All languages will die out eventually, and when they do no true propositions will exist; — Michael

This was it. This sentence doesn't make any sense. I think we agree on that now?

Maybe you disagree with conceptualists, but they are quite welcome to talk about propositions without committing to Platonism. — Michael

Conceptualists are concerned with the make-up of possible worlds. They're often thought of as sets of propositions, but a conceptualist wants to say they're sets of properties. If you notice, the SEP article explains that conceptualists end up being Platonic about properties instead of propositions. I first came by the idea of possible worlds by way of Kripke, so I don't worry over this issue. Possible worlds are logical constructs.

Anyway, the next two sections express the view that it's no big deal that propositions are abstract objects. We need them to come somewhere close to describing the way we think, so don't put the ontological cart before the necessary donkey.

Since you're liking the conceptualist approach, I'm assuming you accept that we're really talking about the existence of gold in a possible world. Right?

Wait, am I hallucinating or did you edit your post? I can't find the statement I was objecting to.

Then, you are not giving them a starting point for investigating ethics: you are giving them a Nietschien, moral anti-realist, position to explore. — Bob Ross

It's my own view, home grown in my own little brain, but yes, it's echoed by Nietzsche, and it's in keeping with the essential teachings of Jesus. So it has that going for it.

: being an atheist doesn’t preclude moral realism. — Bob Ross

I think it does. You're just attached to this little rock going nowhere for a short amount of time. Love and do what you will.

One does not need to believe that propositions are abstract entities that continue to exist even after the death of all life to talk about propositions. — Michael

The word proposition has a technical meaning in philosophy. It's along the lines of content. It reflects the way a realist talks about the world. She speaks of unspoken truths, for instance. We seek the truth about Pluto's atmosphere, and so on.

No one really cares what sort of "existence" propositions have. We talk about them as a way of handling analysis of the way we think. We do, in keeping with Frege, refer to them as abstract objects, which signifies that they are not necessarily mental objects that are held in the mind at a certain time and place.

If @TonesInDeepFreeze was here, he could go off on you endlessly about how stubborn you're being in the face of what the SEP explains about it.

All languages will die out eventually, and when they do no true propositions will exist; — Michael

You shouldn't use "proposition" if you don't accept it's meaning. For you, a truth bearer is an utterance, because you need someone to actually speak for truth to exist. You're just going to foment confusion if you don't pay attention to how the terms are used.

You're doing what I said, which is making an assertion at a possible world. Asserting P is the same thing as saying that P is true.

I think what you're trying to describe is truth anti-realism, where truth is meaningless outside acts of speech. That's fine, but you can't be a metaphysical realist that way. If you're good with that, then cool.

Plus that's not what Wayfarer is saying.

Israel and Palestinian conflict is another example, which also is understandable when you think of it. — ssu

Yes. I think this will haunt Israel forever. It was a terrible mistake.

Outside the use of propositions, the options for realists is limited. You can do Davidson, but it's pretty convoluted. Your best bet is probably truth anti-realism, which means the truth predicate has a social function and nothing more.

A proposition can be assessed at a possible world, which might be the actual world. The proposition isn't inside the world. Propositions don't have location or temporal extension.

In fact one commentator in this thread (perhaps unintentionally) told the reason why the strange bias: he didn't want the US to be looked at as a knight in shining armor — ssu

At least one of the people who said that was Isaac in an exchange with me. An otherwise normal person becomes unhinged when the topic is the USA. Weird.

:lol:

Fine. I'd say instead that it's a way of talking consistently about the stuff around us. That strikes me as less mystical. That is, maths fits the world becasue we built ( or chose, if you prefer) it to do so. Simple. — Banno

I'm just pointing out that you're expressing your bias.

You think we aren't capable of adapting to a changing climate? — ssu

I think the species will survive, but I assume maximum CO2 emissions, so all the coal in the world being burned over the next couple of centuries. That will produce a large scale spike in temperature that will last about a few thousand years, and then the temperature will start coming back down. It's the dramatic swings that will likely take out the present global order. As it sets in, I would expect humans to start trying to preserve our knowledge base for the people of future.

Do you think that a declining Global population will still mean perpetual growth? — ssu

I think survival will be a challenge for the next 5-10 thousand years.

People tend to take the alarmist attitude to alarm people, as if they wouldn't be alarmed if you say: "You know, this issue will suck in the future" — ssu

There's a good side and a bad side to everything. You keep interpreting me as pessimistic or full of self loathing. Neither is true.

