Then Sextus is going to say that if Socrates died at point t, and he was already dead at point t (since the state of Socrates at any given point in time is defined by the changes in the previous points in time), that implies he died twice — Amalac

I would reply that his claim of the state of Socrates at any given point in time is defined by the changes in the previous points in time is not possible, since there is no previous point in time. in the entire stretch up to point t but not including it, Socrates was alive, and at point t and after he was dead.

If we were to take the objection by Sextus seriously, we would accept that two different points in time can be side-by-side. But that is not possible.

I would also argue with Sextus that changes are needed to pass from living to dead. There are no changes. They are different states, like on and off. There is no change in the state of "on" for it to go "off". The entire premis by Sextus is impossible to support.

I am forced to revise my stance in the foregoing, inasmuch as one's strength of his belief in the truth of his belief is sufficient to make him believe his belief is the absolute truth.

While that still stands, the debate of truth between two philosophical directions is still of interest by logical considerations to the person if neither of the two directions are part of his own belief system.

Let's put it this way:

P(hilosopher) beleives in A.
The strength of his own belief that A is the truth makes for him A true or not totally true. All other beliefs: B, C, D, etc. are immaterial for their validity even if logically sound.

However, P can make decisions between B and D, C and E, etc., for their soundness in logic and reasonability.

In more concrete examples: an Atheist is capable of making reasoned judgments which philosophy is true, and which is not, as long as his Atheism is not challenged. If it is challenged, then he declares that philosophy that challenges his atheism, however reasonable it may be, tp be unreasonable.

Atheism will call Christianity unreasonable, and Sun Worship, too, etc.

But an atheist can make a solid judgment on the possibility of fitness to describe by chance reality as it really is, by such philosophies as solipsism, or nihilism, or ismism, because they do not hurt his atheistic beliefs.

This can be explained by calculus. With using the concept of limits in functions, and the limits approached from the left or from the right.

Let's say Socrates died at point t in time. Then he was alive in all points (not in the one previous point and before, since points do not touch each other, and between any two points, no matter how close they are together, there is an infinite number of points) previous to t, and he was dead a point at t and in all points after t.

A debate between 3017Amen and 180 Proof? This has got to be the funniest, most hilarious debate of the millenium. You might as well have pitted a sea mollusk and Frisbee, or a Christian and a Lion, or a San Francisco 49ers fan and a coat hanger against each other. But this will be funnier.

And they say philosophy is a dry, boring, non-juicy area of inquiry. How wrong they were!

In his lectures on the Phenomenology, Jay Berstein gets into this subject. He is talking about the logic of Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac and a student points out that the logic is meaningless to an unbeliever.

His point was that philosophy can give us justification for our beliefs, and lead us to new beliefs, but it isn't going to tell us what to believe. I don't think philosophy is changing anyone's stance on abortion for instance. Rather, it's a tool for justifying that stance and testing the assumptions that underlie it. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Brilliant. Maybe the only absolute truth of philosophical enquiry unearthed by man.

Just wanted to let you know, that most of my here preceding posts in this thread are a tribute to your post here quoted.

Philosophy is a process, not a concatenation of true statements. — Banno

This reminds me of one of true statements uttered by a Canadian politician, Pierre Trudeau, who was the prime minister of Canada (the head honcho) for a long time. He said, "Canada is not a country, but a loose association of shopping malls." This is so true. Our country is vast in area, yet relatively sparsely populated; our national unity lies in all of us buying the latest fad products, not in some dignified heroic past deed of the nation or some outstanding figures of it.

One thing I wonder about is what they did with all the extra parts — Fooloso4

There is a newfangled Hungarian joke that is applicable here. It was made in the Communist times, and as you probably well know, Hungary was one of the satellite communist countries of the Russian Soviet Union.

Ferenc Nagy, a worker in a bicycle factory is complaining to his friend:

"I am working in a bicycle factory, where we make bicycles for the Russian market, yet I can't afford a bicycle for my son."

The friend says: "Why don't you steal some parts every day, and put it together at home, and make a bicycle for little Pisti?"

"I tried that," replies Ferenc, "but no matter how I put it together, the final piece is always a tank (an armoured vehicle)."

So the apostles of Hortacles probably put together a Marxist propaganda agitation with the parts, no matter how they tried to fit the pieces together, and they were NOT going to publish that.

