Poor old Corvus not only has to get old and die eventually, as we all do, he has to imagine getting old and dying over and over again even while he is actually young and in his prime. So even the good times are bad. — unenlightened

Like many, I don't keep thinking about my own ageing and death. But it is the news of the others who have been dying, seem the cause for unhappiness I guess. But is happiness always best thing in life?
Some say happiness is self deception and illusion caused by ignorance.

In the case of the pre Aristotle thinkers, knowledge and wisdom seem to have been pursued with more avidity than happiness.

Probably only the case if you believe God exists. — Tom Storm

I thought that it is an irrational and absurd act to keep trying to prove Existence of God, if you already believe in the Existence of God.

I was also under the impression that logical arguments cannot prove the external objects' existence or represent even the complexity of daily human life contents. They are just methods for checking and verifying if claimed arguments are consistent and valid. It cannot even prove if the conclusion is true. True conclusions are not always valid, if drawn from inconsistent arguments. And false conclusions can be valid in the opposite case.

It seems true that more you learn and get to know about reality, less happy you get.
I guess it is because of the fact that when one gets to know more about life and the world, there is less room for imagination and expectation. What you were playing with imagination and expectations on life and reality, hard and cold realism and raw knowledge of them fill the place.

Does it mean that imagination is the opposite of nature to knowledge in the mental activities?

When I was a child, I recall I was a real stupid, naive and dumb. Everything I thought was wrong. And my beliefs on the world and people were based on my wrong imagination. But I was really happy.
I used to believe that humans live forever. The old people were born old, and I was born young, and I will stay young forever. I used to believe Santa was real. I thought my parents were Gods, they could do anything. And the world is the town I lived in ...etc. But as I was growing up, I have been realising that they were all wrong and false beliefs. My happiness has been shrinking proportionally, actually exponentially. Everyone was getting old fast, and they were leaving this Earth for good. The world is unnecessarily and inconveniently huge and full of disaster prone problems, the future of human civilization is uncertain, there are lots of social problems in the societies. My father has passed away, and he no longer replies to my emails ... etc etc.

Emotions are private mental state, that is not directly accessible to the other beings. Emotions of others can only be construed by the behaviour or linguistic expressions. So whether it is AI robots, or human's, or even it were a piece of cheese, as long as their emotional responses are within the context of human emotional familiarity, it will be the same, I guess.

Do abstract objects exist? — TheGreatArcanum

What is your definition of "exist"?

Wow, many interesting posts here. Thank you.

I was wondering if logical arguments on Existence of God could prove anything before, because God is out of the boundary of our reasoning. But maybe it can, depending what definition of God one takes.
And perhaps it could be a fruitful attempt in strengthening one's belief in God more. Because humans are rational beings, they need rational argument and proof of their beliefs even if they are beliefs on abstract objects.

There are, of course, many issues that could be further clarified in this issue such as, the logical validity of the definitions of God, and agreement on the nature of God i.e. whether God is just an abstract concept , some sort of supernatural force, or physical being etc.

I will take time reading each post in this thread when I get some peace and quiet time, and when I find points that I am not sure or want to clarify, then I will get back with the questions.

You gotta experience stuff. It takes time. — Bylaw

There supposed to be what the Psychologists call "Religious Experiences" which happen to some people in their lives such as hearing God's voice, seeing apparitions of divine images and witnessing inexplicable phenomena and feeling holy energies around them etc. But private and subjective experiences like these are challenging to be proved and explained objectively in scientific ways.

I have an old book by William James called "Various Religious Experiences" somewhere in the room to start reading in the near future.

Would logical and rational discussions and the process of proving God's Existence strengthen theists' beliefs in God and faith, or would it be just pure academic practice?

Socrates clearly states that the soul is immortal and urges his companions to have confidence in their own souls.

This is not a proof it is an assertion.
— Fooloso4

It is an assertion that is accepted by Socrates and Cebes as proof. What atheists and sophists believe is not the issue. — Apollodorus

Does Socrates offer arguments in believing and asserting Soul is immortal? What are they?

Not sure how much time you've spent in palliative care. In most cases people are mentally robust and are still quite strong. Their death might be weeks or months away and sometimes they go home for a bit and return. Most of them are well able to make decisions. Some are in denial because the decline hasn't started. Some give up in depression. Some turn to God. Some drop God. — Tom Storm

I was caring for my dying father in the hospice for 3 months, and witnessed the dying process.