More that it can be used for more than just wordplay - you can count things, share them, bring them together and such — Banno

So there's some sort of connection between math and the world, as Max Tegmark argues.

"Tegmark's MUH is the hypothesis that our external physical reality is a mathematical structure.[3] That is, the physical universe is not merely described by mathematics, but is mathematics — specifically, a mathematical structure.". --Wikipedia on Max Tegmark

Do you think Arithmetic a dead topic? There are advances in topics such as the distribution of primes, thin groups and so on. Arguably the whole of mathematics is a development from arithmetic - perhaps in combination with geometry. — Banno

This is how wordplay evolves:

Once upon a time, the word "fine" just meant thin. If you said Drake is a fine fat boy, you contradicted yourself. Fineness came to be attached to quality by its association with high quality blades, which are fine. Now you can make the above comment about Drake without contradiction.

Nothing like this has ever happened to arithmetic since it first appeared. There are advances, but no change to the core. This just makes it unlikely that it's just wordplay, but then you agreed that it's more than that.

I din't say arithmetic was just wordplay — Banno

But "There is gold in those hills" is not set up so that if it is understood, it can't be wrong. For it to be wrong, something else is needed... Something more than just word play. — Banno

So arithmetic also involves more than just word play.

And it does evolve. — Banno

How so?

Meh. We constructed the sentence, just now. It is set up so that if it is understood, it can't be wrong.

But "There is gold in those hills" is not set up so that if it is understood, it can't be wrong. For it to be wrong, something else is needed... Something more than just word play. — Banno

If arithmetic is wordplay, why doesn't it evolve as languages evolve?

Climate change

That "2+2=4" is true becasue we make it so - we constructed that sentence so that it is true. — Banno

This is an interesting narrative, but no one remembers constructing that sentence, so it's along the lines of a myth: the origin of arithmetic myth.

There's still those Americans that actually believe in a healthy way in their country and it's role in the World. The self-hatred hasn't become endemic. — ssu

I don't hate the US. There's something beautiful about its ambitions, its values, and its tendency to fall ass backwards into incredibly good luck. I've spent a lot of time immersed in history, and its had the effect of making the present moment seem fleeting. I can see how the US sizes up compared to the biggies of history. The US is just the tail end of the British Empire, which invented global trade for our world. I see flames in the future, and maybe a split in our species between technology-loving and technology-hating. That's where my head is. But I hope the best for Europe.

The US isn't a dependable partner for the EU.

Do you think that it's bad that girls and women would be educated? — ssu

If we had a global government, that would be an issue that could be raised.

I think that's because 1) it's not really in American interest to protect countries near Russia
— frank
Really?
That doesn't sound well to a Finn, or a Swede. — ssu

Redirect funds from social programs to defense? Although directing funds to building a fusion power plant would be better in the long run. How bad would it be if Russia took over Finland and Sweden? What would change for regular people?

hat's just another way of saying there is no actual goodness and badness; because you defined it as whatever suits a person's own non-objective dispositions. — Bob Ross

You could say it's Beyond Good and Evil, yea.

My biggest complaint is not that you are siding with moral anti-realism, but that the OP wants to know where to start — Bob Ross

The OP has a starting place. He or she is an atheist.

Did you notice that when you bugged out from Afghanistan, the ally of yours collapsed immediately after you directly negotiated with your Islamist enemies without them? — ssu

Yes, but I thought Afghanistan was invaded on a quest to find Osama Bin Ladin. In the meantime, Afghanistan became a massive heroin producer, with much of that ending up on the streets of small towns in the US. It's been truly devastating, which I see firsthand because I work in healthcare. It's hard for me to see how the US screwing around in Afghanistan is a good thing for anyone anywhere.

This Trump-Biden cop out made Putin to think you wouldn't react much if he attempted a takeover Ukraine — ssu

Obama didn't react much to previous Putin maneuvers. I think that's because 1) it's not really in American interests to protect countries near Russia, and 2) the US is in decline, with a giant debt that will never be paid and concerns over how it's going to keep paying social security.

Hence if you push for a similar "peace" that is very unfavorable for Ukraine, just like you did with North Vietnam and the Taleban (without caring much about South Vietnam or Afghanistan), then you embolden Russia, China and North Korea.

Hope you understand the logic. — ssu

What do you think Russia, China, and North Korea are going to do?

