It might be ahistorical of me, but I'm going to read someone who believes women's natures are "devotion" and "submission" as a sexist. Regardless of why K believes it. — fdrake

It sounds a contradiction. Another contradiction with K. is his emphasis on human relationship with God. From what I read about existentialism, the existentialist don't believe in God. Most of them seem to reject God. They would rather believe in Freedom of individuals, absurdity and isolation. If that is the major character of existentialism, then K. seem to had been an anti-existentialist or different type of existentialist.

Our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences determine and constrain our choices. Most people turn a blind eye to this and insist they and other people have free will when they actually don't. — Truth Seeker

But what could anyone do about the determinants and constraints?

I don't, since it isn't. And that was directed at
I can prove it
— flannel jesus — Banno

Fair enough. I got email from the forum that you quoted me in your post, and I also read in your post you saying my logic is wrong in somewhere. So I was trying to clarify on that point.

There are so many ways to reason about the Cogito statement to prove. You apply several assertions and inferences to the statement to prove. Some will be valid and some invalid. But what we were trying to prove was not validity here. We were trying to prove the statement is true or false, sound or unsound.

You are back in my To-Ignore list. Bye~

I will speak to Banno when he comes back with his replies. But I don't speak to the folks who throws the out of context muck vulgarity in the discussions. All the best.

Just talk to Banno. I will leave you to it.

You are back to your old habit of throwing the muck vulgarity again here instead of seeing the point.

You seem to have read something about MP on the internet and been parroting about it here until cows come home. You don't seem to know how to apply logic in the real life situations.

Yes, you can explain 2+2 = 5 many many times and still be wrong. — flannel jesus

Nope, never said anything like that in this thread. You must be dreaming, or believing that everything in the arguments and explanations were poems.

Can't wait until you're actually ready to start looking at logic. — flannel jesus

If you can recall, it had been explained repeatedly over and over again.

Where's the logic ? — flannel jesus

Well you insisted, Banno's post was addressed to you, so I will wait until Banno gets up from his sleep, and comes back with his explanations. Then after that I will tell him where he got wrong.

It was a metaphor. :) But it is far higher class than some of your nonsense insults even with vulgarity in the past.

he probably doesn't agree with your reasoning there because (p implies q) implies (not p implies not q) is not generally true - it's called Denying the Antecedent, and you can't just do that to any ol argument. — flannel jesus

But do you not understand the fact P -> Q has not TF value at the stage? You shouldn't be brining in some internet truth table here. This is tragic that it has to be explained again and again because you seem to be talking with a thick blanket on your face.

Let's see what he has to say about it.

My discussion to Banno is totally separate matter to yours, as I am only interested in clarifying Banno point in his logic at this particular stage.

But do you not see him saying my logic is wrong? I am trying to find out where he got the idea. It is good that he agrees 50% with me, but his logic has problems that he doesn't seem to see.

He quoted my ID in his post, so the Forum emailed me saying that Banno quoted me in his post, so I was replying to him. Well, he thinks my reasoning is wrong, so I was going to point out where he got wrong after hearing what he has to say about it.

I have read many definitions of free will but I don't agree with any of them. My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints. I don't mind if no one else agrees with my definition. I don't require anyone to agree with me about anything. — Truth Seeker

If you discuss a topic under different definitions of the key concept with the others, then you will not be able to reach the agreed conclusion.

But from my own view, things which were under determinant and constraints can never be freewill. You must accept something are determined for the humans, and they can never change or decide them.

Freewill is only valid when you had choices for different options for your decisions or actions.

Go on, then. Here is the premise:

P - > Q
— Corvus
or in my parsing

(t→e)→(¬t→¬e)
— Banno

Show how that is equivalent to A↔B. — Banno

Why do you want to prove (t→e)→(¬t→¬e) is equivalent to A <-> B?

You too are missing the point here.
As you put, your conclusion Cogito is invalid is correct, but your logic seems to be missing the critical point in your reasoning.

You got explain in detail what you are exactly trying to do when you are asking (t→e)→(¬t→¬e) is equivalent to A <-> B, and I will tell you where you got it wrong.

