In the pre-modern vision of things, the cosmos had been seen as an inherently purposive structure of diverse but integrally inseparable rational relations — for instance, the Aristotelian aitia, which are conventionally translated as “causes,”

Hi. When I saw your byline I knew work was ahead. I'm inclined to think your citation of Dennet, without knowing his purpose or agenda, is a lurid "loading" of his arguments, the propositions of which are all at least, it seems to me, debatable. Anyway.

So, in the context of pre-modern philosophy, it was simply assumed that everything exists for a reason, and that this reason is discernable by nous, intellect. The philosopher, in particular, was one who discerned reason, but in the pre-modern sense, which included the telos of particulars, the reason why they came into being in the first place. — Wayfarer

Would you agree with me that teleology is an ancient attempt to make sense and that it is not of any great use today, nor since, say, Christians persuaded the world that God made nature? Or at least since Galileo?

However, you also ought to consider that purpose or intentional action also comes into existence with the very most primitive organisms, which act with purpose to preserve their existence. — Wayfarer

And if I call this an anthropomorphic attribution? The question is whether purpose across species is simply a matter of degree, being the same for all except perhaps in degree, or if a plain difference in kind. Even something as seemingly fundamental as hunger I would hold to be fundamentally different in lower and higher level living things - wouldn't you?

Maybe we should attempt, imitating the practice of good mathematicians, in finding a question somewhat difficult to pin down and answer, to take on a simpler version of it. Above I tried to say that my purpose is to be good (and not bad) and to be as perfect as chance will allow. But even with that, I have the question as to why that would become either a purpose, or even my purpose, thus strongly implying something primordial even to that. Suggestions?

How might we demonstrate this? — Tom Storm

I think the method is to keep asking until the answers hit an end or a loop. But not to be satisfied with easy first answers that any child knows can be overturned with a succession of whys. Have you ever had any moment of the kind of perfection, that you recognized as such, in which you knew there was no how or why or what for beyond it? Not necessarily any big deal, nor to be examined or analyzed, but simply to be remembered, appreciated, and as appropriate, enjoyed.

Isn't purpose contingent on culture and language....
Where does it come from? Being human, the act of making sense and having to make choices. — Tom Storm

Do you think the notion of purpose arises out of culture and language - and in terms of refinement it may well, or do you suppose that there might be something primordial, in the sense of an idea and not necessarily temporally, on which purpose is founded and out of which it arises.

And it strikes me that purpose might arise from negative considerations. I can imagine that both a cave-man and Jeff Bezos might both wonder at their purpose - and that transcending both culture and language.

Simply: No world, no mind(s).
But then, I'm no longer sure that you refer to "the world" not as the universe, but as some image or model that doesn't exist. — Vera Mont

Well, it exists, not as a thing but as an idea. Consider your experience/understanding/use/description of a tree. And what is that to the universe? All this is being just the point/problem of Kant's thing-in-itself-as-it-is-in-itself.

Purpose requires will — Vera Mont

Does it? It may require will to act on it, to actualize it. Unless purpose and action are indistinguishable - but that seems untenable.

Let's suppose you have neighbors that offend you. Why don't you shoot them? And I think there are most broadly two differing answers. The first that it would be wrong; you should not do it. And the other that shooting them would likely cause you more inconvenience than not shooting them, a very utilitarian, or pragmatic, calculation. I assume your answer would be the first, and there are lots of facile answers as to why. (And religion provides a convenient list and short-hand of such answers.) But how would that answer reconcile with "purpose?"

It seems to me your "purpose" is a mix of teleology, comprising both desires and will to actuate choice. If purpose implies choice, I don't think telos has much to do with it, as telos combines mainly final and formal causes - the what-it's-for and the "plan-to-get-there."

When I attempt to think about this, I come up with the imperative to do the right thing, as simply as possible. And the value of that? That one may achieve a kind of clear, consistent, and simple perfection that is, to my way of thinking, the best a person can do - and thus a peculiar kind of immortality, even as the actuality is not more than a moment. Purpose, then, the imperative to do the right thing, as best I can figure and do.

