Logic describes nothing. And translating predicates as 'attributes' is unmotivated and contentious. — StreetlightX

Well, wrong and wrong, but I guess at this point all is left is to agree to disagree. :chin:

This seems like linguistic sommersaults to me. A distinction without a difference for no purpose. — StreetlightX

Except if you want a foundation for formal logic :)

No seriously - if someone says: "describe this dog to me", and you reply "it's a dog", there are a few possibilities - you misheard the question; you were being cheeky; its so obvious what the dog looks like that it'd be redundant to describe it any further; you don't understand English; you're unacquainted with the dog so are unable to elaborate. What you have not done, is give a description of the dog. — StreetlightX

It doesn't describe anything because it presents no information. You could have zero knowledge of what "x" is and still agree that x = x. That can't be called describing anything. — Saphsin

While x=x is almost always not a satisfactory answer to the question "what is x?" in most circumstances of non-philosophical discussion, it does tell us more about x than simply stating "x" would. It tells us that x is self-identical. Self-identical is an attribute. That it happens to be an attribute all things in the universe share makes it no less an attribute. Thus, calling attention to said attribute is, by any definition of description of which I know, a description.

I'm in agreement with you both that it's not even a very interesting attribute in most cases of any practical matter. It's important, though, that we know that x=x is an attribute all things share, because that's where formal logic starts. If you go through a formal proof which says otherwise, i.e. x=~x, you're in trouble.

In what English class did you learn that "x=x" or "it is itself" counts as a description of something, and not earn you a detention for being cheeky? This is a misuse of the English word 'description — StreetlightX

Maybe if you have a bad teacher, but think you just don't fully understand the word "description."

They're both saying the same thing. The latter sentence just says it twice. Redundant. — Harry Hindu

One is saying x and the other is saying something about x.

that doesn't show us anything that we didn't already know. x = x is no different than just stating x. — Harry Hindu

They are different statements though. One is the statement of x, the other is describing something about x. It's the difference between saying dog and saying a dog is a dog.

Depends on the context.

No dialogue is helped by the suggestion the other person needs to read an entire book before the conversation can continue... or, at least, that does put a stop to the dialogue even if it might be true. I'm imagining contexts where you're trying to talk about some complex and specific concept and the other person doesn't have any baseline knowledge. The counter-argument would be I guess that you should be able to condense the main ideas into a digestible post.... but I don't think there's anything wrong with sometimes just not wanting to have a conversation at that level because you're interested in going deeper and not just endlessly debating the most basic elements.

To make a really silly example of it, it would be like trying to discuss the merits (or demerits) of the most recent Star Wars movie, but your interlocutor hasn't seen any of them, doesn't know the plot, and generally has little knowledge of the sci-fi genre. You might just say "well, you gotta watch the movies first." Conversation over, but it was also clear that the conversation was not going anywhere useful to you.

Videos can often convey more information and do it in a shorter time span than an article. I'll sometimes link a 5 or maybe 10 minute video but I'll re-watch it to make sure it's relevant to our discussion. — BitconnectCarlos

If you read like a snail, I suppose.

Well, my favorite philosophy professor in college had a better line about suicide:

"Suicide is like getting a tattoo. It's a permanent solution to a temporary problem."

I think Kenneth Burke's Unending Conversation metaphor pretty much captures what any approach comes down to in the end:

"Imagine that you enter a parlor. You come late. When you arrive, others have long preceded you, and they are engaged in a heated discussion, a discussion too heated for them to pause and tell you exactly what it is about. In fact, the discussion had already begun long before any of them got there, so that no one present is qualified to retrace for you all the steps that had gone before. You listen for a while, until you decide that you have caught the tenor of the argument; then you put in your oar. Someone answers; you answer him; another comes to your defense; another aligns himself against you, to either the embarrassment or gratification of your opponent, depending upon the quality of your ally's assistance. However, the discussion is interminable. The hour grows late, you must depart. And you do depart, with the discussion still vigorously in progress."

That may not seem satisfactory for anyone seeking a structured approach... but I'm afraid he captures the impossibility thereof. The Conversation has been going on too long with too many voices addressing aspects of too many things in too many ways for there to be anything but a "dive in and see where the current takes you" approach, even with the best laid plans.