He seemed to be going through a lot of illusions, fantasies and dreams and past memories coming back to him.  He was a very faithful Christian before being ill, and very active in the Church too. But a few months before his death, he was not talking about anything religious at all.  He kept talking about a lot of nonsensical things, as if he was seeing some ghostly figures in front of him.  His mind was gyrating between conscious to unconscious constantly. Sometimes he could not even recognise people, but sometimes he talked as if he was all OK just like he used to when he was healthy.  But his mind, for sure, was slowly fading away. It was as if the whole of his bodily health condition which was failing his mind.  Dying is the worst tragedy in human being.  It is the saddest thing.  I had been in deep mental shock and trauma for at least a year or even more after the experience of losing my father.

I suppose some people can then turn to religion for help in the situation.  I, having been an agnostic most of my life, didn't get any help from anything. Then I turned to the Metaphysical topics readings, which helped to some degree, and brought me here and some other Philosophical forums (not too active).

I am still an agnostic, but thinking of taking a position of flexibilism. = taking all the sides when convenient. :D

My point is: you raised Ayer - that when dying some people turn to God. I was simply saying the opposite is also the case. — Tom Storm

I think Ayer has converted to Christianity near his death, but when he was still in good mental state being aware of his upcoming death. He was NOT in the hospice or in death bed when that happened.

You make it sound like a screenplay being contrived for an umpteenth Spielberg/Hanks movie collaboration. — Tom Storm

Just to make a point that those who are dying imminently wouldn't go out and start inventing religions. It would be those who were the livings had invented them thousands of ancient years ago, and kept passing the tradition to the generations and generations in the same field. :D

If accepting as true what you want so badly to believe is true is the definition of faith it seems a poor accomplishment....almost like signing a false confession under duress. — Pantagruel

But you hear about many cases of confessions of those religious converts from diehard atheist, agnostic or no idea people due to some life changing moments of circumstance which occurred one funny day, and turned them religious ever since etc.

Isn't that what faith and religion are about? Irrational, blind, sudden and absurd just like life?

Sure, dyings might not have the mental ability to care about religion at the time of dying. But could it not be the living who invented the religion knowing that it is the most powerful tool to manipulate human fear, which is death, and preaching to the people, that the only insurance ticket for securing the afterlife is blind faith and obedience to the religious regime?

I did some pretty hard-ass praying to a god that I sure hoped was listening — Pantagruel

Sounds like the Kierkegaardian existential situation. A belief that might motivate the believer leaping into the abyss of faith ...

They say, lifelong atheist Philosopher, A.J. Ayer had converted to a Christian just before his imminent death. Could religion combat the fear of death? Could it be, in the end, what had been invented for?

No worries mate. I appreciate your pointing out, because when we ask about something, and thinking together for the answers, it is a moment that our consciousness get expansion. Thanks a lot.

Great definition. Thanks for sharing. :up:
I feel that the Classic Logic and Modal Logic not too much useful for my own daily life applications. Maybe it is because I don't know much about them too, but I feel they are more suitable and useful for the specialised applications in the technological fields.

I find the Informal Logic more useful and practical for my own daily life applications such as debating, discussing and negotiating. I am a newbie student for the subject, and have been reading the books trying to learn more about it myself.

Well spotted TMF. As you rightly pointed out, they are not the typical classical logical statements at all. They are more the sort of example cases from the Informal Logic.
But my point was to demonstrate, how daily life dialogues, intentions, dispositions and thoughts are like, and trying to convert them into the Symbolic Logic and Truth Table formats doesn't work.

There are differences in creative, warm and positive emotions which are vital for art, friendship and human relations, and negative, cold and explosive emotions which are destructive and not nice for anything and anybody.

The former emotions must be encouraged and enriched, but the latter must be controlled and calmed down? :)

By the way, what would be some examples of "...logic cannot capture all the intricacies of the English language"? — TheMadFool

Yeah, I picked it up somewhere, but cannot recall where. Anyhow ...

Another example would be,
If S and T, then CG.

If it is sunny and I have time, then
I will cut the grass.

But for S condition, what if it was partly sunny and
there was some rain too, and then sunny again?

And for T condition, what if I had time, but only for 15 minutes?

For CG, what if I did manage to cut the grass, but only 1/2 of the lawn due to lack of time?

And for all that, what if I cut the next door neighbour's lawn instead of mine, because we just moved into the house, and didn't know the garden was shared by 4 other households?
S -> T then CG can look like a perfectly true statement, but in real life situations, it turns out not to be a very meaningful statement at all.