Sometimes, it is possible to get your ducks in a row. But when your ducks are in a row, you do not have your ducks and a row.....
There is no X such that X provides the rowness to the ducks, rather it is the relations between the ducks that sometimes has the form of a row; it is not an extra something in addition to the ducks. — unenlightened

Are they in a perfect row? Or an imperfect row? And we'll set aside for the moment whether they're ducks.

It's possible you mean something like, "They're ducks to me, and the formation they're in is what I find useful and call a row." And no law against that, but seeming not itself useful beyond your own specific and particular needs.

I think we can say with some certainty that whatever purpose is, it is not bootstrapped. It is something that precedes and goes before us; something that transcends us; something that beckons to us; something we participate in. It is not something we invent or produce; it is something we discover or encounter. — Leontiskos

Please make your case. Or, of your certainty, such as it is, if it is, may I have some? Or if you mean psychologically, then, absent further argument, I don't think it's a useful point. I'm old enough to have encountered and discovered value(s), but 1) those are particular, and 2) I don't see how to either generalize or abstract from that experience to purpose in itself.

I am skeptical that there is any one ultimate "purpose" — Max2

Me too. I take it to be a work-in-progress, and maybe it shall always be.

Nevertheless, I personally find that the most convincing answers to these questions are ones that, in addition to perhaps offering some ethical imperatives, recognize what we already find valuable and offer us ways to better manage these sources of value, as I find the case to be with Aristotle's works on ethics. — Max2

I've just ordered Nicomachean Ethics for a re-read after many years. Terence Irwin's 3d ed. gets the nod on reviews - we'll see. As to what we "already find valuable," I don't question for a minute that we do find things valuable, but I am at the moment digging to find out what that means, and what the foundations are.

Ultimate underlying meaning and significance is something only humans demand of anything.
They seek it in vain, so they make something up. — Vera Mont

Should I understand from your reply that you hold that there is no "ultimate underlying meaning and significance"? I happen to think there is, but only as a product of mind, thus not a thing in itself, and as product subject to refinement. And at the moment, probably a long moment, the refinement being the movement away from religion and into structures based on ethical considerations. Bad influences of science and technology, mixed with a limited utilitarianism, being imo a very great hazard.

Now, no doubt you do many things because you have to or want to, as do we all. And the question that flows from that is, is that all you've got?

No mind no world.
— tim wood
Exactly the reverse. — Vera Mont

Oh, I agree the universe was there before there were minds to consider it, but that wasn't what I meant by world. My bad if you thought it was. But at the same I suppose you would agree that our descriptions/understandings of the universe, that we - I - call the world, is no part of the universe itself, meaning that the universe is indifferent to meaning and understanding, being itself just that that is.

If the point matters, then you might expand? By "reverse" I do not know if you mean: "If world then maybe mind," which would be trivial, or, "If world then mind," which would not be trivial, but that I might ask you to support, somehow.

A lecture on the history
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlK2mfYYm4U

Edit: Worth the watch.

Another interesting video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmCVoGc2IeY

An interesting video - perhaps a little dated - or not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEzi0SMCu5A

If I can add to yours, a term in a classical syllogism is distributed when somewhere in the syllogism the important quality is said of all the members of that term.
Example:
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Socrates is mortal.

Three terms, man/men, Socrates, mortal.
All men - men is distributed because something is said about all of them.
"Mortal" is not distributed.
Socrates is distributed, because something is said about all of Socrates - this is a little tricky, but not very tricky.

If man/men were not distributed, then it might read,
Some men are mortal.
Socrates is a man
Socrates is mortal.

And the problem with that conclusion should be clearly evident.

Syllogistic reasoning is not too difficult, although a little strange at first. Worth the effort of learning.