As others have mentioned, establish what interests you (which conversations would you care to join?) and then seek out the biggest ideas and and thinkers in those areas, read them, and keep reading from there. Oh, and Cambridge, Norton, and others write pretty good introductory-summary texts of most fields that keep up to date with the most important developments.

No proof is required or possible -- hence all of the so-called proofs above simply assume the principle of identity holds for each of their premises. — Methinks

Right. There is at least no deductive, non-circular proof for x=x, because a deductive proof requires formal logic and all of formal logic rests on the assumption that x=x is true/valid.

You can only inductively confirm x=x is true. And you can reason that any other premise makes no sense, goes nowhere, is incomprehensible, and can nowhere be found to be true in thought or reality.

To quote Aristotle (and I'm just quoting it for the fun of the quote, not because I'm trying to say anything about anyone involved in this conversation):

"Some people, through their lack of education, expect this principle, too, to be proved; for it does show a lack of education not to know of what things we ought to seek proof and of what we ought not. For it is altogether impossible for there to be proofs of everything; if there were, one would go on to infinity, so that even so one would end up without a proof; and if there are some things of which one should not seek proof, these people cannot name any first principle which has that characteristic more than this."

If I start counting the properties of Apple now.......yes, they do meet the properties of Apple. As far I could observe the properties of x, they are identical to the properties of x, therefore x=x is true. This is inductive reasoning which does not guarantee anything. — Monist

Ah, I think I see a problem here. You're introducing an observer into the mix. Our observations of the world are always (to some extent) inductive. (And, as an aside, people often demand too much of inductive reasoning. You can be justifiable and reasonably sure of something without having to be 100%, infallibly sure of it, but that's a subject for a later day.)

The point that the law of identity simply makes is that any object, like (let's call it, for sake of specificity, and to make clear we're not taking about general apples, but of one specific apple in the time-space continuum) Apple#1 is the same as Apple#1 because Apple#1 DOES have the exact same identical properties, including their location in the space-time continuum as Apple#1. Whether or not you the observer can verify that the apple you're holding is actually the apple you're holding is not as certain, because there is always the off-chance that you're insane/a brain in a vat/under some magicians illusion.

Well, first things first: X is just a stand-in symbol for any object or number you wish it to be. But I think you got that far yourself already.

To a more specific example with your apples. Everything is what it is and not some other thing. If you have an apple--like a real world apple, it can't be anything else at the exact time you are holding it. It has to be itself. What else could it be? If your apple were to be a not-apple, say a banana, then it wouldn't be apple=banana. It would be banana=banana.

You can even expand the equation: apple=apple=not-banana. Or x=x=~y. Or apple=apple=nothing that is not apple. Or x=x=~(~x).

Five minutes from now it can be mush in your stomach, and five hours from now it can be released as energy and water and air, etc. Five months ago it was in the clouds and the earth and the tree. But right here, now, it is just itself.

We weren't talking about whether or not it's right. We were talking about whether it costs the taxpayers money. But since you brought it up, why would you say that being an ******* is wrong? — frank

It's kind of in the definition.

By the bye, if you're talking about who is culpable, then you are talking about whether it is right or wrong.

Some people thrive on an emotionally charged environment that includes permission to be abusive — frank

You mean like sadistic serial killers might?

A person's enjoyment of being a bully does not make a right.

There is no depth of depravity to which the economy will not descend with enthusiasm if a profit can be made. — unenlightened

:100:

Isnt it each person's responsibility to maintain his or her own sanity? — frank

Does that have no limitations? If someone binds you to a table and has water drip on your forehead for ten years straight, is it still your own responsibility to maintain sanity? If someone secretly administers psychosis-inducing drugs to your system, is it your responsibility?

If the material conditions of the workers did not allow them or make them feel they were allowed to rebel or change their circumstances, how much can be said to be their own responsibility?

The rightist argues that survival of the fittest generates healthy entities — frank

Who survives in these scenarios? The callous and psychopathic? I would not classify them as "healthy."

irrational emotions to manipulate us. — Qmeri

@A Seagull Is right about that. You have to be clearer what you mean by "irrational." Even a schizophrenics paranoid illusions are rational once you understand the mechanisms that lead to these delusions.

