The rest of your post: Muddled — Agent Smith

I take it you do not see a distinction between being sentenced to death and being prevented from living forever. You make a distinction between someone being put to death and the rest of us dying. It should be noted that Cain was not put to death for killing his brother.

God does not want man to become gods. They have already become godlike with knowledge of good and evil. With immortality they would become gods. Some might think this would be a good thing, but it might mean endless war and the oppressive rule of deathless kings.

When God tells Cain that sin is crouching and he must rule over it, he is saying something quite different than what the concept of original sin says. We are not born evil. We can rule over sin.

I think that today it is incontrovertible that the earth revolves around the sun, so it would be a hinge ... — Luke

@Sam26

And therefore not a proposition? And that is because a proposition can be either true or false and a hinge can't? So at one time, the sun revolves around the earth was a hinge and not a proposition? But now it is not a hinge but a proposition?

Where does Wittgenstein make this distinction between hinges and propositions?

I think the distinction he makes is not between hinges and propositions, but between propositions that function as hinges and propositions that do not. That is not to say that all hinges are propositions, but to say that the statement "the earth revolves around the sun" is not a proposition because it is a hinge is to make restrictive demands on its usage.

It reminds me of a quip by Wittgenstein:

Philosophers use a language that is already deformed as though by shoes that are too tight.

Just as waking is made difficult in shoes that are too tight, thinking is made difficult by a language that is too restrictive.

is 12x12=144 susceptible of being false? If so, then it is not a hinge. — Luke

Are you claiming that a hinge is not susceptible to being false? Or are you making a claim about mathematical hinges?

Is the concept (I am trying to avoid the term proposition and the confusion it may cause, independent of OC) of the earth revolving around the sun a hinge? Is it susceptible of being false? At one time the sun revolving around the earth was a hinge.

It could be argued that to deny living things their existence is an imperfection.

In this model of God, omnibenevolence is always directed first at itself: “In willing himself primarily, he wills all other things” (Aquinas SCG, 1.75), — spirit-salamander

But in your scenario God does not will all other things or even any other thing.

Descartes makes the argument that the perfection of what God has created cannot be judged by some part of it. It is the whole that is perfect not some part.

If the absence of benevolence is an imperfection then a being who creates a world where only it exists is not a benevolent being. Neither it nor the world it creates would be perfect.

Can a being who is not perfect know what the most perfect world is?

If benevolence entails benefit to what is other then oneself, the a God who limits existence to the creation of itself would not be benevolent.

Moore is incorrect to say he knows these propositions (according to W), not because they are not true (or cannot be true, even in principle), but because the belief in their truth isn't justified. — Seppo

What, if anything, would justify such a clam?

Could it be false? (see my post to Seppo above regarding bipolarity) — Luke

Could a mathematical proposition that is true be false? No. Could a mathematical proposition be false? Yes.

It's a fair point, but I don't consider mathematical propositions to be the sort of hinge propositions that Wittgenstein is concerned with in the text. — Luke

This much I know: he uses several examples of mathematical propositions in the text.

Wittgenstein draws the distinction and compares mathematical/logical propositions (i.e. rules) with empirical propositions, for instance:

350. "I know that that's a tree" ... — Luke

See his rejoinder:

352. "... And what is it supposed to be doing?"

As I understand it, Wittgenstein's concern is not with a theory of knowledge @banno @Seppo @Sam26. He is examining how ordinary (non-philosophical) claims of knowledge function in our language games and with one of his ongoing concerns, how philosophers confuse themselves:

31. The propositions which one comes back to again and again as if bewitched - these I should like
to expunge from philosophical language.
32. It's not a matter of Moore's knowing that there's a hand there, but rather we should not
understand him if he were to say "Of course I may be wrong about this." We should ask "What is it
like to make such a mistake as that?" - e.g. what's it like to discover that it was a mistake?
33. Thus we expunge the sentences that don't get us any further.

Moore might as well have waved his hand about or wiggled his fingers.

What is being assumed as the basis on which the question is to be answered?

our mortality is a punishment from God for Adam's & Eve's disobedience — Agent Smith

First, it should be noted that this is not a Christian story. Original sin is an interpretation that originated long after the story had been told and interpreted for generation after generation.

As with many things in the Genesis stories, mortality is both a blessing and a curse. There is a difference between being sentenced to death and being prevented from becoming immortal. God makes it clear why he prevented them from eating of the tree of life and living forever:

And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

(3:22)

There is a connection here between knowledge and death. Without death there would be no end to the evil that make may do and suffer.

