But then mathematics is not one hundred percent truth. Even nowadays infinites things haven't all been worked out fully. Imagine a ruler going to infinity out into the horizon and into space forever. Is the ruler longer as a whole or equal to the odd sections? This illustrates that the relationship between cardinality and density can be tricky but then it sublates into a higher view that nothing is ultimately "longer" in a non-dualist ontology.

Sometimes novel ideas are helpful. I tried to start a discussion once about what it would mean if all math was wrong and the *opposite* of every equation and theorem was true. People didn't like that idea but I tried this thread out anyway. I recommend the essay "Holism and Idealism in Hegel" by Robert Brandom

Well this is a philosophy forum, not a math forum, so we need to try to stick to the basics of the philosophy of mathematics. Stick with me and read the following:

"It is thus not surprising that Hegel's book began with a devastating, even if very ironical, critique of Jacobi's position against Kantianism (and all the forms of post-Kantianism), namely that we are in possession of a kind of 'sense-certainty' about individual objects in the world that could not be undermined by anything else and which showed that there was an element of 'certainty' about our experience of the world that philosophy was powerless to undermine. Hegel called this a thesis about 'consciousness.' If we begin with our consciousness of singular objects and present to our senses (an awareness of 'things' that is supposedly prior to fully fledged judgments), and hold that what makes those awarenesses true are in fact the singular objects themselves, then we take objects to be the 'truth-makers' of our judgments about them; however in taking these objects to be the truth-makers of our awareness of them, we find that our grasp on them simply dissolves and the impetus for such a dissolution lies in the way we are taking them to play a role in consciousness. The result, Hegel argued, is that in the process of working out these tensions, we discover that it could not be the singular objects of sense-certainty that had been playing the normative role in making those judgments of sense-certainty true, but the objects of a more developed, more mediated perceptual experience had to have been playing that role all along... The dialectic inherent in Jacobi's sense-certainty thus turns on our being required to see the truth-making of even simpler judgments about the existence of singular things of experience as consisting of more complex unities of individual things-possessing-general-properties of which we are perceptually and not directly aware. That is, we can legitimate judgments about sigfular objects only be referring them to our awareness of them as sigfular objects possessing general properties, which in turn requires us to legitimate them in terms of our take on the world in which they appear as perceptual objects... We must acknowledge, as Kant put it, that it must be possible for an 'I think; to accompany all our consciousness of things." Terry Pinkard

So I am not trashing mathematics but, instead, probing it's assumptions. The view of many philosophers is that infinities alone exist and I'm wondering what happens to the rest of mathematics when this is accepted by someone. Infinities have cardinality and density, the former perhaps being bound to the latter and perhaps geometry as well. Hegel in particular thought mathematics eventually turns into theories of the infinite and pure logic and I thought it would be interesting to see other peoples' take on these questions

Note: German thinkers since Kant (the Continentalists) generally preferred Parmenides, Heraclitus, and Spinoza over Pythagoras and Descartes

I read a lot of German idealism and I strongly feel they were arguing against the possibility of finite existence. Mysticism usually subsumes everything into infinities

Do you think mathematics of the infinite can be done without finite numbers?

I think of units of an infinite set as completely relational to the whole.

You're more educated in this than I

Well addition subtraction and the rest mean something for mathematicians, but if everything that is real is just infinite sets a lot of mathematics would become frivolous or unnecessary. My current position, I admit, does deny that numbers are real, but I think I have a point in that there could be a certain mathematics only of the infinite. I add and subtract for practical purposes but there doesn't feel like anything Platonic or ontological about it for me

Well ye I'm not saying get rid of religion. But we have the right to voice our arguments and feelings

Foxholes? I saw someone set someone else completely on fire once and I didn't think of God once. I called the police but if I get scared I never think of God

Man had to create God as a giver of that which man ultimately aspires. — synthesis

Yes. People want to believe in a God "as they understand it" (NA, AA, ect)

Why do you think that is? — synthesis

Because it is like saying someone's else's father (maybe Jesus?) is super perfect and is your true father. It's rather intruding

Believing God literally exists is creepy for a lot of us

I would also add that Christians don't think Jesus died just as an example of love or to give us strength. It's about atonement for them. God becomes man they say so that man can become God, which means taking on God's merits. They take a highly personal thing (sin and goodness) and believe bad people (who they think is everyone) can swap their demerits for God's merits just by having faith. It's an enticing doctrine but is clearly demonic. Christians aren't authentic. I bet even Jesus doesn't truly believe in Jesus. It's all play acting and the opposite of humility because Christianity is not authentic

But then why do people try to prove there is a God instead of keeping it in personalistic terms? When I hear these people it's like they are forcing their father on me and insisting he is looking at me with actual eyeballs all the time. I act morally, I have a sense for the spiritual, and I love my actual dad. But then they go trying to prove that it's a historical fact that Jesus is God and I'm like "I tried Christianity and it's not helping my life anymore" but they say I must be bad. Instead of denying their Jesus they will throw other people under the bus and accuse them. This is the face of most religion

Religions fight each other

Well God for me is the reason I had for being good as a child. I don't like when people try to prove God

But our independence is important. To be a sheep can become a disease

God is transcendent because he is immanent and vice verse. But when theists make it out as if God exists like a scientific object, out there watching us, or that he is dark energy, the whole picture changes for me and it sounds rather ridiculous

That's what Kant said and I like his philosophy.

