I'm going to be examining an argument that says language is required for rationality. It's going to be rejecting the idea that dogs have beliefs, specifically because we have no way to be sure what they believe.

If referential opacity is drawn into the argument, which it is, then it's fair to tinker with the gears in that object.

You stipulated that she does. I trust you. If you now want to bring that in to doubt, go ahead, but I don't much see the point in doing so. — Banno

I don't think it's a stipulation in that context. We know what Lois believes because we know the story. It's from the narrator's point of view. That isn't available in real life.

Another angle on the same question would be: how do you ever know what other people believe? If it's charity, do you extend that charity to dogs? Why or why not?

How do you know Lois believes it?

Perhaps a slower reading of the article is called for? — Banno

True. Davidson uses referential opacity to make his case that language is required for rationality. So I was just contemplating the background of propositional attitudes.

In the example of Superman, we know what Lois believes because it's a fictional story and we have a God's eye view. That Lois believes Superman can fly is not a speculation, it's one of the central columns of the story. I'm thinking we'd want to keep that in mind when using referential opacity as an element of an argument. It's going to be dragging that God's eye view in with it.

Referential opacity occurs between contexts. Indeed, it can be considered part of what defines a context. Getting the scope right clears up the mess. — Banno

Look at this example.

a. Superman is Clark Kent. Major
b. Lois believes that Superman can fly. Minor
c. ∴ Lois believes that Clark Kent can fly. a, b =E — IEP

We aren't really worried about how we know what Lois believes, whether it was from observing her behavior, or she told us, or we have a mind-reading machine. We just know that she believes Superman can fly. There's a magical thing about belief: that it causes referential opacity.

But if we attribute propositional attitudes to a dog, do we still get referential opacity? We can't substitute a dog in the above =E because we aren't likely to just know specifically what the dog believes. We're just guessing from a afar, and so all our attributions will have extensional definitions, right?

a. The number of planets = 3 squared
b. It is contingent that the number of planets = 9
c. ∴ It is contingent that 3 squared = 9. — IEP

This substitution failure results from the fact that the number of planets isn't a rigid designator. It's a singular definite description.

I agree. But I would say that if my interlocutor had been Kierkegaard or Nietzsche or Heidegger or Plato, etc., a fairly fascinating discussion might have fallen out of the OP. None of them would have felt threatened by the question. They all would have listened to what I actually said instead of responding to demons in the ether. Or maybe that's just how those figures loom in my mind.

:grin:

A little more formally, the rule of inference =E can be stated as:

Identity Elimination Schema

Major: t1 = t2

Minor: ϕ(t1)

Conclusion: ϕ(t2)

Here t1 and t2 are expressions which refer to entities (for example, proper names of people or cities). ϕ(t1) is a sentence containing at least one occurrence of t1, and ϕ(t2) is a sentence that results from replacing at least one occurrence of t1 in ϕ(t1) with an occurrence of t2, eliminating the “=” of t1 = t2. Recurring ti presumes that ti is univocal throughout, and recurring ϕ presumes that the sentential context ϕ is not altered, syntactically or semantically, by the replacement. If these uniformity conditions are not met, then the inference scheme is being misapplied, and it is no wonder that false conclusions are derivable. For example, in the inference “The man behind Fred = the man in front of Bill; the man behind Fred saw him leave; therefore, the man in front of Bill saw him leave,” the context “saw him leave” is not uniform, since substitution of “the man behind Fred” by “the man in front of Bill” changes the reference of “him” (Fine 1989:222–3; Linsky 1967:104).

In discussing the problem with apparent substitution-failure by using =E, many examples will be drawn from the fictional story of Superman, treated as if it were true. In the story, a child from the planet Krypton, Kal-El, is sent to Earth, where physical conditions cause him to acquire superpowers. Wearing specific clothing (red cape, blue jumpsuit), Kal-El prevents disasters, rescues endangered innocents, and foils would-be perpetrators of crimes, such as Lex Luthor. People call Kal-El “Superman” when talking about Kal-El’s actions of this kind.

But Kal-El also takes a day job as a reporter, using the name “Clark Kent.” A coworker, Lois Lane, treats him with indifference in the office, but has a pronounced crush on, as she would put it, Superman, unaware they are the same individual.

The problematic examples discussed below involve ascriptions of mental states to Lois (or occasionally Lex), arrived at by applying the rule =E to the major premise “Superman is Clark” and a carefully chosen minor premise. Lois has a crush on Superman (minor premise), so, by =E, Lois has a crush on Clark. But this latter seems false, and would certainly be rejected by Lois herself. Also, Lois believes that Superman can fly, but does not seem to believe that Clark can; she hopes to see Superman again soon, but seems not much to care when she next sees Clark; she would like a date with Superman, but apparently has no interest in one with Clark; and so on — IEP

I agree that it's not my job to tell other people what kind of relationship they should have to religion, but somewhere short of actually getting offensive, challenging a belief can shed light. Maybe it doesn't shed light on strict philosophical issues, though. Maybe it's more about psychology.