The truth table is great for simple mathematical workouts, but is not very practical for the real life applications due to its limitations in linguistic capabilities and also complicated situations arising from the real life representations.

I think that to make good argument, it must start from clear and logically valid premise, and all the following each propositions must be also valid and true, to arrive to the true conclusion. And then this argument will have higher chance of acceptance by the other party. And really only good valid logical arguments prepared with full linguistic logic can achieve that.

If there is any problems with either the premise or supporting propositions, then even if the conclusion is true, the whole argument will be looked upon bad argument or inconsistent one, and will be rejected by the other party. In legal court, the arguments like that will be thrown out, and the case will be lost.

notice that if any of the premises are false, the conclusion can be either true or false. — TheMadFool

Mostly agree with the argument and conclusion, but It is important to keep in mind that symbolic logic cannot capture all the intricacies of the English language. When an argument begins with false premise, and the conclusion is true, the whole argument can be judged as inconsistent.

But if for example I have a desire to kill let's say. Can't Logic affect my acts at the end?? Can't I use Logic to realize that this psychological desire is purely wrong and it will make my life also miserable?? I still believe that Logic is a way as to tame our psychological desires and filter them as to act in our own benefit at the end! Our desires aren't always in favor of our happiness but Logic for sure is.
By the way interesting what you mentioned about Modal logic. Never heard it. — dimosthenis9

When you say "I have a desire to kill.", it is not a logical conclusion, but a desire, which is a psychological state. Maybe logical thinking has provided the information, which triggered the desire to kill. But the books say that Logic's duty ends there, i.e. providing the information. With the information, you could also have had a desire to leave, desire to go to a pub, or felt nothing. Anything could have been the case. The kind of desire triggered, or nothing would depend on the individual's state of mind and the circumstances, not the logical conclusion.

I am not too familiar with Modal Logic, and under the impression, it is for Mathematicians, Computer Programmers and A.I Engineers. But I am sure, the origin of ML is Philosophy, and it is also a field of academic Philosophy.

Yes, I think so too. A great post. Thank you.

Logic is just tools for checking if the sentences are consistent without contradictions and fallacies in the arguments or propositions.

There are different types of Logics, and one which is mostly practical is based on just one simple law.
If the premise is wrong, then subsequent arguments and the conclusion will be wrong.

So always check the premise for its logical consistency, and take it from there.

There are other types of Logics such as Modal Logic (really for those who are interested in Maths or Computer Programming and A.I.), and Informal Logic or Critical Logic (used in the Courts by the judges and solicitors during the trials).

Logical conclusions are only to clarify right and wrong and consistency in the arguments or claims, but they will not cause actions or decisions or beliefs of the people who are using it. Only psychological motives and wills will decide their decisions, beliefs and actions. (based on the logical conclusions). i.e. with the right conclusions, they can still make wrong / bad decisions and vice versa.

There are many cases of people making up false logical propositions which are full of fallacies and just a pile of nonsensical mixture of contradictory sentences jumbled disguised as some sort of complicated logical statement. These are psychological traps to lure the others for parading their shady messages or endeavour to impress you for their intellectual superiority, which must be ignored at prima facie.

In most cases and the rule of thumb is, when reading a sentence, if it does not make sense, then it is not your fault, but more likely it is written badly or inconsistently.

I think it is largely due to the invention of language. When the first humans appeared on the Earth, they probably didn't have language. But then, on one funny day, they started making sounds and utterances, and then it developed into language. The mind invented and kept developing the language, and the languages enriched the consciousness. So, they kinda worked together for their mutual development. And they have invented many other abstract concepts such as Gods, paradise, immortality, good and bad ...etc under the frame of the Forms.

Now our consciousness is getting even richer and more diverse with not only interaction of language and mind, but also scientific developments and globalisation. The consciousness keeps expanding due to not only the global communications, but also the space crafts landing on the Moon and Mars, and looking into the other galaxies.

This development has provided a great deal of information and knowledge about the material world, but at the same time, it also increased more mysteries on the origin of the universe and life. Because sciences and religions still have not given us the answers to these origins beyond doubt. Our consciousness will keep on going seeking for these answers I guess.

I concur.

Atheist are on their own, that is a tough position to be. Agnostics are in the dark, but have hopes. Theist are having it all too easy - all the answers are in God.

