I doubt they have any concept of creation. Though there are bonds between parent and child among mammals, I don't think they understand themselves as actually being generated by their parents. I imagine it is the same for them as it is for us that they don't retain memories from their early childhood. Even when they themselves create another being I don't think they relate that to themselves, their thought is not that advanced — the lack of language surely doesn't help either. So, if it is shaky whether they even have any idea of being created by their ancestors, I doubt they extrapolate the thought all the way back to a creation of all.

While looking for links, I found something extremely funny:

The paper resolves the great debate of the 20th century between the three philosophies of mathematics-logicism, intuitionism and formalism—founded by Bertrand Russell and A. N. Whitehead, L. E. J. Brouwer and David Hilbert, respectively. The issue: which one provides firm foundations for mathematics? None of them won the debate. We make a critique of each, consolidate their contributions, rectify their weakness and add our own to resolve the debate. The resolution forms the new foundations of mathematics. Then we apply the new foundations to assess the status of Hilbert’s 23 problems most of which in foundations and find out which ones have been solved, which ones have flawed solutions that we rectify and which ones are open problems. Problem 6 of Hilbert’s problems—Can physics be axiomatized?—is answered yes in E. E. Escultura, Nonlinear Analysis, A-Series: 69(2008), which provides the solution, namely, the grand unified theory (GUT). We also point to the resolution of the 379-year-old Fermat’s conjecture (popularly known as Fermat’s last theorem) in E. E. Escultura, Exact Solutions of Fermat’s Equations (Definitive Resolution of Fermat’s Last Theorem), Nonlinear Studies, 5(2), (1998). Likewise, the proof of the 274-year-old Goldbach’s conjecture is in E. E. Escultura, The New Mathematics and Physics, Applied Mathematics and Computation, 138(1), 2003. — Edgar E. Escultura

Love me some crazy folks.

They thought mathematical truth was derivable from logic. — fishfry

When you say "mathematical truth" do you also refer to axioms? Me and another user had a disagreement about the definition of logicism as it seems hard to source — no surprise. SEP presents both a "weak logicism" and "hard logicism":

The strong version of logicism maintains that all mathematical truths in the chosen branch(es) form a species of logical truth. The weak version of logicism, by contrast, maintains only that all the theorems do.

The article The Three Crises in Mathematics: Logicism, Intuitionism and Formalism says:

The formulation of the logicists' program now becomes: Show that all nine axioms of
ZF belong to logic. — https://www.jstor.org/stable/2689412?seq=1

Just found this on IEP's article about animism:

It has been argued that the liberation of women is a project which cannot be disentangled from the liberation of (and political recognition of) the environment. The objectification of nature is seen as an aspect of patriarchy, which may be undone by the acceptance of an ethics of care which acknowledges the existence of non-human persons.

Terrible day for being literate.

That is a topic approached by anthropology. There is content online about the origins of animism, which is considered the most primitive, thus earliest, kind of religion. Of course, it is speculative, so we will never know for sure.

It is troublesome to talk about these things if one is not using very specific terminology. What does "contradictory" really mean? As Leontiskos has shown, the two formulas yield the same result if A is false (true for any value of B).

A contradiction is an assertion of Propositional Logic that is false in all situations; that is, it is false for all possible values of its variables. — Tautologies and Contradictions

If (A implies B) and (A implies notB) is understood as (A → B) ^ (A → ¬B), it is not contradictory as it is true whenever A is false.



But OP is asking are the two contradictory with each other?

I think what is being asked here is whether one is the denial of the other. And the answer is no. Putting it in logical tables, denial would be whenever (A → B) yields True (A → ¬B) yields False. We know that there are values for A and B where both yield the same result.




The denial of (A → B) would be ¬(A → B), same for the other (p/¬p). A less obvious example is that ((A∧¬B) ∨ (¬A∧B)) is the denial of ((A∧B) ∨ (¬A∧¬B)). The first is the XOR gate, the second is XNOR. For any value of A and B, one will give False and other True.

The issue is, whenever A is true, the two do not give the same results. Meaning, if A is true (it is raining), it can't be true that A implies B (it is wet) and not-B (it is not wet) at the same time. As fdrake said.

But if we say it is not raining, the antecedent (A) is false, and the way material implication works in classical logic is that, if the antecedent is false, the implication is always true — I remember we both took part in an excruciatingly long discussion about denying the antecedent.

Hoping my explanation was clear and free of errors.

Is this like "analysis of knowledge" in analytic philosophy where whole books are written about the meaning of a specific word because the dictionary definition is not specific enough for the taste of the philosophers in question?

I guess the rest of the post is well addressed above as well, but to drive the nail further.

If they did, would a 50% reduction in cancer rates work as well? Only 10%? — Count Timothy von Icarus

It is not about the arbitrary level of suffering in this world, but about making so that the amount of pain in life isn't so horribly ridiculous — there is not a clear cut threshold but there doesn't need to be. My life hasn't been sheltered enough to stop me from seeing things that cannot escape the conclusion that we live in a horrible world. But if "you" are a pretty European chick living in Milan with a rich dad and a non-divorced mom, yeah, life is beautiful — at least if she lived in Brussels she would get to see some terrorism every now and then.