My judging something to be in error does not mean that we are approximating the complete truth. And neither does your's or anyone else's. It is part of the question of whether philosophy makes progress. I don't think it does. — Fooloso4

Indeed. The knot of Gordius. Occam's Razor can be utilized here; cut the knot with one decisive swing of the razor. Declare that truth is variant, yet its approximations are solid, when you consider that the degree of accuracy of the matching of reality to any philosophy, which philosophies in the known world are only extant in minds, depends on nothing else but on what a person's strength of belief puts it on the scale of 0 to 100.

I do not think there is such a thing as approximating complete philosophical truth. — Fooloso4

Right. You either got it right bang on, or you are missing the goal posts by a mile.

Socrates' approaches to philosophical truths, since they were only approximations (v.o. the epistemological impossibility of discovering the true and existing forms, thus never actually feeling the pulse of Gaia, so to speak), is futile in more senses than chasing the dream of the two-headed water buffalo (fairy tale figure in Buddhist folklore).

In my approximation the belief of the self in his own worldview is the closest to the truth anyone can get. Whether it is a god, or determinism, or expanding physicality, or materialism, or ... or neokleptomania, (the Kleptomaniacal school of Holikarnassosi Hortacles, taught that a true philosophy can be built by stealing bits and pieces from the existing teachings from concurrent schools of philosophy, and then combining them into a new, hitherto unimagined yet coherent unit, was finally debunked by the post-modernists. The Kleptomaniac's failure was explained by saying they did not know 1. What parts precisely to steal, and 2. How to reassemble the disparate parts into a holistic unit, but they insisted it was possible, if only taking infinite time to try out all different combinations, which in effect proves the existence of the infinite future, and therefore also the infinite past, not to mention the infinite presence), or nihilism, or ophthalmology, or solipsism; no matter what, if one believes to be true what one believes, then it becomes a fact, and furthermore, wisdom, life force and a huge number of all kinds of other things, too numerous to mention.

So much the worse for philosophy as a set doctrine. — Banno

In the dasein, the is-ness is not doubted, but encouraged, while the non-is-ness is discouraged. However; existence is futile, and the is-sing is superseded by non-is-sing, inasmuch as if everything is futile (since all existence is futile), therefore non-existence ist preferrend to the dasein.

Funny. A male person watching a double-oh-seven movie will not fit himself with thoughts of unworthiness of existence when he looks at the two-dimensional colour images of Claudia Cardinale. Therefore we may conclude that some is-sing is indeed and in existence a dasein.

This can be easily extrapolated into NO nonexistence being superior in value to any non-non-existence, that is, if the pain of torture is preferred to dying, then what governs the non-futility of existence? There is no hard-and-fast delimiter to life and no-life, but man still thinks in terms of black-and-white when it comes to the division between life and death.

The only solution I see is the sense and sensibility of pride and prejudice. One must disallow himself the privilege of non-dying, and he must submit his will to the conglomerate of his life experiences. Whether such choice is wise or futile, or just skimming along like a pebble on the surface of the body of water it's skipping on, we must force our focus on the non-trivial, as well as on the trivial, at the same time and in the same respect; this is the only quagmire human beings need to worry about.

Fooloso4, I wish to read more of these famous stories exemplifying Socrates' powers of reasoning and logic, and we could see how many stand the test of GMBA.

I am sorry, but I am awash with the sweet feelings of victory. I will probably regret being this cocky, but hey, if you can't live for the moment, then you can't live at all.

But Euthyphro seems to have forgotten all that and now agrees that the pious is part of the just.
Socrates asks what part of justice the pious is. If we follow the example of number and odd, just as the other part of number is the even, the other part of justice would be impiety. — Fooloso4

It is not piety that makes one just but rather one must be just in order to be pious. — Fooloso4

Fooloso4, you always hate it when I shoot down Socrates, but yet once more I shalt.

I assume that Socrates' stand is that one must be just in order to be pious. So one part of piety is being just. The other part? unjust. Just like in the parallel example Socrates gave the parallel between odd and even numbers.

GMBA to Socrates: "Neener, neener! I caught you on the horn of your own dilemma!!"

Dropping bombs on civilians, for one. — Tzeentch

Name the last time a bomb was dropped on your head by your government. Not figuratively, but with bomb in the unfigurative, literal meaning.

What is worse, a large gang of thugs or a small gang of thugs? — Tzeentch

A small gang of thugs are worse.

Your words, not mine. — Tzeentch

your statement does not state whether you disagree or agree.

Or I wouldn't be here. — Tzeentch

Groan...