The argument arises from consideration of what could be or might not be - that is, from ideas that counter each other or seem to counter each other in some sense, but that neither of which is itself certain. The governing logic falls under Rhetoric - persuasion. And ingredients of good persuasion are the good character, good will, and good judgment of the speaker. And for at least 2500 years, and no doubt much, much longer, arguments have been made by people of ill-will, poor judgment, and bad character. And the best of these are the Sophists. Straw-manning, or straw-personing, and in the likes of MTGreen we can extend the "privilege" to women, is simply clumsy and back-handed sophistry, and the best they can do is to annoy and delay. Which is to say they are best completely ignored.

It is not clear how that fits the definition of paradox. — Lionino

Try a dictionary. You can start here:
https://www.google.com/search?q=paradox&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS976US976&oq=paradox&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCggAEAAYsQMYgAQyCggAEAAYsQMYgAQyBwgBEAAYgAQyCggCEAAYsQMYgAQyCggDEAAYsQMYgAQyCggEEAAYsQMYgAQyCggFEAAYsQMYgAQyCggGEAAYsQMYgAQyBggHEEUYPNIBCDM0NDJqMGo3qAIIsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Unless I've missed it, I seem to be the only one (here) mentioning/remembering the hostages - the news reporting 129 still held. This latest edition of horrors, doesn't anyone else remember who set the stage ablaze and how?

a load of text to pretend you think deeply about this issue when your analysis doesn't even begin to scratch the surface. It's ridiculous. — Benkei

Nah. You're ridiculous.

Btw, this game takes little effort to play, offering little in the way of rewards. Why don't you try something substantive instead?

I'm suggesting that the anti-Jew/Israeli anti-Semitism of the Middle-East runs deep, like racism in the US, and consideration of the one, by one who knows it, may aid in understanding the other. Or do you think mere palliatives and superficial nostrums are the right medicine?

"What does it mean to divide by zero? In mathematics, this operation is undefined." — alan1000

Or maybe in this, as with many, contexts "undefined" is simply well-understood shorthand meaning don't do it for lots of good reasons.

I listened. What about it? - I did notice the piece is edited in places where i would have liked to have heard more; e.g., about 18:00 to 18:30, when we don't hear what the first thing he had to do was. More to the point, why do you not succinctly reprise whatever his argument is?

If I may be permitted a metaphor: much so-called intellectual effort feeds on itself, in the way that art critics might discuss and criticize paintings and more significantly each other and their own criticisms. But what is the concern here is not the paint, but the canvas itself and it's material and structure, which for my metaphor stand for the underlying reality, truth, and facts of the matter, and those as prior to interpretation of them.

I have a challenge for you that of course you're free to disqualify. I think if you consider your own cultural experiences and identity, you may find some points of identity with the Jew/Israeli Palestinian circumstance. (Are you familiar with the Brouwer's fixed point theorem - the idea here being that fixed points of reference between things otherwise different is not in itself an outrageous or unreasonable idea.) And the idea being not to warm to any particular of current events, rather the challenge to dig as deep as possible to find the ground, sub-stratum, ultimate cause of all the strife. Not subsequent causes, as in chains of cause and effect, but the start of the thing.

As a clue to my thinking, it may be that a person will be attracted to notions of freedom; and why not, it's a powerful and attractive idea. But the question of freedom usually arises in substantive form when and where there is a lack of it - fair enough. But what underlies that? Why, or what, accounts for that lack of freedom in the first place? To me this is a foundational question, meaning that anything built on the subject without addressing it is very likely built to fail, as being built on a faulty foundation.

In this, one can see that Oct 7th is an immense distraction, and yet one that cannot be ignored as a distraction. And I ask your view as to what it is a distraction from, and why, for what purpose, and for whose benefit. That is, what monstrous thing is concealed in the shadows beyond this raging bonfire?

Willful ignorance ...or craven deceit. — 180 Proof

So you cannot tell the difference between persons ripped out of Israel by Hamas as hostages and persons detained by Israel. Perhaps you're one with those who call the Jan. 6 rioters, those convicted and jailed, "hostages." I suggest you take a quick Google look at the word and remind yourself what it means.

