I didn't say you don't try at philosophy but you've had many discussions with me and to my brain you put things in neat packages. Socrates at the start had a fluid way at coming to truth (as he saw it). Why would you ask logic to tell you if you could exist in every world? To me it sounds strange

There is no need to study logic at all if one can get through and understand Hegel's book on logic

Aristotle would not have supported proving anything exists simply from logic structures alone. There are pure Platonic ideas which logic can't touch and the real practical world of reality.

It's your thread but I'm not your student

Before you present any model logic you have to prove logic can prove something outside the mind. Can you provide an example? I searched "what had model logic proved" and there was nothing

Aristotle is fine but logic is subjective though necessary and doesn't apply in reality. Modal logic is not a philosophically traditional way of thinking. What do you know of Hegel's logic btw

I was explaining how necessity and contingency are used in traditional philosophy and model logic in totally different ways

You don't like philosophy any

What if God is the devil?

Wikipedia and it's application in articles. Modal Logic is a structural thing and when it says a proposition is necessary or contingent, this is not using the word as it is used in traditional philosophy but this doesn't stop people from pretending it does. Why not show us something unique model logic had proven

The desk across the room is contingent because it can be destroyed and I will of necessity die if hit by a train. That is science, not logic. Modal logic is a waste of time because philosophy easily shows it's bs. Again it's use is for science, not philosophy

Like his dad he had a brain disease. He said truth is not like God but like a woman (and then lists some complaints). His main point is that truth is beautiful on the surface but is really a strange fickle thing

It doesn't apply to reality. God talk is a Platonic discussion, interesting but useless. Can God be infinite without being everything? Can he be necessary while not being present in every possible world? If God is Reason itself, does he change when he decides to create? Does he know he created and so has new knowledge of his act and so changes his nature? There is no way to know. God is just a vague idea we make up

Nietzsche has gotten a revival from people listening to Jordon Peterson. Academy of Ideas has lots of videos on N on YouTube which are good

N was against science as an idol which could "save" us. Post modernism actually frequently talks about science and how culture colors its conclusions. There is some truth to both criticisms

Then how does modal logic apply to reality. It's concepts are necessity and contingency, neither of which can be proven to apply to the world the way they do to ideas

Oh. Ye the parts of the brain that process truth as truth is not well known

Probably

It seems absurd that a thinker such as Nietzsche can eschew thousands of years of philosophical wisdom , not just particular philosophers but the whole tradition of philosophy since the ancient Greeks. He attacks it for being otherworldly and life denying. I don't see how Aristotle's ethics which are grounded in empirical evidence and common sense is other wordly. Aristotle also does not , unlike Christianity or Kant , base his ethics on a set of rules, but it's about cultivating a good character. — Ross Campbell

Nietzsche was primarily concerned with the affect of Christianity throughout the world. If kindness is natural there is no reason even to talk about it much. There is nothing wrong with Aristotle, but remember that it was Plato who N attacked the most. The idea that we really do not live in the true world was a problem for him. Aristotle's idea of man was good imo. "Thus to say that I entered into the world, come to the world, or that there is a world, or that I have a body, is on and the same thing" said Sartre

I think posthumanism will still be theistic. — Trey

I don't see how God figures into it but maybe there is a conception of God that will arise in the future which will work. I don't know. Christianity has soured that stream for the present. Evolution happens and I'm not closed off to possibilities. I don't think anything is known for sure but I am not a skeptic because I think there is much probability to many ideas. Every idea is only probable nonetheless

Humans did develop higher order empathy because it helped unite a “tribe”! This works great on a small tribal basis. The problem is the tribe is now BILLIONS in number - the number is beyond what the tribe model can cover.
Also: the empathy thing has been blown completely out of balance by Abrahamic religion! In Non-Abrahamic religions, you realize there must be a BALANCE between nurturing (feminine) and the competitive force (masculine). We have to all CONTRIBUTE to our tribe (tax, health care damnit!). But we have to limit how long one can stay on the tit! A SMALL Safety Net, but for general purposes every must produce — Trey

Getting along with people and contributing is of course necessary. But too many attach themselves to things and other people in a false idea of love. The universe might show mercy to people (who is it hurting?) but an all good God doesn't. Christians proclaim a father figure who wipes people with the blood of his son. Nietzsche knew that Christianity promoted sin and went after it nobly.

No doubt there were earlier ideas of higher consciousness in antiquity that Tillich probably had in mind as a model. — Tom Storm

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/harvard-theological-review/article/abs/nonexistence-of-god-tillich-aquinas-and-the-pseudodionysius/948612DB4E9C89584C01B08AAF02C58E

God is supposed to be a necessary being. Something is necessary if it is true in every possible world.