Superman is not Clark Kent. — T Clark

He's not?

“The image of homo religiosus is that of a man who craves to flee from the concrete, empirical world and escape into the realm of eternal being.” — Hanover

This got me wondering if I'm homo religiosus or not. In my case, it's not that I crave to flee from the concrete, it's more that my homebase is in timelessness, but you can't live that way. You have to tune your psychic radio to the practical.

Are you homo religiosus?

Because unless it was asked with a humble spirit and the open mind of someone who is truly curious — Fire Ologist

I betcha I know more about Christianity than you do. Let's quiz each other and you have to answer without looking it up. You first.

But “self” is a mystery, no? Any discussion of this mystery is going to be full of contradictions, (because the concept of self-identity is perilous if not illusory and really not coherent and not a conversation about any “thing”.) — Fire Ologist

Yes. Kierkegaard said that faith is like floating in water that is 70,000 fathoms deep. Sometimes having faith in yourself defies all logic.

That wasn't very Christian, Timothy.

You cannot prove such a God since you cannot discuss it! — MoK

That would make it more difficult, yes. :razz:

According to Aquinas, God's essence is ineffable — MoK

It's ineffable, but it's totally logical?

What does?

So Augustine claims the Trinity is beyond human understanding. Which part did he think was incomprehensible?

Deep in our hearts, the light of God is shining
On a soundless sea with no shore
---- Rumi

Whoever wants to be saved should above all cling to the catholic faith. Whoever does not guard it whole and inviolable will doubtless perish eternally. Now this is the catholic faith: We worship one God in trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being. For the Father is one person, the Son is another, and the Spirit is still another. But the deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, equal in glory, coeternal in majesty. What the Father is, the Son is, and so is the Holy Spirit. Uncreated… infinite… eternal… And yet there are not three eternal beings, but one who is eternal… Almighty is the Father… And yet there are not three almighty beings, but one who is almighty. Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God: And yet there are not three gods, but one God….not three lords, but one Lord. As Christian truth compels us to acknowledge each distinct person as God and Lord, so catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or lords. The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten; the Son was neither made nor created, but was alone begotten of the Father; the Spirit was neither made nor created, but is proceeding from the Father and the Son. Thus there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three spirits. And in this Trinity, no one is before or after, greater or less than the other; but all three persons are in themselves, coeternal and coequal; and so we must worship the Trinity in unity and the one God in three persons. Whoever wants to be saved should think thus about the Trinity. (Anonymous Athanasian) — Athanasian Creed

You are falsely representing the Catholic Church by claiming that the Catholic Church holds that the doctrine of the Trinity is illogical. You have been misrepresenting the Catholic Church over and over throughout this thread, beginning with the very first post. — Leontiskos

I disagree.

I don't believe Augustine thought of the Trinity as something humans can understand.

Augustine’s goal is not so much to understand the Trinity and communicate this to others, but rather to say some things that will deliver a small shred of understanding, which may entice the reader to pursue the experience of God (434–7 [XV.6.50–1]). Because of this dim view of what humans are equipped to understand, much of the book is actually about how to talk about the Trinity, rather than about the Trinity itself. We may at least confess the correct doctrine, even if only later we come to understand what we’ve been saying. — SEP

Augustine suggests that the standard creedal term “person” (Greek: hypostasis or prosopon; Latin: persona) is adopted simply so that something may be said in answer to the question “What is God three of?” (224–30 [VII.3], 241 [VIII.1.1], 398 [XV.1.5]) The term “person”, he thinks, signifies a genus, but it is one for which we can provide no species. In contrast, “divine essence” names neither a genus nor a species, and functions somewhat like a mass-term. It is supposed to be one in the items which share it, and to make them, in some sense, numerically one (Cross 2007). — SEP

In other words, the tools used to deny contradiction, person and essence, didn't mean anything to Augustine, other than to draw the triangular schematic in words. It doesn't make sense to say it's three persons and one essence, and Augustine knew that.

So consider taking the Catholic Church at its word, and accepting that the Trinity is beyond comprehension. It's not logical. Does that really mean we have to rule it out? Think about it. — frank

Does anybody want to take a shot at this question? If it's illogical, does that mean it's impossible? Or would limiting the world to my own concepts be a kind of idealism?

I believe that what is logically impossible is impossible. — Leontiskos

That's what I thought. This is why you think drawing attention to the logic of the Trinity is an attack on Christianity: because you think if God is a trinity, and trinity is illogical, then God is impossible.

