I'm still working on a response. — T Clark

Don't forget to include me in your reply after you've thought things through.

1, 2, and 4 are not propositions. — T Clark

1. Non-propositions are neither true nor false.
2. Metaphysical claims are neither true nor false.

How do you distinguish non-propositions from metaphysical claims?

??
Why not? Says who? — baker

I recall my college days - when my professors wanted to cull the herd in a manner of speaking, the exam questions were decidely harder.

I'd rather not! Sorry.

Ne quid nimis (Nothing in excess) & Dosis sola facit venenum (The dose makes the poison) but then there are some things so toxic that botulinum with a LD50 value of 1 ng/kg seems as harmless as a dove.

Alle Dinge sind Gift, und nichts ist ohne Gift, allein die Dosis macht dass ein Ding kein Gift ist.

All things are poison, and nothing is without poison, the dosage alone makes it so a thing is not a poison. — Paracelsus, 1538

Insofar as morality is concerned, yes, it's got a lot to do with intuition - that's the only possible explanation why we don't have a logically rigorous theory on good & bad despite being deeply concerned and committed to the cause of the good for the better part of 2 millennia.

It seems like we have a grainy picture of a, well, Platonic morality, an ideal-case scenario of what right and wrong are but, like a bad scientific theory, time and again the model we have in our heads fails to match the reality on the ground - a square peg in a round hole situation. On more occasions than we can count we've demonstrated errors in our intution. Is morality a mistake, a logical boo-boo, an unrealistic concept that has no place in the actual world?

On the flip side, there have been cases where our intuitions were bang on target - some of our conjectures have been proven right/true.

To make the long story short, intuition/insight can't be dismissed outright but they can't be given the nod of approval its proponents are fighting for.

@T Clark

Let's, arguendo, agree that you're right and metaphysical claims, for reasons we need to be informed of, can't be true/false.

The following are neither true nor false:

1. Cook
2 Kplx zgfd
3. This sentence is false (liar sentence)
4. &×*
.
.
.

Then, as per you, the following too are neither true nor false:

1. Free will exists
2. God doesn't exist
.
.
.

Are you saying "Kplx zgfd" = "God doesn't exist"? Am I missing something?

Metaphysics is considered one of the four main branches of philosophy, along with epistemology, logic, and ethics. — Wikipedia

Philosophy

1. Epistemology

2. Logic

3. Ethics

4. Metaphysics

Topics of metaphysical investigation include existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. — Wikipedia

Metaphysics

1. Existence

2. Objects & their properties

3. Space & Time

4. Cause & Effect

5. Possibility

Metaphysics can be taken as an exploration of reality (existence, objects & properties, space & time, cause & effect) with accent on possibilities - observe reality as it presents itself to us and then try and posit as many possible ways (theories/hypotheses) such a reality could be what it is. Metaphysics is, in short, two very basic questions:

1. What is reality?
2. Why is reality the way it is?

Having a function is not the same as having a purpose. — T Clark

Expand and elaborate please. — TheMadFool

Good & Evil are, all said and done, joy & sorrow. The scope of morality extends in all directions, like a ripple it expands outwards. In one sense, bringing into its fold everything that there was, is, and will be - from a certain angle it feels like God's benevolent light illuminating the universe - but in another sense, its behavior mimics that of an imperial army - from another angle, the accompanying oppressive heat is unbearable. We are to make a trade - our freedom for our lives. Bow to the empire or perish as rebels! Terrorist and freedom-fighter have been interchangeable terms for as long as I can remember. :joke:

There are 10 dimensions, dimensions understood as the minimum information required to pinpoint an event.

1. What happened?
2. Where did it happen? (3D space)
.......(i) Horizontal
.......(ii) Vertical
.......(iii) Depth
3. When did it happen (time)
4. Who did it happen to?
5. How did it happen?
6. Which made it happen?
7. Why did it happen?
8. Whose is it?

3D (3D space, where?) + 1D (time/when?) + 6D (what? who? how? which? why? whose?)

In the case of string theory, consistency requires spacetime to have 10 dimensions (3D regular space + 1 time + 6D hyperspace) — Wikipedia

God is a comedian playing to an audience that is too afraid to laugh. — Voltaire

We all love a good laugh and one easy way to :rofl: is to simply listen to a joke and nothing's funnier or more ludicrous than a contradiction :point: reductio ad absurdum. Democritus -the laughing philosopher - got the joke! By the way, it's not funny.

Having a function is not the same as having a purpose. — T Clark

Expand and elaborate please.

Perhaps, instead, Aristotle would deplore automation (à la Heidi's 'ontological ludditism') as even more dehumanizing – contra the "telos" of the "zoon politikon" – than (what he calls "natural") slavery.

:point: "Commerce is our goal here at Tyrell. 'More human than human' is our motto.
~Dr. Eldon Tyrell, Los Angeles, 2019" — 180 Proof

:up: You really can cut through all the noise!

