How does faith get us out of the cogito? — Moliere
So, if I have you right, you're making the argument that he's more targeting atheists in saying that if they do not believe in God then this is all they can know, and given that they know more than that, they ought consider believing in God. Sort of like the Secret Atheist, but instead he's dressing it up for the church while talking to his contemporaries too. — Moliere
Do you think anything can be inferred from the cogito, whatsoever — Moliere
Well, given that Sartre is talking about radical doubt as being given to us only through time reference (something like Kant's intuitions I feel) there is nothing other to hang experience off of is there?
'Rely' is probably the sticky word here. Sartre likes to make words less like words. — I like sushi
So the question: Must the cogito rely upon a notion of the past and future in order for its doubt to make sense?
If so then it seems the skeptic must at least admit of knowledge of time. And so cannot be universally skeptical. If we know about time then just how could there be an Evil Demon behind the appearances? Is it outside of time? If so then the cogito has nothing to do with it, as per the argument. — Moliere
As to the difference between the material conditional and informal notions of the conditional, that point has been gone over and over and over. If there is something more you want to say about, no one is stopping you. — TonesInDeepFreeze
And I gave you information about modus ponens, consistency and arguments too, to clear things up for you after your confused comment about them. — TonesInDeepFreeze
I've said it maybe fifty times in this forum: Ordinary formal logic with its material conditional does not pertain to all contexts. But that is not a basis that one should not say how ordinary formal logic handles a question and not a basis that one should not explain ordinary formal logic to people who are talking about it without knowing about it. — TonesInDeepFreeze
For a foreigner like me, it is complicated to understand America's core values. Following your views and posts, it seems that an American core value is gun freedom; also, you are against censorship, but you would avoid having a LGTBIQ flag in your classroom; then, you claim that it is essential to have different beliefs, but some of you label as 'Communist' the working model of Mondragón (Spain) for not being capitalist enough.
A core value... complicated, mate.
For me, it is to have a strong national healthcare system. So, to you is carrying a M-16 in your big polluting Ford truck. — javi2541997
We might correct them, "well, actually ~Q." "Your reasoning is spot on and logical, it just happens to be that ~P, so while your reasoning is valid, the argument you presented is unsound." — NotAristotle
In your case, you DO have the memories. — AmadeusD
What is going on here is not a pedantic mismatch between English and some esoteric academic exercise. Rather, there are ambiguities in the English use of "If... then...", "...or..." and various other terms that we must settle in order to examine the structure of our utterances in detail. — Banno
It just gives us the extremely uncomfortable conclusion that (for example) in a situation of teletransportation, you die. You don't come to in place 2. You simply die. Someone new, with your same memories, exists in place 2. — AmadeusD
There would be two people who each identify as being Michael, and we would identify one as being the original and the other as being a copy (and they would perhaps identify themselves the same way). — Michael
Any position which entails a) I am the person with a body, b) I am not the person in the jar, or c) I am both the person with a body and the person in the jar is wrong. — Michael
I think that if we take any one part of the Ship of Theseus and replace it with a new part then it's still the Ship of Theseus, but that if we "replace" my head (and brain) with a new head (and brain) then it's no longer me, it's someone else. I'm the disembodied head living in a jar like in Futurama. There certainly can't be two of me, which would seem to follow from NOS4A2's position. — Michael
What would be the implications if we would say for any given argument under all values of the antecedent the conclusion may not result in a logical contradiction or the argument will be deemed invalid? — Benkei
Most - I think all - lies are soluble in appropriate analysis. — tim wood
Cite some representative samples of my"unclear""jargon laden style and weird grammatically abbreviated sentences". Thanks. — 180 Proof
But that's policy, not identity. But then you go on to say people voted because of their identity as republicans. It could be both of course, but you seem to be inconsistent as to which you consider more causal. — bert1
(C) and (D) are WRONG (see below). — TonesInDeepFreeze
But regardless of how you get there, the conclusion "arguments can be both valid and invalid" is false. — Michael
No 3 is a 4 because no argument can be both valid and invalid. — Michael
It's not raining and it's raining therefore it's not raining.. So yeah, it's "incoherent" in that its premises are inconsistent. — Michael
Candidly, there can't be any sensible doubt that the argument in the OP is valid for formal propositional logic. So in order for those who claim it is invalid to be correct, there must be more than one form of validity, and hence logical pluralism follows. — Banno
Yeah but it probably won't beat places like China and India given how much more lax their regulations are. Those are the countries they need to compete with. — Mr Bee
Has he suggested decreasing defense spending before? It sounds like he will just continue the status quo of the US being the biggest spender on defense by far. I think it appeals to his tough guy persona. — Mr Bee
There's only so much more drilling that can be done to reduce oil prices (contrary to what some on the right say the Biden administration is overseeing record production right now). Also contrary to what Trump says, there is little correlation between the price of other goods the price of oil and gas. — Mr Bee
This is in Europe's interest, though. Relying on other countries for defense is nothing other than giving up one's sovereignty. This is exactly why I view Europe as little more than Uncle Sam's vassals. — Tzeentch
The EU should decouple from the US, and instead seek engagement with continental powers like China. — Tzeentch
If you're in any way geopolitically conscious, you will keep the US very far from your door. — Tzeentch
1. As the U.S. scales back on environmental regulations, the EU could solidify its global leadership in climate action. This moment could further the European Green Deal and enhance the EU's position as a hub for green technology innovation and investment. By strengthening partnerships with like-minded regions (e.g., Canada, Japan), the EU could lead a coalition to tackle climate change and attract global investors focused on sustainability.
2. The EU could also capitalize on a more protectionist U.S. approach by attracting foreign investors looking for stable markets.
3. The EU can leverage its more stable stance to exert greater influence in institutions like the UN, WHO, and WTO. By doing so, the EU could shape international policy in ways that align with its standards on trade, human rights, and environmental protection.
4. Given Trump's prior skepticism toward NATO and multilateral security, the EU could take a stronger stance on European defense and autonomy. This might involve further funding for the European Defence Fund and strengthening PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation).
5. Policies may lead to a U.S. shift away from renewable energy production, possibly leading to increased oil and gas prices. The EU may want to fast-track its transition to renewables to mitigate potential price shocks and reduce reliance on external energy sources, especially in a time of political instability. — Benkei