But I'm not a philsci scholar, so my intuitions aren't worth anything. Certainly not unless I at the very least know what the literature in that field has to say about that field. — Need Logic Help

Your intuitions can be worth as much as Socrates' or Aristotle's, as long as you can defend them. It is not the support of the establishment anymore that decides what is correct and what is not -- that is so Autodafe. These days the victory goes to that who can defeat the other's opinion and defend his own. If you wish to develop your support via reading expert's statements, that will take much longer, and you still need to exercise your own better judgment to decide between two experts' opposing opinions which is the right one, if either.

YOU also are forced to pay taxes. This is used for many things that private people can't do: build roads, maintain a military, run government services like patent office and copyright protection, drug testing for approval for fitness, educating the populace for job readiness, and a million other useful services you can't do without, as well as foreign diplomacy administration and internal policing.
— god must be atheist

Essentially a state will tell you what you need, and then claim it does a decent job at providing it. I consider it to be a bad judge at both. Additionally, it forces these conditions on you through violence or threat thereof. — Tzeentch

So please tell me which of the following do you deem bad judgment by the government, and which you vehemently oppose your money spent on: building roads, bridges, hydroelectric dams, or maintaining a military, a law enforcement service, or jails or the legal system, making sure the professionals pass a bar of knowledge level, expertise and training, or that houses are built to standards that prevent accidents and deaths, etc.

Additionally, it forces these conditions on you through violence or threat thereof. — Tzeentch

If it were not for the government, then gangs of thugs would force you into much worse conditions, again through violence or threat thereof.

Aside from the preceding, and also related to the preceding:

You've heard all my arguments before and I have heard all your arguments before. Basically we think of each other as misguided idiots, who can't see beyond their noses, mutually and equally. If we carry this on, you will always say something and I will always say something to that. Do you want to continue with this? I don't, not particularly.

the insurance companies absolutely hate paying for anything. So, we pass laws to keep the premiums down — James Riley

As if that kept the premiums down... insurance companies employ actuaries to calculate the risk on return, but basically they charge the maximum the market will bear. They are a business, not a benevolent society. They are not even in the business to run a fair lottery. They are in the business of making money.

Would you guess that most people on this forum happen to have a degree in philosophy? — Need Logic Help

I would not guess either way.

Thanks. Would I better off to try /r/askphilosophy? There seem to be some fairly expert people on there. — Need Logic Help

There is no harm in trying. You tried here, you may try there. Who knows?

To be fair, some of this stuff might be well within the reach of a university-student who knows philsci. — Need Logic Help

Yes, you're right. Why don't you write to a university and ask them for help. There may be some available, but be aware that you may need to pay some honorarium for the work performed.

Do you know people on this website who might be really expert on philsci (or logic, ethics, epistemology) who might be able to help me out with this thread?

Do trained expert philosophers (or people who know the views of trained expert philosophers) hang out on this website? — Need Logic Help

We don't know anything about each other, as any information is forbidden to mention that may lead to revealing the personal identity of users on the site. Nobody knows anyone else's email, either.

So I would be lying if I said there are / there are no such people on the site. All I can say with certainty is that I don't know, and nobody else knows either, other than about their own selves, which they are forbidden to reveal (according to site rules).

Professor Bengson — Need Logic Help

Have you tried reaching Professor Bengson? He may be able to help you.

I've never once in this thread asked about "philosophers". — Need Logic Help

I just mean philosophy of science. — Need Logic Help

Professor Bengson’s research interests span practical and theoretical philosophy. — Need Logic Help

o-authored books, one on methodology (Philosophical Methodology: From Data to Theory, exp. fall 2020) and two in metaethics (The Moral Universe exp. 2022; Grasping Morality, exp. 2022). — Need Logic Help

People who publish peer-reviewed papers. People whose papers get cited. People who are well-regarded in their field. — Need Logic Help

I ain't no people such as that.

You have found your way to this website here, where, to my knowledge, nobody is such that you describe. There may be some, but they haven't revealed their involvement.

So I must apologize for my snide remarks. As far as I am concerned, we are not qualified to the degree of expectations you had for us.

Not your fault, I don't blame you. You simply went by the name of the website, and that is fine, it could be misleading. But the simple fact is, that we can't help you. Sorry.

The pope is not a serious scholar of epistemology — Need Logic Help

This was not a silly joke. If you can't consider the pope to be serious, then you are not serious. He is one of the most serious experts in epistemology. If you deny that, then it is you who can be found as "not knowing what he is talking about".

Plus, I simply answered your question. "Can you name one... etc" and that's precisely what I did.

Then you dissed my answer and got angry at me.

By "error", I don't mean anything technical. I simply mean: "Not knowing what you're talking about."