I recall a discussion we had before on the nexus between money and slavery and I believe I've hit upon an idea on how to make people good or, if that's not possible, less evil. Make evil expensive and/or good cheap. Money has its own logic - people always seem to understand, are more reasnable, once money's involved. Simple.

1. You display more sympathy and empathy for other people than average humans. — baker

I' not sure how to respond to this comment. I may have my quirks though.

2. Your line of reasoning seems to work on the premise that people (should) internalize the identity as ascribed to them by others.
E.g. that if a slave owner believes that slaves are in some essential way subhuman, and expects his slaves to believe this about themselves, that the slaves will or should believe it. — baker

Nope, that's not the way I see things. However, I'm not denying that that's not the way it is. Our self-worth seems tied to how others view/regard us. I think, despite how annoying it is, there's a really good reason why it's like that. Speaking for myself, hypothesis non fingo.

The point isn't to "muddy the water". Concepts need to be clarified. In different religious contexts, the same word can mean different things. This is something to clarify, lest we continue with the wrong understanding. — baker

I guess not but there's a way to makes sense of my statement. We're not supposed to see the truth!

Aristotle was of the rather deplorable view that slaves were living tools.

The saving grace:

If Aristotle were alive today, in the age of automation, there is no reason to believe that he would defend slavery.

If every instrument could achieve its own work, obeying or anticipating the will of others, like the statue of Daedalus...if, likewise, the shuttle could weave and the plectrum touch the lyre, overseers would not want servants nor would masters slaves — Aristotle

Dostoevsky argument

Stoic propositional logic

1. If God doesn't exist then everything is permissible.
2. God doesn't exist
Ergo,
3. Everything is permissible.

Aristotelian categorical logic
1. All times God doesn't exist are times everything is permissible.
2. All times are times God doesn't exist.
Hence,
3. All times are times everything is permissible

Why did Aristotle see only the categorical side of logic and why did the stoics only work with sentences/propositions?

Politics, social classes/categories? Virtue, morality, stoic calm in the face of adversity?

All I'm saying is that the difference between relativistic velocity addition and Newtonian velocity addition manifests as a precision matter unless it is not, in which case what's going on, may I ask?

$\infty$, rather loopy, don't you think? Why not $...$? It's as if, eternity is merely an illusion. When we $+$, infinity presents itself but when we $\div$, infinity fades away.

No one and no one. — 180 Proof

Amen!

Update

An essence is that quality/property necessary for a thing to be that thing. If an essence is absent, then a thing stops being that thing, we're talking about something else entirely. A wolf forebear is an essence of a dog.

Definition is basically a list of qualities/properties that are both sufficient AND necessary for a thing to be that thing. Domestication and vulpine ancestry defines a dog. If you take that list with you, you can identify a thing and if you see a thing that is that thing, whatever it is, you'll discover that that thing has all the qualities/properties in your list.

The combination of essences is the sufficiency criterion while each essence itself is necessary.

Wittgenstein is right in saying words lack an essence but words and definitions are two entirely different things. Wittgenstein seems to be conflating the two - like a bungling ( :joke: ) cop, he identifies the culprit correctly, takes aim, pulls the trigger, and shoots the wrong guy. :grin:

You are running away from, rather running towards, my usage of "dysfunctional" to which you're referring and thereby misreading my previous post. I can't follow what you're saying, Fool. — 180 Proof

Maybe this :point: :naughty: is normal and this :point: :halo: is abnormal. Either that or psychology has the wrong end of the stick. Who the hell is in charge here anyway? Who decides what's normal and what's abnormal?

@180 Proof

God created us sick and commands us to be well. — Christopher Hitchens (RIP)

:chin:

We're not "evil aspiring to be good" or "weak struggling to be strong" or "sick cultivating wellness" ... Rather, Fool, we (philosophers) are simply fools striving to become less foolishly, no? :smirk: — 180 Proof

Not to say you're wrong but from what I gather, the word out there, is that it's rarest of the rare to find a good person. We either need to redefine dysfunctional and normal or accept that goodness is some kind of debilitating mental disorder. Something's wrong!

It's high time I suppose we fixed the boundary for morality/ethics. However, so long as there's life and there's pain, that won't happen. Then there's the question of how best to live? Let's not forget infinity and that Anaximander and Cronus have an "interesting" relationship.

Get up in the morning, perform your ablutions, head for work, return home, go to bed. Lather, rinse, repeat. Sisyphusean algorithm aka the shampoo algorithm.

dysfunctional — 180 Proof

I wonder if this makes sense to you or anyone else but I have a feeling that this :naughty: is us and this :halo: is what we wanna be. Dysfunctional? Normal?

One way of looking at it is that there were two forms of Heracliteanism. The "extreme" one held that everything was in flux in every way, which meant that things could not have properties. The "moderate" one held that there must be some permanence, otherwise the "eternal flux" itself would be impossible.

Plato obviously rejects extreme Heracliteanism. But he nevertheless holds that sensibles are always in some way becoming. This is why he contrasts the world of Becoming and the world of Being.