What I am on about is that one group of people is bearing the weight of a war against presumably a fanatical minority of themselves who have so burrowed into the civilian infrastructure for concealment and protection that the civilian population is necessarily subject to the blows of that war, a war directly caused by that minority, and which minority possesses at least a few keys to bringing about an end to that war, which they to date refuse to use. To my way of thinking the Palestinians are victims of many things, chief among those things themselves, their choices, their beliefs. The genius of Hamas is to get the Israelis to be the agents of the death and destruction. And given the provocation, for at least the time while the hostages are still held and until some accountability adjudicated, I do not entirely fault the Israelis.

to the relevant historical and critical information provided most recently by ↪180 Proof and others. — 180 Proof

Ah, yes, the relevant history. You're not that stupid, 180, what are you doing talking about relevant history? Or if it's relevant history you want, how about the hostages from 7 Oct.? That's about as relevant and current as you can get. Further, these are bona fide hostages. I am unaware of any hostages held by the Israelis. Or can't you tell the difference between the two?

Amen, mostly.

Palestine free of Israeli occupation & oppression. — 180 Proof

Are you representing that the Palestinians would accept a peace with Israel? Their rhetoric and actions have been clear that they would not, and I'm afraid Oct. 7 and other events have got some Israelis singing the same tune.

Btw, here is the first of an undergraduate course of lectures on the Bible and incidentally on Middle Eastern history. Interesting stuff. Offered here because at the outset of her introductory remarks the lecturer places the Israelites in Canaan - pretty much modern Israel - 3000+ years ago, not that that is news.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo-YL-lv3RY&list=PLh9mgdi4rNeyuvTEbD-Ei0JdMUujXfyWi
The lectures themselves being an education for any who care to receive it.

1) What do you say should be done now about the hostages? Something? Anything? Nothing? If something, what, exactly?

2) You added to the video you reference above, "Free Palestine!" What exactly do you mean by that?

...., tim wood..., zionfascist apologist — 180 Proof

You flatter me; I don't know enough to be a zionfascist apologist. But there does appear to be here a consistent representation that Gazans are simply innocent victims and responsibility-free. And if that be true, then who has been attacking Israel and Jews by thought, word, and deed for most of a century and more? The current situation is admittedly intolerable; no sensible person denies it. But that claim alone gets everyone nowhere, because the intolerable is happening and has been happening, and depending upon your sensibilities, has been happening for a long time.

Against my claim that these matters, at least in terms of history, are not-so-simple, the counter-claim is that they are exactly simple. And apparently in the mind of that claimant, to be "oppressed" is a carte-blanche for any action the "oppressed" should care to take. So let's assay some simplicity and see where it gets us. If anything is intolerable at the moment, it must be the current Israeli violence against Gaza. But what started that? In a word, 7 Oct. And what about Oct. 7 is still current and not merely part of the ugly history of the region? The hostages and accountability for Oct. 7.

If Hamas be in any way justified in their actions of 7 Oct., then certainly the Israelis are similarly justified in their own reply. But this logic breaks because the Israelis neither need nor are justified by anything in this argument. They are justified entirely by the simple fact that they were invaded and some 1200+ of their own were murdered/raped/abused/kidnapped, the kidnapped still held, and accountability yet to be attained. And yet in terms of current intolerability what could be a simpler step than to immediately return the hostages, account for the missing, and adjudicate accountability? And since that does not happen, I conclude that the present intolerable is indeed not only tolerable, but created, desired, and maintained by at least some Palestinians, which I suppose to be Hamas, and that I further suppose are supported by "allies," and neither those "allies nor Hamas caring a whit for the lives of Gazans, those lives being for them mere fodder.

And so the simple question, if the Gazans have been so oppressed for so long, and they think that atrocity is the way out, how's that working for them?

