Comments

  • That's a Cool Comment
    That's cool. Don't usually get to peek into somebody else's thinking processes..thanks!
  • That's a Cool Comment
    My criteria is just.. was I still thinking about that comment 10 minutes after I read it... then it was cool. What's your criteria? What's an example of a post you like?
  • That's a Cool Comment
    According to Aaron Burr, an able lawyer and, I think, a much maligned figure in American history: "The law is whatever is boldly asserted and plausibly maintained." There's some basis for that claim, or was then. There's a lot more law now and the opportunity to "make" law solely by clever argument in a courtroom was no doubt much greater when Burr practiced then it is for practitioners now. But for a litigator, and particularly one that regularly does jury trials, what Burr referred to is primarily the ability to persuade others that a position being taken is reasonable and just and should be accepted. This involves the ancient art of discourse or rhetoric employed by such as Cicero, a great lawyer and politician and a great communicator of philosophy if not a great philosopher. I think that a degree of intelligence and skill is required for one to be a successful practitioner of that art.Ciceronianus the White
  • Aphantasia and p-zombies
    It's a little shocking to discover differences. I have a poor sense of time and I don't have a constant inner voice. It blew my mind to discover people who have those things.

    What's assumed is that we're all the same.
  • That's a Cool Comment
    If you post a cool comment to this thread, quote and then copy. That way people can easily go back to the original.
  • That's a Cool Comment
    We're back to counting corpses again, to see who is the gooder thinker. If the insight is clear, the parasite is transformed into a symbiote. This is the magic of thought, that where biology must laboriously evolve, thought can change instantly.unenlightened

    Notice that clicking on the blue unenlightened will take you back to the thread from which the quote came. That's because while I was in that thread, I quoted the text, then copied the text that appeared in the comment box. I pasted that over here. Voila!
  • Religion will win in the end.
    Granted, if humans go back to shitting out their intestines in ditches from cholera, people will certainly be wanting their opium back, but are you so sure back to the ditches is where we're immediately headed?VagabondSpectre

    I didn't say "immediately."
  • Religion will win in the end.
    Yes. Some fundamental things I take to be true without any evidence at all. It's atrocious.
  • Religion will win in the end.
    What could be more romantic than the practice of law?Ciceronianus the White

    Pirate.
  • Religion will win in the end.
    Research has been done into the relative success that the religious and non-religious people have in coping with adversity, prolonged stress, serious illness, and so on. I wasn't able to lay my hands on a specific reference just now.

    If my memory (and common sense) serve me, the differences are not altogether unambiguous. For one thing, not all religiosity is the same, and not all ir-religiosity is the same, either. Some factors that might make a difference are not religious in nature. Supportive friends, for instance, make a difference. Ones psychological make up, quite apart from religion, has something to do with how well or poorly we cope with trouble.
    Bitter Crank

    Makes sense. I did say in the OP that I don't hold it to be a hard and fast rule that religious people have better coping skills. It's really just something I noticed along the way. I think of what Victor Frankl said about the power of meaning. He created a meaning for his suffering while in a concentration camp. There was nothing religious about it.

    Religion, by providing ritual, community, ties with ancestors, etc. provides a ready-made framework in which to find meaning in events. True?

    Parents standing by the bedside of their dying child (parent, spouse, dearest friend...) might be coping with the awful inevitability confronting them by displaying levity. Fatal illness and death can take a long time, and after months of being the pillar of strength and support, one might well give way to frivolous chatter.

    There isn't any master narrative that defines how people should deal with the appalling misery of life. Mostly, we learn how to suffer and witness suffering through "on the job training".
    Bitter Crank

    Sure. What I was meant was that people who confided to me that they were atheists (usually after the offer of a chaplain to stand with them) tended to seem a little vacant. They had checked out. Totally understandable.
  • Religion will win in the end.
    Bitter? No, I don't think so. I'm not judging. Just observed it.