Suppose someone says that science relies on falsifiability in order to operate and in order to make progress, and then a philsci expert says: "Actually, falsifiability has not been relevant in our field (philsci) for decades." That would be an error, since the person is saying something that scholars would consider incorrect and that scholars would say (in this case) represents old thinking that went out of date decades ago.

So it's really just: "Things that leading/prominent/serious scholars in the field would consider misinformed or uninformed or incorrect." — Need Logic Help

This was a wonderful answer. Thank you very much, I really appreciate it.

In this case, I have to admit that I am too small to answer your original question in a definitive way. Sorry. Your question is too big for me.

Does any serious/leading scholar of epistemology challenge the notion that nonbelief (in supernatural/religious claims) is rational? — Need Logic Help

I thought that your question was if there were philosophical errors in the Dullahunty's videos.

So what IS your question?

Does any serious/leading scholar of epistemology challenge the notion that nonbelief (in supernatural/religious claims) is rational? — Need Logic Help

This is easy to answer: Yes. The pope.

Thanks for replying!

1: I apologize for any vagueness. It's annoying to simply ask philsci (and other) experts to weigh in on this material, since it takes hours to try to watch all of these videos. It would be great if (e.g.) Dillahunty (or other hosts) had a simply book/paper that could be sent to experts to review, but instead the content is spread across all of these lengthy videos, so it's a lot of work to find out what their views on philsci (or other topics) even are.

2: I did link to various things in my post, though, so those could be commented on. There are "ten bullet-points" and also two YouTube-videos. I would be curious to know what people think about those things.

3: Falsifiability is a big one. Dillahunty talks in the two videos that I linked about how philosophy uses falsifiability, but one of the "ten bullet-points" that I linked to mentions that falsifiability is not actually relevant to philsci. And that's an interesting idea, since laypeople would imagine that falsifiability is crucial to science, so if it isn't then experts (on philsci) might clarify why it's not crucial and why science is able to function without it. — Need Logic Help

You did speak a million words without answering my question. I can't answer YOUR question before you tell me the answer to my question.

Your question (for clarification, please correct me if I am wrong): "What philosophical errors does Dullahunty make?"

My question (has to be answered before I can answer yours): "How would you describe what a philosophical error is?"

Please don't mince words, and keep focussed on the question I asked of you. If you can't answer it, please note that I can't help you then.

philsci — Need Logic Help

I also don't know what you mean by this word, you keep using this abbreviation as if it were a c.h.w.

Your moniker says you need logic help.

Anything that is logically proven, can be show to be false if:
1. One or more of the assumptions are found to be wrong;
2. One or more of the logical steps are found to be wrong.

I shan't go into details of how one can make logical errors, this little post is too small for that. But if someone bases his logic on an assumption (called premise) in his thinking, and the logic is flawless, then the conclusion will be wrong.

Now take the case of the atheist versus the believer. The atheist's assumption is that the gospels are not factual, they are make-belief, they are not inspired by god. The believer's assumption, on the other hand, is that the Gospels are true in every word, and God inspired them via the life of Jesus.

Right away you have a contention that makes one's entire argument stand or fail. The atheist may make a beatuful logical deducing, but his assumption is false according to the Christian believer, so the atheist's conclusion is wrong. And similarly the other way.

--"atheist" commentators probably make all sorts of philosophical mistakes, despite being correct in their conclusion that nonbelief is rational — Need Logic Help

You talk about errors and mistakes and their propagation. Please explain what you mean.

I don't know what you mean by "philosophical mistakes". There are such things as errors in logic, and there are such things as fallacies. Philosophy, as a discipline, is not error-prone. Some things can be proven false, but very, very few. This is so mainly because philosophy deals almost exclusively with topics that can't be decided aye or nay for sure.

So what do you mean by "philosophical mistakes"? If you could please explain that.

That just about sums it up pretty neatly. This was a nice thread.

My favourite thought experiment? Making out with Pamela Lee Anderson. It's quite good, I assure you. Rather exciting.

(-;

↪god must be atheist in such a case how might we then help the poor to help themselves? — Benj96

In what case? Did I make a case? Again, you guys are thinking out quietly to yourselves what you are responding to, while not letting your conversation partner know what the dickens you are referring to.

Please use the quote function to direct attention to the points you refer to in someone else's posts.

↪god must be atheist Few things are so ignorant as thinking to know what another person needs. — Tzeentch

You are absolutely right, and I agree with you.