Palestinian kills Jew = Resistance. Jew kills Palestinian = war crime.
— BitconnectCarlos

That's how it works when one party is oppressed and the other is oppressed. That has nothing to do with identity. — Benkei

Well, hasn't that been the Palestinian/neighbor's strategy since pretty much day one? We're oppressed so we can invade, annihilate, murder/rape/kidnap our way to whatever we want? - And how's that been working for them? - The history, past and recent, is not-so-simple, and 7 Oct. (imo) set it to a violent boil, where (imo) it will remain until the hostages are returned/accounted for, and accountability imposed/acknowledged.

That is, to my way of thinking, the Israeli-Palestinian situation is and will remain a hostage situation until that is resolved, and while there are no doubt at least some behind-the-scenes discussions, I believe it is correct for the Israeli's to keep them at the top of their agenda.

Once Israel starts making the concessions...., those hostages can likely be released as part of negotiations. — Tzeentch

Hostages' release as part of the negotiation? Are you mad?

make sure to compare the deaths of maybe 8 or 9000 civilians to the 11 million killed in the holocaust
— BitconnectCarlos

:lol: — Mikie

It's not often you get to know a poster by his emoji of choice, but as a reply in context\ that is one disgusting emoji.

You can't use hostage-taking as an excuse to carry on apartheid. — Tzeentch

The question was, what would you do? The background being the question of the significance of the difference between things that happened and things that were/are happening. And you blew right by that. Let me then be specific. To my understanding, the hostages and accountability for 7 Oct. are open, current now issues. In your peacemaking, how do they fit in, and at what point in the process?

but not all by himself: he has to earn the trust and loyalty of his generals and troops; he has to treat people fairly and stay in favour with his gods and bring prosperity. — Vera Mont

Just like Agamemnon. By no means do I disagree with you; indeed I suspect much Greek virtue did not originate with them. That is, it is not that simple - and never was. But the plain fact is that there is an evolution of ethics/morality - evolution not quite the right word - and it is no small mistake to suppose that they then felt, thought, and reasoned as we now, especially if we make the related error of thinking that we sit at the apex of ethical/moral development that pointed at us all along. Evidence of these conclusions abounding in ancient literature, and still present in literature not-so-ancient. What do you imagine "miss-the-mark" means?

No. The good king was the king who defeated the enemy and protected his own, and so forth. Failure in these meant he was a bad king. The good and attaining virtue having nothing to do with it.

It should start by ceasing the apartheid regime. — Tzeentch

Sorry tp be long in replying. My point was that there is an immediacy and currency to the hostages and accountability for 7 Oct. Do you expect anyone to simply forget them? Would you?

Maybe not relevant. In the Greek Christian bible the usual words for sin are ἁμαρτάνω - amartano. Usually defined as I miss the mark or more generally fail in some way. The noun being ἁματία - amartia - missing the mark, or failing. This consistent with the ancient notion that success was the measure of the man.

Cannot all of this be said more simply? It seems to me that whatever anything is, it is by reference to other things, whatever they may be. Thus whatever morality is, it is, ultimately, by agreement. Can agreement be compelled? Again, by what criteria?

The conclusion, inescapable, is that there is no such thing as morality-in-itself-as-it-is-in-itself. Is morality still a meaningful notion? Of course it is, but to be found not, so to speak, in nature, but in the kinds of agreements that constitute it, ground it, and underlie it. So I agree with this:

A moral act is an act that involves a moral judgment, or an act that is susceptible to moral judgment. — Leontiskos

And in flavors of all kinds, sweet, to sour, to bitter. What flavors? For primitives probably the example of nature. Socrates, truth. For Plato, finding nature imperfect, the prefect forms. Aristotle, the telos. Christians, God. Kant, the logic of the thing. Mill, utility. And so forth, with many variations on these themes and more.

Finally, that leaves my-morals and your-morals, where they conflict, and how those conflicts are resolved. Resolutions being variously appeals to emotion, logic, and ad baculum.

These, it seems to me, the facts of the matter. The virtues of which resolved in moral discussion.