I guess that's a possible explanation. But the meaning seems clear. To put it another way: — Janus

Please note. In the Internet truth table, P and Q has the truth values, which were given as either T or F. Hence they can make axiomatic assumptions. It is still assumptions based on the truth values given to P and Q.

But here, we are not assuming any truth values at all to P and Q. Hence we can make most realistic assumptions and assertions against the original assumption based on the reasonable inference. I hope you see my point in the proof process.

You were citing something you saw on the internet truth table, and citing that as if all proof process must follow that, or it is wrong was your claim, which was really wrong and silly.

'If I am thinking I must exist'
It follows that
'If I don't exist I am not thinking'.
It doesn't follow that
'If I not thiing I don't exist' — Janus

You seem to be just citing what is on the internet or textbook for symbolic logic truth table.
For proof process, you must apply your own reasoning to the statement you want to prove or disprove.

Anyhow it was the last attempt to make the dualist understand the core problems. As Banno put it correctly, Cogito is not logically provable. It is an intuition. It is a subjective psychological solipsistic statement.

My hypothesis is that it's a language issue. Somewhere back in time he or she mentioned he or she was not a native speaker. — Bylaw

Your hypothesis make no sense. Do you reject the standard meaning of "therefore" from the dictionaries? Symbolic logic works for all the languages in the world.

You have this wrong. The logically entailed negation of 'I think, therefore I exist' is 'I don't exist, therefore I don't think' not 'I don't think therefore I don't exist'. — Janus

Could you forward your full explanation why it is?

It's a rookie mistake you're making. — Janus

You obviously don't seem know what had been tried there for the proof. Do you even understand what logical proofing means?

It sounds like the first priority is to define what freewill is. Then you could proceed for further clarifications and discussions.

I think you can speculate that he had resentment from romantic misfortune, with some evidence. But, at least in Sickness Unto Death, he finds women of a weaker spiritual constitution than men. He definitely was a kind of... advanced sexist... he had a theory for it. — fdrake

I read K. many years ago, but haven't come across anything on sexism at all at the time of my reading K.  He is known to have broken the marriage promise to his fiancee Regina for some reason.  I am not sure what the reason for breaking the promise was.

The other philosophers who are publicly known to have been sexists are Schopenhauer and Nietzsche.  For their reason for being sexists seem to be their personal experiences and situations with the opposite sex folks?  Just guessing.

It is interesting to note that both Schopenhauer and Nietzsche were positing Will as the significant element in human values and the foundation of the mental operation and actions. Recall The World as Will and Representation and Will to Power?

Anyhow, I am not sure if the claim that K was sexist is an objective and fully accepted justified fact just from referring to some commentaries on his works or passages in his books.

From the existentialism's point of view, sexism would be the most inauthentic mode of thought, especially for a thinker like K.  He propounded the most meaningful status for a being is the lone being standing in front of God facing him directly one to one.  Discriminating or debasing the other races or sex in the system of thought of K doesn't seem to have a place in the K's system of ideas.

But your idea in the post sounds confident that K was. If so, how does sexism fit in the frame of existentialism? Can someone who are biased and prejudiced against the other people on the bases of sex or race be qualified as an existentialist? What would be the arguments on the point from the Ethics or Morality of Existentialism?

You are correct about his conclusion fitting the present. But this "I" which "is," is not the same "I" as the "I" which was nanoseconds ago thinking. The "I" is successive. Just as there isnt really a linear narrative, there are only successive nows. — ENOAH

Interesting point. I wouldn't describe Cogito as some insane moronic babble. But it is obvious that it has many rational incongruities to be classed as a logical statement. It is a subjective psychological expression at best, which reminds us to use method of doubt in all reasonings.

I meditate daily but I haven't experienced death yet. — Truth Seeker

Not even in your dreams?

Not every arrangement of matter is conscious. — Patterner

None of them are.

Do we scoff at the idea of electron shells because not every arrangement is solid? — Patterner

Not scoffing, but would like to hear the more elaborated arguments on the idea why electron shell arrangement is solid.

First of all, what do you mean by "solid"? You need to define the term intelligibly and objectively. Then you need to explain all about the electrons, electron shells and their arrangement before concluding they are solid under the definition of 'solid".