    I'll admit PICU personnel aren't particularly romantic about such things, as you probably aren't about the content of your job.
  • Religion will win in the end.
    Feel free to present your own view of things. Or not.
  • Religion will win in the end.
    I can't help but wonder what "or something" refers to, here.Ciceronianus the White

    The "or something" is a cocktail party. Possible offer of a chocolate martini on the table as junior's name has already been changed to "donor" in the medical records.
  • Religion will win in the end.
    No I don't have any scientific articles. It's just something I came to expect during my time working in a pediatric intensive care unit. Parents who stand at the bedside of their dying child acting like we're at a barbecue or something.. they're atheists. The ones who are present and accounted for are religious.
  • That's a Cool Comment
    Well put one that you think is cool. Quote yourself if necessary.
  • Religion will win in the end.
    Marxism has an apocalyptic character. Apocalyptic religion is an Indoeuropean thing per Bernard Mcginn.

    But the quote helps frame my point. I don't think the conditions that require illusion are ever going away...not for long anyway. Agree?
  • Religion will win in the end.
    You're sounding kind of aged. Damn youngsters and their hedonism!
  • Religion will win in the end.
    Seditious? Anyway, there's a difference between science and atheism.
  • Religion will win in the end.
    I hadn't thought of it that way. But yeah, I think you're right.
  • What is truth?
    Or maybe you didn't realize it. Still gotta go. Bye!
  • What is truth?
    You just realized that the sentential form fails. You moved on to the propositional form.

    Gotta go.
  • What is truth?
    "His thesis is true" is not equivalent to "His thesis."

    The sentential form is an obvious fail. You can try propositions.
  • What is truth?
    I did explain why it's a failed theory.

    "His theory is true"

    Failure.
  • What is truth?
    Dude. Are you being sincere? A moral nihilist has no problem identifying things as good or bad. A truth nihilist has no problem with "true" and "false."

    So yes... redundancy is a failed theory: "His thesis is true."
  • What is truth?
    So you agree that redundancy is truth nihilism. Cool. I can say with confidence that we mean the same thing by "redundancy." Your position is not trivially true. It's not in line with the way "true" is commonly used. It's a failed theory.
  • What is truth?
    Given that "it is true that it is raining" means the same thing as "it is raining", truth-predication is a meaningless addition.Michael

    So I was going to provide a summary of Soame's thoughts on redundancy theory, but I'm finding that Michael has already done a great job. It's truth nihilism. Soames doesn't spend any time debating that. He spends about nine pages considering stuff like "Her thesis is true." He explains that redundancy can get a little closer to making sense if we look at it in the linguistic environment that includes "it is true that.."

    So.. get over it Michael. Redundancy is truth nihilsm.

    Soames didn't provide any further details about Tarski's view of redundancy other than his comment that it's nihilistic.

    Gotta study ACLS. Bleh.
  • Art, Truth, & Bull, SHE confronts Fearlessly
    A single border collie can herd a full grown bull.
  • What is truth?
    Sometimes "true" is redundant, specifically when the concept has been evoked by the act of assertion.

    I don't know what a redundant concept is.
  • What is truth?
    I think we pretty much agree about truth. It's a primal concept. Comprehension of it may be innate.

    There's just confusion about what redundancy is. I'll summarize Soames' thoughts on it later.
  • What is truth?
    Your take on redundancy puts no limits at all on what one can say. Its thesis is no more informative than that the word true starts with a t.
  • What is truth?
    I get my info from Scott Soames and his best book isn't on Kindle. I can summarize it. Tune in tomorrow.
  • What is truth?
    That it's a nihilistic approach.
  • What is truth?
    If you say so. Alfred Tarski understood redundancy in the way I just described.
  • What is truth?
    The redundancy view is simply the observation that "P" and "it is true that:P" have the same truth value. That is, one will be true if, and only if, the other is true.Banno

    There are people who take it further. By redundancy, they mean to say that true only has a social function. As I said, leave that thesis out and you have something very easy to defend because it's trivially true.
  • What is life?
    I used the earth's electromagnetic dynamo as a test of Robert Rosen's notions about life (because there's some positive feedback to it.) I eventually decided Rosen is right. When we talk about life, it's in terms of final cause. Pervasively, organisms act on behalf of themselves. Mechanisms don't.
  • Relative Time... again
    A clock is a continuous sequence of events (I didn't mean physics events, just regular ones).

    If you put a clock in a void, you will have injected time into it. True?
  • Relative Time... again
    Cool. So there could be no passage of time in a void. Picking a point in time is actually picking an event. The assignment of a temporal point says something about how our event is related to other events. Is that about all we can glean from Leibniz?
  • Relative Time... again
    Did we agree or disagree that Leibniz's argument for relative space works for relative time?