But what God says to Cain makes it clear that we are not born evil:

Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”

(4:6-7)

I have been looking for a way to acknowledge Nagel's narrative of how the scientific method came about without accepting that it restricts all of its possible outcomes to descriptions of physical stuff isolated from all other physical stuff. Models have to agree with phenomena. — Paine

The problem as I see it, is that his argument rests on the shoulders of Descartes and the problem of judgment based on mental representations. It leads to an insoluble skepticism. In other words, we have no way of knowing whether models agree with phenomena. Although he did work on optics and medicine, his description of physical stuff is based on reason rather than empirical evidence.

The question was whether hinge propositions are truth-apt — Seppo

I think my answer was clear. They are.

In my previous post to you:

As far as the question of truth, I have stated that they are true or false. — Fooloso4

And before that, in response to Sam:

As stated this is misleading. It not not that they are neither true nor false, but rather that the question of their being true is not there from the beginning. — Fooloso4

To which you responded:

Exactly, good analogy. — Seppo

But in this context, its being asked/disputed whether they are truth-apt, and so the fact that hinge propositions are propositions, and that W refers to them as propositions, is directly relevant and hard to omit. — Seppo

As far as the question of truth, I have stated that they are true or false. Sam and I started arguing about this years ago, starting on another forum.

Of course hinge propositions are propositions! The question is whether all hinges should be regarded as propositional. Sam and I argued about this as well.

From another thread ten months back:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/523914

The best way to proceed, when dealing with quasi-technical words like ‘proposition’, may be to stipulate a definition and proceed with caution, making sure not to close off any substantive issues by definitional fiat. (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/propositions/)

It is not Moore's statements about his hand that function as a hinge. If Moore's propositions about his hands are hinges then what revolves around them? Most people do not know who Moore is. It makes little or no difference if he claimed to have hands. Not much hinges on the statements that any of us make about having hands.

It is the fact of our having hands around which things pivot. Our doing things with our hands, our holding tools and other things designed for hands. Even our statements about hands hinge on our having hands.

and:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/523937

Language games are an extension of man's acting in the world. Primitive hinges are pre-linguistic. They are not language games, they are an essential part of the form of life in which language games come to play a part. It is not that they cannot be doubted, it is simply that they are not.

A mistake that is frequently made is to treat hinges as if they are all the same. There are propositional hinges and pre-linguistic hinges. Empirical hinges and mathematical hinges.

Since you spoke approvingly of phenomenology, I was asking where you thought it fit in Gerson's schema where 'Platonism' or 'Naturalism' are the only possible approaches and the attempts to find 'rapprochement' between the two are a fool's errand" — Paine

Here, once again, we can see how it is useful to separate Plato from Platonism.

From the Timaeus:

So then, Socrates, if, in saying many things on many topics concerning gods and the birth of the all, we prove to be incapable of rendering speeches that are always and in all respects in agreement with themselves and drawn with precision, don’t be surprised. But if we provide likelihoods inferior to none, we should be well-pleased with them, remembering that I who speak as well as you my judges have a human nature, so that it’s fitting for us to be receptive to the likely story about these things and not search further for anything beyond it. (29c-d).

His imprecision is seen here as well:

As for all the heaven (or cosmos, or whatever else it might be most receptive to being called, let us call it that) … (28b).

Why not be more precise? Isn’t it imperative to be precise in matters of metaphysics and cosmogony?

We are human beings, capable of telling likely stories, but incapable of discerning the truth of such things. In line with the dialogues theme of what is best, Timaeus proposes it is best to accept likely stories and not search for what is beyond the limits of our understanding.

Socrates approves and urges him to perform the song (nomos). Nomos means not only song but law and custom or convention. In the absence of truth there is nomos. But not just any song, it is one that is regarded as best to accept because it is told with an eye to what is best. One that harmonizes being and becoming.

In several places Socrates calls the Forms hypothetical. In the Phaedo he combines a hypothetical account based on Forms together with an account based on physical causes.

In short, Plato cannot be situated on either side of Gerson's schema.

I don't learn to calculate because 1+1=2 is true, no more than I learn to move a bishop because it's true that bishops move diagonally. I act in accord with how others act when they calculate or move bishops. — Sam26

Those who know how to calculate have learned that it is true that 1+1=2. Those who know how to play chess have learned that it is true that bishops can only move diagonally.