Then we can progress into further considerations and discussions, if there appear any to be compelling reasons worthwhile doing so.

why can’t the same be true of consciousness? My point is that we have observed other fundamental qualities “working together” to form a complex system, so it is not farfetched to conclude the same of consciousness.

Please let me know what you think! Any feedback / recommendations for further reading are greatly appreciated. — amber

The main problem with panpsychism is that all the non-living objects in the universe including the universe itself, refuse to respond in intelligible manner, when they were interrogated with the questions about them.

My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints. To prove me wrong, you would have to do the following: — Truth Seeker

Isn't free will only valid when you had choice? Most things you have listed as you have done, but don't want to do them seem nothing to do with freewill.

For example, did you have option not to be born?

People die. Philosophies never die.

There is a reason 90% of all people 10 years old or more think “I think therefore I am” is a stupid argument. It’s not because of the logic; it’s because what it is trying to argue is so obvious. Everyone already knows “I am” - and they rightly think that if you needed a proof to conclude you exist you might be an idiot. — Fire Ologist

Agreed. :up:

f you think the cogito illogical and doesn’t show anything at all, you miss the point, — Fire Ologist

You still need to give some merit to Cogito. It is undeniable that it is a historical byproduct of ideas, which made start for the new philosophical tradition based on the method of doubt.

Supporting Cogito blindly as if it is a logical statement like some twidledee twiddledum folks in this thread would make them sound asinine.

However totally ignoring and rejecting Cogito as useless, and claiming, therefore it is not even worthwhile to discuss about it would make the interlocutor appear to be obtuse.

The most we can say for certain is that our perception of consciousness may be completely delusional. — Malcolm Lett

Thoughts can be delusional too.

Same thing happen in the case of science. Scientific views could be biased too. There is a whole lot of research going on in the field of philosophy of science about the biases of science. But it doesn't stop science does it. — Abhiram

:eyes: :smirk:

But I'm sure someone could come up with a better interpretation and criticism of his work than me, too. So take this uncited pile of nonsense as what it is, an athiest waxing lyrical about faith on the internet. — fdrake

Great explanation. Very informative and nicely put. :up:

Why "unfortunately"?

'cos he's sexist as hell. — fdrake

Was he? Never knew that. Any particular reason for him had been so? Or just a social trend at the time?

That is, if our intuitions and reasoning about it are worth anything. There is also likely a limit to what can be guessed if the afterlife is like our time on Earth at all, which indicates that the set of potentially accurate guesses is not infinite or can at least be made up entirely of pieces that could be predicted. — ToothyMaw

Afterlife is not that vacuous concept as some folks make out.  It depends on how much credibility we give to our reason.

If we blindly trust our reason as truly and absolutely the only criteria for knowledge, then afterlife looks and sounds like a vacuous concept. But we see the obvious limitations and restrictions in its ability of knowing the abstracts.

If we say, like Kant had done in his CPR, our reason has limitation in its ability to know, and it is not the only and truly the criteria for our knowledge, then Afterlife, Immortality and God concepts all wake up from the vacuity as a plausible possibility.

I would drop this; the nail that sticks out gets hammered down, if you catch my drift. There are plenty of other places your posts might be appreciated while you let this cool off, such as in my thread in which I responded to you. — ToothyMaw

Good advice TM. Yeah I left the thread while back, but they kept on writing to me with the distorted facts, hence I dropped back in briefly to clarify the biases and prejudices they were spreading.

I more or less had to keep repeating my points for the clarification. In the end, all I could do was, advising them to read my posts repeatedly until they get the points right. :)

Really? You must be a mathematician like I was. And one working in functional analysis. I have perhaps four books that speak of Hilbert spaces in certain chapters. — jgill

No I am not. :) I was trying to learn about it better. I kept getting more books on the topic until I find the best one. Ended up with about 10 of the books in the shelf. The last one I got was "Introduction to Hilbert Spaces with Applications" by Lokenath Debnath and Piotr Mikusinski 3rd Edition. It seems the best one so far. But the N. Young and Holland Jr. ones seem also good.

It is not good idea to converse with anyone who distorts the facts. That's all. It is just too cumbersome to keep correcting the continuing distortions. So it is OK. No one's going to lose sleep over this. You go and talk to whom you agree with. I will do the same.

You are in my To Ignore list. So don't waste your time writing to me. Thanks.