This is why I wrote, that perhaps you read,

You get paid for your work. You decide how and on what to spend the money earned. Nobody else has to look out for you and decide for you what your needs are... you decide yourself, and you use your money to buy those things and services that YOU decide YOU need. — god must be atheist

Money is exchangeable to that product that you need and YOU decide which product it is. Money itself is not needed; you can't use money for anything but to buy goods and services. Therefore they don't DECIDE for you what you do with your money when you get paid. You decide what to do with your money. I don't know if you understand this, and you wrote the quote above in agreement, or in disagreement. If you were a bit more explanatory and less quizzical, it would help me formulate the proper answer to you.

I am not blaming you or your style, I am not criticizing, I am just saying that for my comprehension, your response above is lacking in informative value.

What if the state is unable to fulfill my needs? Also, am I allowed to determine what my needs are, or will someone else determine my needs for me and whether they are fulfilled or not? — Tzeentch

You get paid for your work. You decide how and on what to spend the money earned. Nobody else has to look out for you and decide for you what your needs are... you decide yourself, and you use your money to buy those things and services that YOU decide YOU need.

YOU also are forced to pay taxes. This is used for many things that private people can't do: build roads, maintain a military, run government services like patent office and copyright protection, drug testing for approval for fitness, educating the populace for job readiness, and a million other useful services you can't do without, as well as foreign diplomacy administration and internal policing.

In Canada, Australia and Europe, the gov also runs a lucrative and manageable medicare program.

If you think you are unduly taxed, because some eggheads think they know you better than you do what to spend your money on, fine, try to exist for a few months without water supply, grocery stores, gasoline, and any medication, and then report back to us how it worked out.

The reason they don’t exert any change despite all being “unified/ in agreement about what is troubling them” is that they’ve been led to believe they are powerless — Benj96

You had me until you I read the above. Your style is lucid, your examples were very true, striking and typical. They are highly present in my life and in my friends' lives. I liked societal aspect of how you introduced the topic. I understood and agreed enthusiasticlaly with everything you said until the quote came around in the reading.

People feel powerless because they are powerless. This is not an illusion planted in them by the circumstances and by the suggestion of the ruling class. This is actually a reality.

The don't have the guns. They don't have the money. They lack the communications and the organization.

Of these, only organization and communication can be obtained. Instead of sending cute cat pictures to each other, the downtrodden could organize a coup d'etat. But they don't, because they also lack -- by and large, there are exceptions in both camps -- intelligence to get organized.

I would also say they don't have the numbers. People who live in poverty, in apartments, and get paid lousy wages tend to be less smart than middle-class white-collar workers. But not as numerous as the cream of socitey. I define the cream of society to be those who live a normal lifestyle: own their home, have a vacation every year, provide a good education for their offspring, and have good food on the table. This, the cream of society, still outnumbers the poor people in Canada.

All these things are against the odds of the poor successfully changing the system, and not, or not only, is the reason for their poverty that they had been brainwashed to think they are powerless.

Or are you just a joke?

I'm leaning towards the latter. — Xtrix

This was a play on words.
1. My post had nothing serious to do with the topic.
2. It rode on a word play, inasmuch as bi means two- as a prefix for many expressions, but it also means in the expression "bisexual" as a person who likes both genders.
3. Bipartizan (notice the z instead of the in Partizan) therefore, in a twisted logic, must mean partizans who are bisexual.
4. These days the politically correct acceptance of gender identity must also include "on the non-binary gender spectrum".
5. I replaced the "bi" with the " non-binary gender spectrum" and thus came a new meaning to bipartizan.

Sorry to have caused a confusion. My sense of humour is strange sometimes. Well, most of the time. But there is one person in this universe who enjoys it, and I write my jokes for him.

I have no clue what this is supposed to mean. — Xtrix

I am willing to work with you on this. Which part is causing difficulties in understanding?

After all, unless you haven’t noticed, we no longer produce Beethovens or Mozarts, Keatses or Dantes, Raphaels or Rembrandts. — Todd Martin

But we have the Beatles, the Rolling of the Stones, Jimi Hendrix, Deep Purple, and Emerson, Lake and Palmer. We also have Messi, Ronaldo, and Ronaldhino. We have Terry Fox, Diana the Dead Princess, Janos von Neumann and Ho Si Mah. We have Chong E Ti, we have Cheung Chiu, and Chang Cheung Ching. Not to mention Chang Chang Chung Ching Chog, the world leader if

I was born not too much after WWII ended, in which war the Russians had partizan warfare. I assume bipartizan warfare comprises non-military fighting brigades who fall on the non-binary gender spectrum.