There is a possible world in which god does not exist.

Hence, god is not a necessary being. — Banno

This is Spinoza's argument: God must be everything otherwise he is not perfectly infinite. These are very Platonic ideas and they have no true answer

This kind of logic is founded on philosophy and philosophy can offer very different answers. In my opinion, in philosophy there is nothing contingent or necessary that exists. These are relations of ideas. The world exists neither contingently nor necessarily. It is necessary that the world exist if it is existing but this doesn't mean it had to exist a priori or that it is contingent a priori such that it needs a necessary substance or whatever to back it up. The proper distinction in mind and world situations is "objective vs subjective". Subjective is fooling or lying to oneself. Objective is what is real towards consciousness. As Kant, Hegel, and others point out, the world is there and we don't create it but turn over the coin and we see that we don't know how much we might be contributing to creating the world, and modern psychology backs this up to a great extent

Now you are introducing another idea, the idea of karma, which is borrowed from Hinduism. Then admit to all the principles of Hinduisim. — skyblack

Because everyone believes in karma, while the biggest Christian denomination in the world (Catholics) say through the mouth of the their Pope that "justice is a servant of mercy" and "mercy is greater than justice". Right their. Check out the encyclical. Belief in God is blanket worship

Does heidegger say go with your gut? — Protagoras

His word is intuition.

Christianity gave West the idea that we are all one mystical body being showed mercy by God. However, karma applies perfectly to all good and bad acts. There is no room for mercy pushing aside justice in the name of pity disguised as love

Heidegger was saying that we don't see truth with a God eye view. As with treating people, one should go with one's gut in each situation

That's not possible because it bonds people in slavery to each other. Compassion is empathy and kindness but can also mean mercy, which means "karma is bad" and is a Christian invention. If youre so kind you show mercy, that's a weakness

Justice to all, mercy to none, kindness to everyone, love to those who are real

I already said I don't live in the East so I don't have first hand knowledge of it. I do know the West and Christianity. Individual pursuit here is not what Nietzsche spoke of but is self absorption into society and the acting out of a "I'm so special" narcissism. Putin pointed this out about American culture and how Hollywood promotes it in "feel good" movies. Both Christians and secular people here love when an underdog team beats a more powerful adversary in a movie. This "we do it together" is all pervasive thoughout of this culture

Huh? Christians families are often very strong but they unite in the bile of "we are all sinners together but Jesus died for us!" It's union of narcissism. Thinking you are special is the core of Western culture

I think Nietzsche was right. Mercy is a weakness not a virtue. The whole point of mercy religions is to unite people in a blob of misery, giving your consciousness over to others so they can suck you dry. All you have is you. Don't sin, turn back on mistakes, don't be afraid of being cold hearted, and hope for your own salvation. The West has a sickening over emphasis on family and this results from the beast of Christianity. I don't live in the East so I don't know how Buddhism works there, but Christianity is as bad as religions come and that is what Nietzsche was against from first hand knowledge

It's not cool, manly, or macho to call people out for with subtle violence in your back pocket in discussions on a public philosophy board unless the other person is literally using this at you

Napolean said 'I feel like a rock thrown in time". The universe is not bound by philosophical ideas like necessity and contingency. Things have potential because of the actuality that they are. The world is the rock and we are the time.

One writer once wrote here that theism is "please spank me daddy" syndrome. A lot of the past has gone with the winds of time so physical explanations for life are tentative because it happened so long ago

There are two experiences on the side of scientists. First, many have been profoundly shocked by the miracles their methods accomplish. Moreover, few of them would deny that the more complex the world is seen to be the more they are amazed at the world, not at God (or whatever).

No amount of complexity and interconnection of parts of the world means there are minds outside the universe. God=many-worlds but instead it leaps further to a mind. The world may be as complex as a mind which lives within it but there is no connection there to a mind outside it. All arguments for God are activities of faith. If you really want it, the argument will work but it's just more bad faith

There IS something wrong with "supernatural faith". In fact it's sinful if I may use the word. Perhaps there is a lesser condition where belief in God is needed for a moment. But for the most part supernatural faith (leaping towards God without evidence) is as inauthentic as positions attack by religious people (modern culture, ect). Believers nurse on their own consciences

Why would they do that ? In my experience I’ve come across individuals with real faith who really believe in God that not even the sceptic in me would question it. — Deus

Faith in supernatural things is not real belief or genuine action. It's make-believe. Do people enjoy warm fuzzy feelings and so appear to have faith? Yes but it's dishonest make-believe and bad faith. Humans don't really believe in supernatural father figures any more than other animals do.

6 famous minutes of Derrida:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch-DliKSGu0