And Science can answer the questions assuringly and comfortably, because they are observable via direct experience and sense data available.

Yes ! Absurdity !

When the doubting has exhausted, one will decide either to keep doubting or become an atheist? Reasoning itself alone, will not cause someone to decide or act, but it will be the basis of the decision or action depending on their will. All it can do is, "realising".

How can faith be anything but the excuse you give for believing when you don't have a good reason? — Tom Storm

Once reason understands the limitation of its own capability, it then realises that possible options available is either jumping into the abyss of faith, or be atheist.

But, of course, the most we can arrive at is certain ideas about why we others, and various life forms exist. These ideas are our perceptions and perspective, and are only partial. — Jack Cummins

I was thinking about "WHY" question again, and it seem to me that "WHY" only exists in human mind. Once we are looking outside world, there is no "WHY" at all. So, when you ask "why" questions, it can only be answered from one's direct experience about something, or one's own feelings and motives.
So when why question is asked for the universe and other lives existence, the answers will have to come from only from one's mind, which is either reasoning, imagination, or experience. Once we go out the boundaries of our reasoning, all the explanations and questions disappear. The universe keeps working as it has been for billions of years in silence, and live come and go living their own times without any reasons and explanations.

In the case of the question, if you seek the answers from science, history or religion, then the answers would be based on the First cause, or the Big Bang theory or Creation Theory by God, or Evolution Theories, but I would imagine these are not the type of answers that you wanted to hear or accept as the right answers for the question.

But it does not mean that we have reached the ultimate answers or knowledge, because thoughts always start in the middle and ends in the middle. When Kant has finished his CPR, he thought he had reached the ultimate knowledge and solved all the problems in Philosophy and Religion. But he was wrong. There came the Neo Kantian schools, Hegel and German Idealism, then Phenomenology. It all seems just a part of the process.

How do these lie in the context of history, comparative religion and thinking which goes beyond the specific focus of materialistic perspectives of Western philosophy? I am not wishing to offer any simplistic solutions, but open up the area of debate, beyond the ideas which are in fashion in the first half of the twentieth century. Do we presume that we have reached the ultimate knowledge? — Jack Cummins

Not sure if history or religions can offer us meaningful answers for the questions for the obvious reasons. No, I don't presume that we have reached anywhere at all. In fact, I would like to ask you, why do you presume that there must be reasons on the existence of the universe, the sentient beings and all forms of existence. Is there any grounds or justifications for believing why the reasons must exist? Could they exist, just because they do, and always have been existing without any reasons at all?

A great song. :up: :smile: :pray:

I feel that members who initially started personal attacks and abuse on other members in the threads on the basis of gender, social status, race, beliefs, intelligence, qualifications ...etc must be subject to the consideration of ban.

Because it is unfair and unreasonable for the members who suffered those abuses and attacks out of the blue, to keep quiet and play saint, and show the initial attacker, kindness and compassion. Even Nietzsche wouldn't approve it.

We want to discuss philosophy, not getting attacks and abuses thrown at us by emotionally volatile and self centred members who are not interested in genuine philosophical debates, but parading here for some other shady purposes and motives. I am with Protagoras on this issue by the way. 3017 amen has been decent, calm and has never started attacking other people from his side from my knowledge and memory. The ban was a shock to me. Just my 2 cents ...

P.S.: Like yous, I don't take seriously FUCK OFFs as personal attack or abuse, when uttered in right context. :D

He also translated Don Quixote to Korean. What an intellectual man! — javi2541997

Sure. Please enjoy your readings. Thank you for sharing. :up: :pray: :smile:

How Deep Is Your Love by Bee Gees

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpqqjU7u5Yc

Exactly, it is Korean but surprisingly, this book was written in Spanish because back in the day Yong-Tae Min was a philologist teacher in Madrid. — javi2541997

Wow, a Korean Philology teacher in Madrid, and wrote poetry in Spanish? Sounds interesting.

The rain lasts eleven years by Yong-Tae Min (Poems). — javi2541997

The name sounds like Korean. A Korean poet?

Understandable logical consistency on Nietzsche, when he had praised for the Superman?

Thought it would tell something about what people think of intelligence when they are blindly smitten by it. :D Yes, the OP, quite surprising actually. If someone pointed out any logical problems with my OP, I would have been very impressed and thankful to the poster, because that means he paid attention to my OP, and read it albeit from different point of view. I would never declare my perfect logic, or upset by me having made something unclear or illogical. Because it is all a process of life.