A proposition / logic sentence is defined to always be a {truth-bearer}. This means that it is either true or its negation is true. — PL Olcott

The sentences in question say one way or another - and the article makes clear that exactly how they speak can be important - that they are not true, or not provable. And the analysis shows that whatever else might be true, it is self-evident and provable that they are true. Which is to say that they are, according to your exact definition, truth-bearers, which in turn makes all of your claims absurd.

Edit. Examples: "This sentence is not provable/ is not true." Or Godel's sentence G, or the liar. Or read the article! Or the introductory informal proof at the start of Godel's 1931 paper.

You get right to the point so will I. There are a whole lot of so-called
"contradictory" sentences that are true. As described in the Stanford article referenced above and to be sure proved to the satisfaction of all* by Godel, Tarski, and others. And until you can do better on this topic than just your claims and incidental rants; that is,until you make some substantive contribution or argument, this ought to be an end of it.

*One exception noted.

and the ultranationalists' inability to make peace with both its neighbors — Tzeentch

Just for the heck of it, how exactly do you see any Israeli/Jews making peace with its neighbors?

That almost everyone including the greatest experts in the field do not fully understand that self-contradictory expressions are not {truth-bearers} does seem ridiculously stupid to me. — PL Olcott

I think you have said that a truth-bearer is a proposition that is true, or if false then its negation is a truth-bearer. Yes? Or if no, then what, exactly, do you say a truth-bearer is?

At this point it does seem very very stupid that people cannot understand that self-contradictory expressions are not {truth-bearers}. — PL Olcott

I think everyone gets it as something that is defined in a particular way. But having defined it, you then misapply it where it doesn't apply, leading you to make foolish claims.

I submit to you - to anyone - that if your claims lead to your calling some of humanity's better thinkers stupid, ridiculous, foolish, totally incompetent, then a decent respect even for yourself should require you to do more than just rant. And again, you might try reading the article.

The hostages and accountability. These it seems to me are the open, uncured, and festering wounds of the Israelis/Jews. Everything else has already happened, but these two are in the category of always happening. I would like to be able to write here that by far most people just want peace, but I do not know if that is true and suspect that it is not true. First things first: if your thumb is in my eye and my hands around your throat, we're neither likely to be responsive to anything except the demands of immediate necessity. But how to disengage at least this part? A return and accounting of all hostages, and surrender of all Hamas complicit in 7 Oct. In this I assume that the Israeli war against Hamas in Gaza is a result of and intended by Hamas actions on 7 Oct. I think ultimately the Israeli/Jews want a secure peace. I am unaware of any similar desire on the part of Israel's neighbors, except at the expense of the destruction of the Jews and Israel. The only short-term remedy I see is a UN enforced peace with a concerted police action on behalf of the hostages and against the crimes of 7 Oct., and perpetrators and accessories before, during, and after the fact.

If this seems a bit one-sided, it's based on the idea that Hamas started this chapter of the larger struggle and either they will contribute to ending it, or there's a good chance they will be ended by it.

That Tarski and Gödel did not understand something as simple as this makes them totally incompetent. — PL Olcott

From the web
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truthmakers/
"This much is agreed: “x makes it true that p” is a construction that signifies, if it signifies anything at all, a relation borne to a truth-bearer by something else, a truth-maker.But it isn’t generally agreed what that something else might be, or what truth-bearers are, or what the character might be of the relationship that holds, if it does, between them, or even whether such a relationship ever does hold. Indeed sometimes there’s barely enough agreement amongst the parties to the truth-maker dispute for them to be disagreeing about a common subject matter. This makes navigating the literature about truth-makers a treacherous undertaking but a necessary one because of the significance the debate about truth-makers bears for contemporary metaphysics." (Bold, italics added.)

The article is long, comprehensive, and in parts very interesting - I won't pretend to have read it all. But to you, PL, I commend it as necessary for your understanding. As for your quote above, it simply establishes - as a truth-maker - that someone is totally incompetent.

The good people telling the truth don't have the slightest clue of how to effectively deal with this. — PL Olcott

The Germans do, apparently.