If cancer and tigers didn't exist couldn't you still make this same argument? — Count Timothy von Icarus

They "didn't exist" in the Garden of Eden. The Roman Catholic Church will say we inherited from Adam the death of the soul, which causes misery — original sin. The Orthodox (Greek at least) will say we inherited the proclitivity for sinning that causes suffering. Everybody who has debated religion will have read both of these when explaining the suffering in the world. Did we not have free will in the Garden of Eden? At least when it comes to Christian theology, the ridiculous suffering we go through is not under question, but each Church justifies it in a different manner — the Greeks will say the Romans mistranslated the respective verse.

What ratio of ills would need to be eliminated from the world to make it "good enough?" — Count Timothy von Icarus

You are right in what you insinuate. If there were less suffering, I would simply make the same point that we need even less suffering. Surely things could be way worse, your previous profile picture is an example of it, but it is undeniable for anyone who has seen things that would be better to live a whole life without seeing: there is an excruciating amount of pain in this world that makes the idea of a benevolent God suspicious. And that is not even to say that pain is not relative, and what is excruciating to us might not be so horrible to someone in a worse world, but the suffering of heart break and breaking bones and impostor syndrome is objectively and absolutely mild compared to how most prey dies in the wild. The fact that we don't have to go through equally horrible things is not the credit of a kind-hearted God.

You said address what bert1 was responding to (180proof's post), not bert1's reply to 180proof.
Anyhow, not only that but bert1 himself said he agreed, not just 180proof. And it is not like what I said has any room for disagreement, it is something obvious.
My suggestion is to read it over until you understand it.

Really? So how come the person bert1 was responding to agreed with me?

We know from the sciences that equilibrium is a tendency of Nature — Benj96

Not equilibrium, but large enough systems eventually go into low-energy states. Equilibrium happens in mechanical systems when all forces cancel out, in thermodynamic systems when the temperature is overall the same.

Could Karma be the expression of basic physical laws of motion emerging/permeating into the sphere of sophisticated societal dynamics? — Benj96

No.

Yes, I think morality as such, like language, gives our species some adaptive advantages. — 180 Proof

All one needs to do is think of a society where murder within one's tribe is not punished. I can't reach any conclusion other than this being a huge evolutionary disadvantage for that group.

Did you use AI at any point in "our discussion"? Just curious.

That much is clear but it is not evidently the case in the article. — Amity

I don't know, I would imagine that feminist epistemology of all things would work as an example. But otherwise, I hope she sees this!

It is not always easy to separate the different prejudices. — Amity

Really? Not even in the example I provided?

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/promise
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/obliged

Hoping this helps

The lack of T for a man can have undesirable consequences.

Rule 1: The sum of any two integers is 0.
a+b=0
Theorem 1: Any two integers are the opposite of each other
a=-b

My rule:
There is only one integer, 0.

I would be hard to imagine a funnier response than Banno's above — AmadeusD

Kinky.

Locke for instance is probably motivated in his rejection of innate ideas and the Cambridge Platonists by political concerns. — Count Timothy von Icarus

First time hearing that.

I don't know how easy it is to separate these — Count Timothy von Icarus

Easy, in many cases. Someone's aversion to Buddhism or Berkeley may have to do with a materialist bias — no politics here. Now, developing an ethical theory for the explicit purpose of legitimising abortion or whatnot...

I said political prejudice, not philosophical prejudice.

I am not sure how you reach the conclusions you do, that this is a pretence, or harmful lies. — Amity

That wasn't the conclusion. And you are free to replace that article with any example you can think of when people pursued philosophy for political motivations. There was no point, the link was for illustrative purposes.

You consider this is not philosophy being done but politics? — Amity

Do you think the following is more philosophy or (post-modern) politics?

The aim, then, of feminist epistemology is both the eradication of epistemology as a going concern with issues of truth, rationality, and knowledge and the undermining of gender categories.

Nancy Tuana (2003) has developed Charles Mills’s concept of “epistemologies of ignorance” by looking at the ways in which ignorance, rather than knowledge, is constructed by studies of sexuality and public school sex education programs.

What’s the difference between philosophically informed politics and politically informed philosophy? — Joshs

Have you never felt that someone purpoted to be doing philosophy puts forth a position not because he thinks it is truthful but because it appeals to his political prejudices?

If alternative universes in the physical multiverse are structurally similar to nonstandard models/universes in the arithmetical multiverse, then alternative universes are not similar to galaxies.

While the distance between galaxies is finite, there is no legitimate notion of distance between universes. The distance in between universes is "infinite" or "inapplicable" (whatever that may mean). It is not possible to reach them by physically traveling to them. With galaxies, you conceivably can.

God bless anyone who takes this drivel seriously.

I was trying to be helpful — Tarskian

Of course you were, rambling about the economic status of someone you know nothing about. Disingenuous and malicious, pretending his sour character attacks were his "haha humour".

