advice. Some young get a measure of that in school - but when ever did the rest of us? — tim wood

I have no idea what you're talking about. Stop thinking rationally for a day and let your passions rule; it won't be long before you find yourself in deep water. Am I wrong?

The other option would be to reject the assumption that logic is 100% accurate — Pinprick

I don't know if "accurate" is the right word. I would've chosen "certainty". Anyway, to cut to the chase, deduction guarantees (100% certainty) the truth of conclusions whatever they may be. With induction, it's a different story. I've deduced D from N and N from D.

humans often think and act irrationally. — Pinprick

The idea of the rational charioteer controlling the irrational, passionate horses is regarded a noble ideal in philosophy, but a more accurate model is Haidt’s rider and elephant analogy — Pinprick

This appears to be a distinction without a difference.

Sometimes, trying to insert logic into nature is like trying to force a square peg into a round hole. — Pinprick

An instance of this will go a long way in proving your point. Also, your statements indicate that you believe logic is independent of nature in the sense that there's no connection between them at all or that if there is one, it's a coincidence. Any arguments to justify this position?

Again I have no issue with this, so long as you’re not trying to say that wanting/not wanting is rational. I don’t think we can decide what we want or don’t want. I can’t make myself want anything. I just either want something, or I don’t. — Pinprick

If what you say is true, the whole of Buddhism is a con job because, according to you, wanting/not wanting are beyond reason. Yet, I've heard, though never personally experienced, of Buddhists making claims of a reduction, if not an elimination, of wants, and turning their backs on materialism to embrace a life of frugality.

Well, I think of it like this. Humans are nothing but data that has evolved far enough to obtain life. This would mean that you only become a human after your birth. Some would argue against this, but you can't really call an embryo being human. At that point you're just data trying to form life. It's quite a hard topic and my English might not be good enough to explain it clearly. — Yozhura

Well, I'll ask you a simple question. Why do farmers save seeds from one harvest for the coming year? I'm probably barking up the wrong tree but I'd like to hear what you have to say about this age-old agricultural practice.

If we go by the theory that says we came from Adam and Eve. Adam and eve must've come from a single person, a God, which created Humanity from a scratch. We are not yet sure how our beginning actually went. Each one of us has the same biological roots, but we've evolved so far from that point, that we were able to obtain uniqueness in Humanity. Uniqueness only evolves from normalcy with enough time. Are we unique enough as we are, or do we still need to evolve further to actually say we're unique human beings. For now we simply feel quite similar with only few differences that differentiate ourselves from other human beings. — Yozhura

As I mentioned before, uniqueness is an arbitrary concept that depends on the scale we've decided to stop at. At the galactic scale, we're all sun; at the level of the solar system, we're all planet earth; at earth level, we're unique positionally; at cellular level, we're again all same; at the molecular level, we're unique (DNA); at the atomic level, we're again all same. Our uniqueness seems to appear and disappear depending on what level of organization we're interested in. Do you see where I'm going wrong?

There is no absolute certainty outside the formal sciences. In any case, my certainty about almost everything is not quantifiable. I am not speaking in mathematical terms. — David Mo

:ok: But then why did you refer to Pyrrho as a "joke"? To my knowledge, Pyrrho is all about uncertainty, expressible mathematically as confidence levels regarding the conclusions of arguments with values less than 100%.

I believe our history starts from the moment we're being fucked to existence. Your being was the one who wanted to win the race of sperm. You have been a winner, from the moment you were born. Being a winner gives you the right to create your history, as it is said, history is a tale written by winners. Your genes begin from the moment when you as a sperm reach the egg. We don't have enough information on the subject, but this is what I believe to be the case. — Yozhura

Personally, I wouldn't go that far. In my humble opinion, a person can be said to exist only after sperm meets egg. The information that eventually goes to create you is complete only after that event. What relevance this has to your thesis is not yet clear to me. Perhaps it doesn't make sense to be someone before a certain point in the chain of events that lead up to you whatever that means.

If we go by your logic, everyone is identical before our histories diverge and produce unique worldlines in spacetime. I wish to avoid going down that road for the simple reason that, to me, it looks like a can of worms. However, I will say this: uniqueness seems an arbitray concept and depends on the resolution one chooses. For instance, from space, we're all identical in that we're all on earth but from a place on earth, we're all unique in being at different loci on earth. Just a thought you might want to look into.