Every logical step can be made consciously. If you think intuition is necessary, please demonstrate. — Qmeri

Well, first off, another false dichotomy here between "conscious" and "intuitive."

But that aside, very simply the recognition that a=a and a=/=~a involves an intuitive understanding of the world and the way it works. We can also consciously recognize that, but the two go hand in hand really. And the more complex your logic gets, the more intuition comes into play.

In any case, you haven't addressed the second or third paragraphs of my post which more directly pertain to your query.

Like using things that convince him intuitively or emotionally without proving anything logically. — Qmeri

That's kind of supposing a false dichotomy. Intuition and emotion are not separate from logic. In order to be convinced of a logical proof, you must be moved emotionally and intuitively in several ways first. For example, you have to care about truth and logic. You also have to be able to see logical connections, which I think happens to some degree at an intuitive level. If you have no intuition of why A->B means that if A the conclusion is B, and you also don't care, logic means nothing.

The word "manipulation" implies that you are using the wrong or inappropriate emotions to convince someone of something. It usually implies lying, or at least misusing the truth to false ends.

However, you can clearly use emotion appropriately to persuade someone of something you believe to be true. Like the way sometimes pictures of the Holocaust are more effective in persuading people of the evils thereof than rational argument.

In the end, the money was given and weapons were provided in excess of what the prior administration gave, despite not having received the dirt he wanted. — Hanover

Because he got caught.

It's the equivalent of saying a bank robber should get let off the hook because he was stopped before he could get his hands on the money.

Beyond kind of objective criteria, like no swearing at people, or no posts filled with only swears, the mod decisions about what counts as too much or the wrong tone, etc. are rather subjective judgments. Plus between mods you get different sensibilities.

I'd prefer it if we tried to monitor swearing here, personally, as I have yet to see an instance when it has not subtracted from the philosophical content. But I think the mods' and general consensus here is that it falls under free speech. So both in terms of heirarchy and democracy, you and I are outnumbered, Sushi.

live in the Netherlands, so in a sense I am the canary in the mineshaft, since sea level rise should have put half the country underwater. But so far, nothing. — Tzeentch

The Venetians would like a word with you.....

Martha Nussbaum, Love's Knowledge

Her take on the philosophical content of literature. It helps that her own prose is positively divine.

It's dense too though, because she's one of the smartest, most knowledgeable people on the planet regarding philosophy, literature, and history.

I pronounce "my call" like "my cool" and "Michael" like "my cull". — Michael

The German way sounds way cooler, imho.

Mih- chah - ale. (My best phonetic approximation.)

The ch sound in German is soft, like at the end of Bach. (Hope that makes sense.)

Perhaps we can try again sometime with a different philosopher. I like some of his ideas, and I enjoyed his single post, but even among professionals not everyone is the most.... reliable.

To be fair, end of the semester is perhaps not the best time to orchestrate this kind of thing either. Especially the end-of-semester-right-between-holidays time.

I certainly think it would be a shame if people put in the amount of time and effort they have for Prof. Pigliucci only to be disappointed again.

Live and learn, as they say.

In the meantime, thank you to everyone who did put time and effort in. As a member of the peanut-munching crowd, it was appreciated.

Good ol' Walt comes in handy once again!

"Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)"
From Song of Myself, Whitman

I get how it can sometimes feel like we are mamy selves, but I see it more like a human is a rich and complex being, responding to a rich and complex world (as well as to other rich and complex beings) and so you're not going to act or feel or think consistently all of the time.

I asked this before, but if he wants Pigliucci to hear his life story so bad, why doesn't he just email him himself?

Mark Dennis had his membership privileges removed for refusing moderation and threatening legal action against the site because we edited some personal information out of his proposed question to Prof. Pigliucci. He was finally banned for setting up two fake membership accounts. — Baden

:gasp: Aw, that's too bad. Despite our rocky start, we were getting along just fine and I appreciated much of his commentary. Too bad he couldn't back down from that whole issue.

We've had a series of (semi-)unexpected bannings in the past few months. I wonder what's up with that. Statistical happenstance? It can't be the weather, cause we live so dispersed. Is the era of Trump just making everyone cranky? Hmmmm...

intellectual forum app — Mark Dennis

I just check the site on my Android's Chrome app. What do you think a special app would add?