Suppose you grew up in an isolated area where the few people who are around add 1+1=3. In your defense you might point out that this is how everyone calculates. It does not follow that if you live here 1+1=3 and if you live somewhere else 1+1=0.

It does not follow that if you have one stone in one hand and one in the other that you have three stones. You have this one in this hand and that one in the other, where is the third? If you claim that 1+1=1 then if you this one in this hand and that one in the other, do you hide one in order to get 1 from 1+1?

The baker's apprentice does not learn that 6+6=13 but that with a baker's dozen you get one free.

When we learn to calculate we simply learn a skill — Sam26

Part of that skill is learning 1+1 equals some number other than 2 false.

There is a certainty to mathematical propositions, but that certainty is a way of acting, not a certainty based on truth or falsity. — Sam26

654. "The multiplication '12x12', when carried out by people who know how to calculate, will in the great majority of cases give the result '144'." Nobody will contest this proposition, and naturally it is not a mathematical one. But has it got the certainty of the mathematical proposition?

It does not.

We have found something we agree on.

The mathematical propositions you're referring to are not bedrock. Their use in terms of your bank account have nothing to do with what I'm am talking about, and definitely nothing to do with what W. is trying to communicate in OC. — Sam26

You seem to be confusing the mathematical propositions with their application. It is because the mathematical propositions 1+1=2, 100+100=200, 12x12=144 an so on are true that we can calculate a bank balance correctly.

340. We know, with the same certainty with which we believe any mathematical proposition

655. The mathematical proposition has, as it were officially, been given the stamp of
incontestability. I.e.: "Dispute about other things; this is immovable - it is a hinge on which your dispute can turn."

Can you think of examples from before 2000? — Isaac

Miscegenation

Indecency clauses

Lenny Bruce

Refusing to say the pledge of allegiance.

Because the basic propositions of mathematics function like rules, grammatical rules, it's not a matter of them being true or false, generally speaking, no more than a rule of chess is true or false in it's background setting. — Sam26

If mathematical propositions were neither true nor false then my bank account might be in big trouble, but then again, it might be a windfall when I deposit $100 and my balance goes from $200 to $2,000,000.

he does refer to them as "propositions — Seppo

The fact that something can be stated as a proposition does not mean that all hinges are propositional, or should be analyzed in terms of propositions.

But that means I want to conceive it [certainty] as something that lies beyond being justified or
unjustified; as it were, as something animal.(OC 359)

I want to regard man here as an animal; as a primitive being to which one grants instinct but
not ratiocination. As a creature in a primitive state. Any logic good enough for a primitive means of
communication needs no apology from us. Language did not emerge from some kind of
ratiocination. (OC 475)

The same is true when speaking of bedrock or hinge beliefs when it comes to truth, in a bedrock setting, they are neither true nor false. — Sam26

As stated this is misleading. It not not that they are neither true nor false, but rather that the question of their being true is not there from the beginning. When a baby takes its first steps it is either true or false that the floor or ground will support their weight, but such a consideration does not come into play.

200. Really "The proposition is either true or false" only means that it must be possible to decide for
or against it. But this does not say what the ground for such a decision is like.

Not all hinges should be regarded as the same. The hinge proposition that 12x12=144 is true. How could such propositions not be true? The student learning their times tables might even doubt it. They may ask you to justify it. And you can via demonstration. But, of course, not all mathematical propositions can be required to be justified in order to justify 12x12=144.

We need to assess independently whether what the mob wants is something agree with and if so join them. — Benkei

A mob acts without regard to whether what they want and what they do is something we agree with.

Political correctness could, but then this isn't about that, is it? — Benkei

You lost me here. You said:

Let me rephrase, cancelling as political correctness gone rogue, doesn't exist. — Benkei

Let me rephrase, cancelling as political correctness gone rogue, doesn't exist. I prefer public accountability instead. — Benkei

Political correctness can go rogue. There is always a tendency to push things to extremes.

And we can look at separate cases and find fault with some of them but I'm pretty confident that by-and-large what is happening is for the good. — Benkei

We should be wary of a mob mentality.