The Platonic world of Becoming (the world of sensibles) is similar to the Heraclitean world of flux and, therefore, less than real. The real world is the world of Being which is the world of unchanging intelligibles. — Apollodorus

As far as I can tell, there are two issues:

1. Change itself. For example motion. [Changes]

2. The cause of change: The laws of motion. [Does not change]

I mean, seriously. Have you ever interacted with, say, the better arguers in Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Inc? These discussions generally strike me as so facile. Go out and find the better proponents of what gets called a conspiracy theory and argue your case that you present here. IOW tell them that really it is based on ad hoc, cherry picking and other fallacies. Point out to them where, see how it goes. The people who end up in a philosophy forum have no skin in the game and have done less research, generally, than people who are groups of scientists or other experts, who are right now engaged in lawsuits or other organized approached to making their case. It's easy sniping generally and vaguely. — Bylaw

Unfortunately or not, I haven't had a one-on-one conversation with a conspiracy theorist but compared to philosophers, conspiracy theorists are bumbling amateurs who have no idea how deep the rabbit hole goes. See :point: skepticism, radical doubt, Cartesian deus deceptor, brain in a vat, Maya, to name but a few.

So, Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction that the Bush Admin knew about. — Bylaw

Where did you get that from? :chin: If you ask me, Saddam, more accurately Iraq, was simply a scapegoat, a fall guy in the great American game. See :point: Great Game. :grin:

We know how to inflict pain but, relatively speaking, we're clueless about how to bring joy.
— TheMadFool

It's not only that we know how to inflict pain but not how to bring joy, it's hard to experience joy in the first place when you're in pain, and humans are in chronic physical and psychological pain. This is an even deeper aspect of the problem, being unresponsive to pleasurable stimulus because of baseline pain. Luckily sublimation and just knowing that someone cares can go a long way. — Enrique

That's why I'm beginning to think negative utilitarianism is just what's needed for the world as it is now. @180 Proof would agree I think. Maslow's hierarchy of needs also seems appropriate for the occasion.

I don't feel as if I have a purpose — T Clark

I remember writing about purpose sometime ago in another thread but it doesn't show up in the forum's search. I'll repeat it here if it's of any interest.

The Paradox Of Purpose:

1. Every single organ in our body has a purpose. The eyes to see, the hands to grasp, etc. You get the picture.

2. We know, at least as the status quo, that life is meaningless i.e. life has no purpose. In other words, the whole person, the entire body, taken as a unit, is without purpose.

Conclusion:

3. It is possible for the parts to have purpose but the whole not to possess one.

The universe may lack a purpose, notwithstanding its parts having one.
1y — TheMadFool

What do you think is going on? :chin:

:100:

Ok, ok!

Parmenides is urging reason above sense data — Manuel

Bingo! You nailed it, señor, you nailed it! I feel like a blind man whose sight has been restored! Can you please expand and elaborate this line of thought. Thanks a million. Urging is an understatement though.

Now what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? — Carl Sagan (The Demon-Haunted World)

Yes, indeed! We need to work on the definition of "exist" and "existence". Wanna give it a shot?

Essential features of a conspiracy theory:

1. Abductive inference. An explanatory framework is offered for a certain event.

2. Conspiracy. The explanation involves some kind of well-orchestrated deception involving governments and/or big business. The deception is aimed at keeping people from the truth for nefarious reasons.

3. Occam's razor/principle is, on most occasions, violated. The conspiracy theory is vastly more complex than the alternatives.

4. Cherry picking. Confirmation bias is the cornerstone of conspiracy theories.

5. Self-sealing i.e. ad hoc fallacy. Objections to the theory are dealt with by making minor adjustments to the conspiracy theory that don't affect its overall theme.

Basically, conspiracy theories are poor-quality imitations of scientific theories. They are based on evidence though but it's just a namesake - they ignore the nuances and subtleties as found in the distinction between good evidence and bad evidence. :joke:

The positive, necessary existence that is. The uncreated void which is existence. — EnPassant

That's the problem right there. How does Parmenides distinguish what must necessarily be, given the distinction he makes between Being and being, a "something" devoid of any and all properties that just is, no more no less, and nothing?

No, there is no such universal should in Buddhism. All that the buddhas say is, if you want to be free from suffering, you should do such and such. But beyond that Buddhism is not a religion of commandments the way most other religions are. — baker

I understand. It's just simpler to use concepts that we're, the majority are, familiar with. It muddies the water rather than clarifies the issue but then that's the whole point I suppose.

From my own experience, a complete novice, just beginning to learn the ropes, exposed only to dumbed-down versions of philosophical issues, philosophy seems like a walk in the park but as we dive deeper into the Socratic pool, we begin to realize, we get a feel of, how complex/complicated the subject really is. Dunning-Kruger effect!

Something tells me defining metaphysics is like trying to find a common thread in the items of a folder labeled miscellaneous. Good luck with that!