(We really need a word for a proponent of scientism, because "scientist" obviously isn't it) — Pfhorrest

Realist? Non-hog-wash-ian? Educated? Jk :razz:

I had a philosophy class in high school and I don't feel like I came away from it with an understanding of what philosophy was at all, but that could have been because I was a dense scientism-ist at the time. — Pfhorrest

I think being a teenager as well as a total novice at anything at all, including philosophy, just means that in the intro courses lots and lots is going to be lost on you.

After I graduated from college, I worked for several years as a paraprofessional in the public school system (one-on-one with disabled students who may or may not be integrating into regular classrooms) and so basically retook a lot of school classes with my students. I kept thinking "Wait! I learned this before? Where the heck was I? If all students actually remembered all this stuff after school, everyone would be so smart!"

Phew! His posts were really making me question how seriously the mods take the basic grammar and spelling requirements.

I don't know if it was just me, but it certainly seemed like the more his posts slipped into drivel, the worse his writing got as well.

Question: how will responses to Pigliucci be moderated? The forum tends to be pretty lenient in terms of anything from sarcasm, snark, up to and including (sometimes vulgar) personal attacks, and while I generally see that as up to the mod's discretion (this being a privately owned, online forum and all), I would hate to see a professional receive some of the same treatment we've all seen regular forum members endure.

Sick to death of the moderators ignoring this guy. — Mark Dennis

I have not had the pleasure of talking to this person myself, but I have noticed over my time here that some of the mods are just very inconsistent with their judgments about what the correct "tone" is and when someone is going too far. On the whole, though, they err on the side of leniency, except in matters of getting "off-topic." They pounce on that without fail. :smirk:

I'm not disagreeing with whether banning him was the right move, because reposting deleted posts does seem to be asking for it...

But, didn't you accuse him of trolling in that last thread he participated in?

Exactly wrong. That's what he throws out. — Banno

That's what he claims to throw out. Irony at its best.

Okay, I get it now. I think you either don't mean expunge or futility in that case.

Anywho, Wittgenstein had some okay ideas, but I think some of it comes down to word-play and an almost religiously-faith-based adherence to him and only him.

This is an intriguing list, Pfhorrest, but holy cow, man. Each one of those questions deserves a book-long (at least) answer!

expunged the futility in trying to create a methodology in philosophy. — Wallows

I don't understand this sentence.

An example of an unreliable source could be Wikipedia where information can be changed quickly and by anyone. The site does have some failsafe mechanisms to avoid high levels of misinformation, and it can provide some limited support to an argument, but it can’t be considered reliable enough for academic purposes and would certainly be challenged in that area. — Baden

I would not cite Wikipedia in an academic article, perhaps, but it's been proven to be quite reliable for information: https://www.nature.com/articles/438900a

I certainly think it's an adequate source of information for a forum discussion, especially when you're trying to do something basic, like prove that foxes are not felines, or that Pluto is considered a dwarf planet, or that Kant was German.

The relationship between religion and suicide isn't always good news:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4990512/

http://dc.medill.northwestern.edu/blog/2017/07/05/new-study-suggests-religion-affects-suicide-rates-differently-around-the-world/#sthash.7dRwYiGz.dpbs

Mainstream media is trying to report what is interesting and important for the mainstream to know. Not all people are religious, and obviously there are countless kinds of religion and kinds of Christianity.

For farmers, teachers, hunters, vegans, and even flute enthusiasts there are specialized, alternative news sources, because these are specialized and alternative views. Same for religious folk.

whereas "lack of belief in Santa Claus" does not. — Terrapin Station

"Adult"

Depending on how you choose to parse it, agnosticism can be seen as a kind of atheism.

By that I mean, if you phrase it as "not believing in the existence of god" versus "believing in the non-existence of god."

Strictly speaking, if you're unsure, or choosing not to think you know either way or most other permutations of agnosticism, the former definition of atheism applies to you.

I suppose it would be different if you were calling yourself an agnostic because you sometimes believe and sometimes not, but I'm not sure that really counts. That might be more of a theist who has occasional doubts.