The question wasn't which political groups use it — Isaac

The OP states:

Cancel culture is a right wing lie ... — Benkei

The issue is often framed in terms a left wing attempt to limit free speech. To the extent that this is true I agree with the OP that it is a right wing lie. But I don't agree that cancel culture does not exist. Although the terminology is new, it has always existed in one form or another.

the question was whether it was a dangerous tool to encourage the use of. — Isaac

That is too vague and general to be of much use. On the one hand, there is no agreed upon use of the term or the extent to which one might go to cancel someone or something. On the other, we need to consider what it is that prompts calls to cancel. Clearly it can be taken to extremes. It can be dangerous in so far as a tool in so far as it restricts communication and attempts to come to an agreement. It can also be dangerous in that it may cause harm incommensurate with what was said or done. But it can also be an effective means of righting wrongs. But, of course, some will think the wrongs right and righting them wrong.

Some examples of right wing cancel culture:

The Chicks
Colin Kaepernick
Nike
Target
NASCAR
Keurig
Gillette
Samantha Bee
Beyonce
Ellen DeGeneres
https://www.buzzfeed.com/stephenlaconte/conservatives-love-cancel-culture)

Delta Airlines
Major League Baseball
(https://www.vox.com/22384308/cancel-culture-free-speech-accountability-debate)

One of, if not the biggest promoters of cancel culture, is Donald Trump.

Cancel culture is a right wing lie — Benkei

Cancel culture is one of many right wing attempts to win what they regard as the culture war that threatens their way of life. The fact of the matter is that there are plenty of examples of right wing cancel culture, as a google search shows.

A helpful rule of thumb: look at what the right accuses the left of to find out what the right is doing.

Spirit was a central concept for Hegel. The aufheben of the holy spirit.

But the point is, intelligence is primarily demonstrated through performance. — Bitter Crank

Yeah, I agree. Your comment just led me to wonder. The difference in brain scan seems likely. Differences in dreams seems interesting.

t

I didn't realize quite the level of religious crank we were dealing with here. Suddenly things make a lot more sense. — Seppo

This is only part of it. When he first joined the forum he was touting the work of Kerry Bolton.

In 1980, Bolton co-founded the New Zealand branch of the Church of Odin, a pro-Nazi organisation for "whites of non-Jewish descent".

He founded the national-socialist Order of the Left Hand Path (OLHP).It was intended to be an activist front promoting an "occult-fascist axis"

Bolton created and edited the Black Order newsletter, The Flaming Sword, and its successor, The Nexus, a satanic-Nazi journal

And to defend Bolton Apollodorus cited Kevin B. MacDonald. Kevin B. MacDonald is an American anti-semitic conspiracy theorist, white supremacist, neo-Nazi, and a retired professor of evolutionary psychology at California State University, Long Beach (CSULB). In 2008, the CSULB academic senate voted to disassociate itself from MacDonald's work.

The moderators deleted his threads. He claimed ignorance, but he routinely digs up dirt on academics who hold views contrary to his own. I will leave it to the reader to decide how credible his pleas of ignorance were,

It takes intelligence to figure out how to act in a way that will lead to a good outcome in so far as it is the outcome that is sought. Beyond that is the question of whether that outcome is actually good. We often seek what is pleasurable and when we are able to attain it we regard it as good. But what we find pleasurable may not be good. Eating cake is pleasurable but not good when it leads to obesity or diabetes.

Someone might desire a good outcome, but what they consider a good outcome might not be.

A sleeping genius and a sleeping moron are indistinguishable. — Bitter Crank

Perhaps under ordinary circumstances. But brain scans might reveal differences. Perhaps there are differences in their dreams as well.

If someone intended to produce a bad outcome for herself that would not be intelligent. A bad outcome for an enemy might be a different story, although that bad outcome might be a good outcome for the one who intends it.

Acting accordingly is to act in such a way that is likely lead to a good outcome. A good outcome is one that is intended. In any given the ability to assess what a good outcome is is also a measure of intelligence. One must anticipate the consequences of different choices and actions as well as what is good.

try and do some philosophy and stop making things personal. — Bartricks

Plato shows us that the personal is an important part of philosophy. Not knowing that you do not know but insisting that you do know is a serious problem. Fix that and the ability to have a reasoned discussion might follow.

The ability to troubleshoot and fix a machine.The ability to assess a social or interpersonal situation and act accordingly. Acting prudentially to achieve a good outcome.

What exactly should we measure in the case of intelligence? — Average

The ability to complete some task without being taught to do so,or solve a problem, or assess a situation and respond in an appropriate way (phronesis).

I am not interested in making this thread anymore about you than it has already become.