I'm under the impression that there was a hierarchical relationship between Quine and Davidson. That may or may not be termed "philosophical oppression". I say that it might have been such a thing, for all I know.

Epicurus was not like that, for example. He considered slaves as equals, not only to each other, but to himself as well.

Epicurus was therefore a better role model than Quine, as far as Ethics goes.

They always do. They think they're better than us.

Be Careful What You With For... :naughty:

"Your ugly face."



Be Careful What You Wish for... :naughty:

Good point! : )

If you say so.

That's why some of your own folk have been burning your own flag ever since the 60's, man.

To prove the exact same point.

Maybe....
— Arcane Sandwich
You claim fuel becomes fuel in the burning. I observe that means that fuel Is fuel before it is fuel. You say it always existed. I ask what always existed, and you say the Universe. How is that an explanation of your claim that fuel is fuel before it is fuel? — tim wood

Ever noticed how the word "fool" looks and sounds oddly similar to the word "fuel"? You can burn the latter, and you can also burn the former. :naughty: :fire:

Yes, it is...

... The Devil is in the Detail, is he not?
He's the hyper-Lawyer...

... :naughty:

Time is in some sense the only magnetic monopole that exists.

Or it could be like a pendulum.

Or it could be circular.

What if it's a sphere? What would that even mean?

If hyperspace is possible (i.e., a space in which there are hypercubes), is hypertime possible?

That's more or less the gist of it, yes. You can do that with any written document to prove the exact same point.

I am NOT a denier. — Agree-to-Disagree

Well, that's what's known as a performative contradiction: you are emphasizing the exact point of your sentence which you should not be emphasizing

Any intended reference to ":S" ?

just wondering smile — kazan

Doesn't matter. I found some smileys that I think you might like, here they are for the purpose copypasting them:

Useful smileys:

☺☹

The suggestion isn’t to prevent free expression, however ignorant, or to ban anyone— however deserving. — Mikie

If I may. I believe that Mike's point, which perhaps is falling on somewhat deaf ears, is that the rules of the Forum could be improved, somehow.

And that's always a good thing, isn't it?

Pardon. Please allow me to ask you a single, simple question, from a regulatory point of view. And by the way, I admit that I am ignorant.

What is Palestine if not the ancient Philistine?

I hold to the third perspective on nature, namely that nature is really the unfolding of the universe according to the laws of physics in time and therefore it is obviously perceived as true because it is true insofar as the idea of truth is simply a human construct describing what "is". — philosch

I agree. ☘️☯⛧★☀️☠️

obviously humankind is at least in part natural — philosch

Yes.

Therefore I'm left concluding humankind cannot do anything that is un-natural. — philosch

They can do something that is artificial, cultural. They can create artifacts. Cultural objects, so to speak.

Unless of course the OP wishes to define the boundaries of nature — philosch

The boundaries of nature...
... what would they even be?
Artifice, perhaps.
Divinity, perhaps.
Mathematics, perhaps.
Hmmm...
... I don't like the word "perhaps". Too formal. A better term is "maybe".

I conclude that nature is perceived as true because nature "is" true by definition. — philosch

Hmmm...
... no, I think I disagree, with that statement. Here's how I would phrase it:

Nature is perceived as true because nature is true, period. — Arcane Sandwich

Cool :up:

Snakes are a ground-slithering scum of a creature.

EDIT: On the other hand, some folks are in the habit of saying odd-sounding things such as "it's true because a bird told me about it."

Yeah mate? A snake told me a lot of things, that doesn't mean I have to believe what it told me.

unsurprised smile — kazan

We really need more smileys here. I mean, you can type :S and it does nothing, but if you type : and the ), it turns into this :)

Fine. You've been butchering his last name (Bunge) for about a zillion years, now. I'd ask you why, out of curiosity, but no one owes anyone an explanation about anything, right?

pacific smile — kazan

From the Pacific Ocean (Oceania), yes?

Second, how is this germane? — Banno

Spacetime, as physicists understand it, does not require the use of modal operators, especially not □◇, but you bring up the point about S5 every now and then, so I want to know why. Out of genuine curiosity. If you think this is beneath you as an intellectual, then I'll just start quoting Bunge, specifically the parts where he refutes Kripkean modal logic.

I don't have the time to watch that video.

I understand what you're saying, it's sounds reasonable. I'm just saying that tobacco should be illegal, for example.

I mean, does it have any beneficial effect on the smoker? It's all negative across the board, there's not a single good thing about it. It's a harmful substance. You might say "but people should be free to buy it anyways."

Should they? Why?

I would rather make most guns illegal. — Paine

If you wanna make a topic about that, I'd be willing to chime in. You're allowed to derail this thread to talk about that if you want to, but I would then steer it back to the topic of not doing drugs.

Tobacco gets ruled out of the job site because of danger to others. I am libertarian enough to let people decide how they die left to their own devices. — Paine

If it's a danger to others, then it's also a danger to yourself. I'm actually glad that tobacco has been banned from public buildings. Should it be made an illegal substance? I'm not sure. From the point of view of physical health and nothing else, I would say it should be illegal.

Is that paternalistic? If it is, then why does the FDA schedule any other drug? Is tobacco less harmful than marijuana, for example?

So, if you have a habit that makes you okay at work but nonetheless shortens your life, that is on you. — Paine

So tobacco cigarettes are just the consumer's responsibility then? They shouldn't be illegal?

Answer me this (please). Would physics improve in any way by using modal operators?

In the building trades, the limits are closely linked to how dangerous one becomes to others — Paine

The FDA is not dangerous, in any way, shape, or form. Is it possible to say the same thing about the DEA?

Substance abuse that just kills you is different from what kills others. — Paine

How so?

people with special abilities — JuanZu

Neurodiversity.

Then give people some options...?

https://dn790009.ca.archive.org/0/items/FromALogicalPointOfView/

EDIT: For example, the .djvu file is 3.3 MB.

Well, whoever the site owner is, he has an impressive Curriculum Vitae. A bit too focused on one side of the Continental-Analytic debate, in humble opinion, but whatever.

Sorry to interrupt your Thread, Banno. I honestly don't know what to do to get you to treat me as one of your colleagues, but no worries. I'm accustomed to such type of intellectual scorn.

Carry on.

He doesn't care, and he should be respected because of that.

Whose website is that?

They're logical possibilities. You believe in Kripkean modal logic. So, they exist.

I wouldn't. They're false, so there's no need for me to do such a thing.

↪frank
"is" in English has three interpretations in first order logic: Quantification, equivalence and predication. — Banno

There's arguably a fourth one: the "is" of composition, according to some people.
EDIT: And a fifth one: the "is" of constitution, according to some other people.