This is not math. — Tarskian

It is 8th grade math you didn't even bother to compute mentally.

Where exactly is the general solution for the quartic polynomial implemented in the source code of the Maxima computer algebra system? — Tarskian

I don't know neither do I care about some fringe github application you pretend to know about, crank.

Do you want to run your "atheist countries don't reproduce" drivel again so I can expose you one more time?

Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the existance of sexual assault. — LuckyR

Most abortions don't have pregnancies resulting from rape.

So your 'scoring' is not about winning a philosophical argument against any other player. — Amity

There is nothing in either of my posts that suggests I think philosophy is about scoring.

Why is that a concern for you? And why did you place quotation marks around the word philosophy? — Amity

{Something pretending {to be something it is not}} is, more often than not, harmful — like most lies are.
Because the philosophy being done in that case would not be philosophy but politics.

Not sure how what you linked to doesn’t count as philosophy. — Joshs

I didn't say it doesn't. Within the article you find philosophy that is evidently politically motivated. Replace it with any other valid example that comes to mind.

If you liken it to tennis then it is a game to be won or lost — Amity

I didn't liken it in this aspect. The activity of tennis is to play it and nothing else, it is up to you whether you play it well and obey the rules. Likewise, the activity of doing philosophy is up to the individual. I don't expect anything from an activity (something abstract), I only expect something out of myself when I perform the activity. Therefore I don't expect anything from philosophy but from myself only.

When it comes to philosophy as an academic field, I can't expect much from it, as it is up to the departments of each university. I would just hope that the "philosophy" being done does not turn out to be politics dressing up as philosophy.

why don't you talk with someone else instead? — Tarskian

I will do you one better, why don't you

solve the following equation:

$2x^4+4x^2+2$ — Lionino

I really don't see the need to converse with someone like you. — Tarskian

Of course you don't, because I expose you all the time. I am not trying to "converse", and I will keep doing it every time you spill idiotic bullshit.

The same person who wrote a comment containing nothing but this:

I thought that you wanted me to help you find a new job?

I am quite good at networking but not that good. So, give me some more time to pull off the impossible.

By the way, does anybody want to hire him?

He's been looking for a new job for ages now but he keeps failing at the first interview. — Tarskian

is complaining about "ad hominem". Sprinkling a bit of hypocrisy in the sophistry, aren't we?

By the way, "ad hominem" and personal attacks are not the same thing.

trampling the bodily autonomy of an adult human — LuckyR

This bodily autonomy was trampled the moment a decision was made to create another body that has its own rights — among others the right to live. Even then, the argument is not about law-making.

I can't expect anything from philosophy as an activity. Likewise I can't expect anything from tennis as an activity, I can only expect from myself to score or not. At the very least, I can expect from the activity that I get better at it; so it is the same for philosophy, to get better at thinking. But it is not for the sake of itself, one could argue that tennis skills can translate to other skills; so getting better at thinking surely translate to many other skills. Philosophy graduates often go to work at fields that don't involve any academic philosophy.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.1800

0 citations, 10 downloads. Not shocking.

Neither pi or sqrt(2) or e don't have repeating decimals. They are both irrational numbers — by definition numbers that cannot be represented by fractions.

Nice thread, but I couldn't figure out what its goal is. I will leave a quote by Diogenes Laertios:

But Pythagoras was the first person who invented the term
Philosophy, and who called himself a philosopher; when he was conversing
at Sicyon with Leon, who was tyrant of the Sicyonians or of the
Phliasians (as Heraclides Ponticus relates in the book which he wrote
about a dead woman); for he said that no man ought to be called wise,
but only God. For formerly what is now called philosophy (φιλοσοφία) was
called wisdom (σοφία), and they who professed it were called wise men
(σοφοὶ), as being endowed with great acuteness and accuracy of mind; but
now he who embraces wisdom is called a philosopher (φιλόσοφος).

Voting for far-right politicians, i.e. the modern national-socialists, is the national European rebellion against the absurd, of a society that will ultimately commit suicide. — Tarskian

Wrong. Everybody who lives in Europe knows why the far-right is rising. Funnily enough, it has nothing to do with the lack of religion, it has to do with the presence of (a certain) religion.

Keep European politics for people who have skin in the game. If someone is backpacking in Siberia or being a sexpat in Thailand they typically wouldn't have a lot of investment in what is going on across the globe.

Religion does not destroy anybody's freedom. Religion just reminds you of the fact that some forms of freedom are fake. If you do not want to keep the laws of God, then don't. Religion merely reminds you of the fact that it will backfire, if not later in this life, then in a later life. — Tarskian

Is that why after I completely debunked your claim about birth rates one page ago you disappeared from the thread only to come back to repeat the same clownish nonsense that was already disproved — much in the same way that several of your claims throughout the site have been shown to be factually false or nonsensical?

If I've understood, your argument shows what the sum of the infinite series is. — Ludwig V

It shows how we get the fraction representation of repeating decimals.