As an atheist by practice and agnostic by believe how can I define whats good from evil?
I have had this question for a long time, but only recently that I gave it serious thought. So I decide to build my own set of rules and values, this is my first attempt and I will need your help, so where should I begin? What question should I make? — Matias Isoo

Just picture who you want to be and what kind of environment you want to be in 5 years from now. You're like an arrow shooting through time. Good is whatever is conducive to the arrow's path toward your vision. Evil is whatever makes the arrow deviate down some other path. As long as your goal is in keeping with deeper imperatives, and not frivolous bullshit, it will be relatively easy, though trials and torments are part of any path.

Good and evil are just ideas you use to keep the vision clear in your mind. They don't serve any other purpose.

If the world is mind-created, why is there so much misery in the world?
— frank

Because of ignorance, of not seeing what is real, and being attached to what is unreal. And that goes for me as much as anyone else. — Wayfarer

Is this a Buddhist take on it?

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has told U.S. President-elect Donald Trump that Washington would face a "dire threat" from China, Iran, and North Korea if Ukraine is forced to accept an unfavorable peace deal, the Financial Times reported on Dec. 2.

What does he mean by that? That Ukraine is the only thing stopping a giant BRIC takeover? That seems a little crazy.

If the world is mind-created, why is there so much misery in the world?

Potentially, yes. Trump thinks about things very transactionally. He wants to "win" any deal. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'd be pretty surprised if he supports Ukraine in any way. Why would he?

The OP is just asking if we do good because otherwise we'll be struck by lightning, or go to hell, or reap the crop of evil? Are we good for social acceptance and praise, or due to fear? If the highest earthly attainment is to live authentically, how does morality fit into that?

Or if we're just meaninglessly falling through a void, does it matter? It would help if we gave an example.

For instance, it's a moral good to treat people with respect. Do you do it? If so, why? Or why not?

He did express pleasure in seeing new places. But the question of feeling compelled to move is the question raised above regarding opinions unpopular with those with power. — Paine

He liked to follow armies around, staying in his own encampment. I think he was just hungry for adventure. Do you have reason to believe he moved around because he was in danger of being arrested?

Yes, he seemed to have enjoyed traveling around. That's interesting about Kristina Wasa. :up:

Right, just where you deviate from the common narrative about Descartes, point out that you're offering your own theory. That reduces confusion.

Is that a fact or an opinion? Evidence? — Fooloso4

He dedicated the Meditations to the Jesuits with an appeal to consider his new way of approaching knowledge. It's clear that he was attempting to engage with the Church. If he'd wanted freedom from the Church, that was easily available in nearby Protestant territory.

The objective is to simply weaken the US and European ties, — ssu

He doesn't need to put any effort into that.

Right. Descartes was clearly not on a quest to undermine the authority of the Church.

Wouldn't the Church consider this heresy? — Fooloso4

The Counter-Reformation happened a few decades before Descartes was born, so no. During his lifetime, the Church was focused on losing ground to the Protestants.

Rather than reform the Church he attempts to reform man, — Fooloso4

I'll just comment that you do this a lot. You come up with some weird subterfuge related to a famous philosopher and then announce your theories as if they're facts. Just signal that you're doing this so you don't end up causing confusion.

I'd disagree with that. Putin isn't under the thumb of Xi. Just look at how many times the Russians have disappointed Xi with their wars. — ssu

Xi publicly chided him for talking about nuclear engagement. I took that to be a sign that Xi is in charge. No?

First of all, when Putin says that he's at war with NATO, you really shouldn't underestimate this. — ssu

Unfortunately, it's impossible to tell what he's thinking until he actually puts troops on the border. He lies all the time. And at this point he's using North Korean troops. Is he really at a point where he could unilaterally declare war on any European state?

But Descartes' concern was not simply personal. It was to displace the authority of the Church from the mind of the thinking man, — Fooloso4

He wanted the Church to reform, and he thought he could help it do that. He was a wild guy. He travelled around engaging in warfare when he felt like it, he was actively seeking members of esoteric groups (we know he knew one of them, but the connection was never revealed to him.) He was a rich man and a genius. He wasn't under anyone's thumb, and he knew it.

to displace the authority of the Church with the authority of the thinking/reasoning subject. — Fooloso4

He wouldn't have needed to displace the authority of the Church if that was his agenda. He could have just left and gone to live in Protestant territory.

This is a little discussion moderated by the Brookings Institution about EU defense:



It's a long discussion about nothing. I think the EU will pull itself together when and if it needs to. Since Russia is relatively gutted and under the thumb of Xi, I don't think it presents much of a threat right now. As time goes by, I would guess that the EU will work on ties with China and look in their direction for a diplomatic base. Maybe play China and the US off each other.