Folks around here routinely dismiss the law of non-contradiction, and therefore I don't see how they are going to manage to disprove the religious doctrine du jour with some firm and unchanging truth. — Leontiskos

I'm pretty sure @Banno doesn't care about disproving any religious doctrine. He's interested in the methods theologians use to reach their conclusions, but even that isn't a very strong interest for him. For the most part, @Banno couldn't care less. He's just good at creating interesting discussions.

So consider taking the Catholic Church at its word, and accepting that the Trinity is beyond comprehension. It's not logical. Does that really mean we have to rule it out? Think about it. :smile:

hasa diga eebowai! — flannel jesus

:lol:

The trinity is three entirely seperate personages, not a single entity. They have a common purpose, and they're referred to as the godhead. Such is true Christian theology. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/comeuntochrist/article/do-latter-day-saints-believe-in-the-trinity

When you say "the Christian narrative" and then start going on about the Nicene Creed which was arrived at 325 years after Jesus' death, you're just taking about your peculiar brand of modified Christianity. — Hanover

This is me and Hanover riding around trying to convert people to Mormonism.

Is it really so odd to think that in the Source of all created being there is a reality that transcends the distinctions commonly found within created being? — Leontiskos

Do you believe that anything that defies logic is impossible?

This isn't an attack, it's setting out dogma, in it's original sense, and instead of saying "this is what you ought believe", asking "why ought you believe this?" — Banno

Right. There were versions of Christianity that didn't hold Jesus to be God, but they didn't survive.

As @Count Timothy von Icarus pointed out, it's heresy to suggest that God is a category that the three hypostases belong to, as dogs, cats, and mice belong to the category of mammals, rather, each hypostasis is fully God. They're separate, but they're One. The origin of this scheme is Neoplatonism, and it's mystical. It defies logic, and this has been recognized for the last 1600 years.

The doctrine of the Trinity was articulated by the church fathers in the councils of Nicea (AD 325) and Constantinople (AD 381), which penned the Nicene Creed. We will see that Nicene Trinitarianism teaches the Trinity is three hypostases and one ousia, terms often translated as three persons and one essence, substance, or being. These terms, in their ancient Greek context, indicate that the Trinity is three subjects who share a single nature. However, this formulation naturally raises the question whether Nicene Trinitarianism is monotheistic. In affirmation of Nicea’s monotheism, we will see that all three uses of the word “God” in Christian theology are singular, despite the Trinitarian plurality of subjects. Hence, Nicene Trinitarianism is rightly labeled monotheistic, even though it is a unique type of monotheism. We will then look at three important differences between God and creatures that must be kept in mind for a proper understanding of Nicene Trinitarianism. These are (1) the divine subjects are not spatially or materially separated the way created individuals are; (2) the divine subjects, unlike created individuals, are distinguished by their relations to one another and not by material accidents of size, color, or location; and (3) because the divine subjects are differentiated by their relations, they, unlike created individuals, have no autonomous existence apart from one another. — CRI

What's odd is that you think the crazy shit you're whipping up is a straightforward account of Catholic doctrine, but this has already been pointed out to you quite a few times. — Leontiskos

Set me straight then.

It's odd that you think a straightforward account of Catholic doctrine is an attack on Christianity. smh

frank said so. How could it not be true? — Leontiskos

Well, it is true.

Where are these premises coming from? I don't know of any Catholic theology which says, "Father = God and Son = God..." — Leontiskos

That's the Trinity, dude.

If the trinity is a mystery, then leave it as such, without trying to make it fit into this or that logical frame. It just doesn't fit. — Banno

I'm curious how far some will go trying to make sense of it. :grin:

Oh I see! Thanks for explaining that.

Someone told me Russian speech pervasively pictures properties as external things, impinging on the subject, where in German, the speaker owns the properties, so instead of the cold is upon me, it's I have cold. Do you think that influences the respective philosophies? Germanic languages conjure a huge inner landscape.

The Trinity is a mystery. It's three persons, each of which is fully God. I think you're trying to waffle on whether it's a contradiction or not. I'm not sure why you would want to do that. That it's contradictory is what makes it a mystery.

I may be mistaken, but I dont think Christian neoplatonists were big on revolution. — Joshs

Freemasons were. Their belief system was Neoplatonic. As you may know, many of the founders of the USA were Freemasons.

Hegel radically historicized the platonic absolute. — Joshs

When you talked about shifting foundations, I thought you were talking about dialectics. Becoming analyses out to Being and Non-Being, and that brings us to Heidegger's What is Metaphysics, one of my favorites. :grin:

Western philosophy after Hegel shifted its attention away from unchanging foundations and towards a discourse of evolution, revolution and becoming in which foundations become relative, contingent and impermanent — Joshs

Hegel's roots were Neoplatonic, which is the philosophy Christianity is built on. Maybe he was instrumental in bringing it back to the academic scene, but it had been around for centuries.