The mysticism of the world can provide a ground for morality. The word "dead" refers to a mammal that has died. I don't see matter as "dead" but having all kinds of reality. I just don't get how people can be motivated to struggle on in order to spend the future worshipping a God who didn't struggle but had everything given him by reality. It just doesn't make sense

I'm serious. Why do you care what I think anyway? If it bothers you maybe there is something you need to discover about yourself. I'm wasn't referring to necessarily being macho, but a lot of males act like females these days. I'm not going to respect a man acting like a girl, even if they are gay. Acting like a girl is just crossing the line. And likewise if a woman is going to refuse to turn on her femininity, how am I supposed to respect that

I wouldn't mind but that's beside the point. We are becoming a valueless society where women want themselves to be dominant and men to be submissive even though women don't generally like submissiveness in men and more and more women are becoming depressed in the West because of their "liberation"

Punishment hurts but it can save the criminal. As for the kissing thing, I don't see how a real man can claim he was sexually assaulted by a girl's kiss. You want to create a culture where it is hard to be a man

That matter is about social policy, not logical proof

I don't really know how homosexuals and lesbians are. I don't really understand them well. But women certainly aren't weak, they are just different from men and with regard to abortion should perhaps be judged differently. Punishment is supposed to try to save the soul of the criminal, even with the death penalty. I think it's far wiser to let women deal with their consciences on their own after an abortion

Women and men are different; lot of people want to say they are exactly the same apart from body, but that's just ridiculous

IVF doesn't inherently have to lead to death and disregard to life.

It's not hard to understand. If they think their actions will lead to a situation where they reasonably need to let embryos die then that should be illegal. IVF is not immoral in itself. I am not concerned with peoples' sex lives or their reproductive decisions. The issue is solely about the right to life for me

And if women are not punished for having abortions, then you are giving them tacit approval - there is no consequence for the woman. A woman can have as many abortions as she wants. — EricH

Women and men are not the same. If a man is talking and the woman suddenly kisses him, that is not sexual assault. The other way around it is sexual assault. They are different creatures

IVF leads to death. This is a well proven fact. it leads to millions of deaths. — EricH

Then it's wrong. You don't know how this stuff works because you are pro-choice. You don't understand how this matters work at all

He’s saying that one cannot separate the world from the subject. — Joshs

That's how I interpret Kant

like Berkeley — Joshs

There are two types of pure (real) idealists: those who believe that reality is all thought and those who believe our thoughts create matter. Phenomenology is a whole different perspective from this, which your quote from Heidegger explicates very well

Heidegger discards the idea of a world independent of the Dasein’s projective structure. — Joshs

I'm not sure he does. Hegel seems to in most people's reading of him, but I don't think he is a pure idealist, nor Heidegger. I've never heard of Heidegger being an idealist before to be honest

Heidegger rejected the idea of innate categories of perception. — Joshs

If you say he is an idealist, than everything is innate categories

Kant also asserted the categorical imperative pertaining to moral values. Heidegger rejected this notion. — Joshs

That's aside from their ontology

IVF - a process which inevitably leads to killing unused embryos which (again according to him) are human beings. — EricH

We shouldn't do it if it leads to deaths. It's been like talking to a wall. I've answered your questions like 8 times already

So under some situations it's OK to kill your children by "letting some die" (which is simply a euphemism for murder). Got it. And there is no punishment for a woman who murders her child via abortion. Got it. — EricH

If I leave someone behind on a dangerous journey because i have to, that is not the same as shooting him in the head. And as for women, I don't think society should put the death penalty on them for those situations. You don't seem to like nuances except when it comes to the age for abortions

Pro-life people seems not so pro life when we are including their threats and actions against abortion doctors to the whole picture. — Antinatalist

Social death penalty is not murder

Kant's basic idea was a union of the thought of Parmenides and Heraclitus such the the world was both subjective and objective, and thus beyond both. Kant speaks of substance within a framework of phenomena. Aristotle had made the world a contingent place utterly dependent on a necessary prime mover. Kant gave the world back to us but without a purely materialist way of speaking and conceiving of it

I don't think anyone has added anything to Kant. Hegel, Heidegger, and maybe Husserrl (who I don't know much about) have just taken the basic idea deeper but it's still Kant's idea. What do you think modern phenomenology discards from Hegel or Kant?

I agree that spirit and soul come from biology but emergence creates a whole new level of reality. I'm an atheist but I believe in spirit and soul and they are important words. Jimmy Stewart in Night Passage uses the word soul with his brother in the movie, adding "it's been awhile since you've heard that word".

There is no noumema, only appearance, but being is becoming and becoming is being. Phenomenology as I see it started with Kant and was developed very well by Hegel. The sections on Hegel is Pinkard's book are excellent. The world does not depend on a necessary being. Nor is it a hologram of a greater reality. In fact it seems to me that the hologram idea of the world is like a type of theism where reality does not have all the reality of needs to exist but has to have a ground of being. The simulation hypothesis is popular but that just says a computer somewhere is the greater being creating the illusion of a world. Theism, hologram ideas, and simulation theory all make the world less than it is and takes away from the substance and flux that we are so clearly in leaves of autumn. If you think that Husserl provided additional development of the ideas of Kant and Hegel, feel free to post something on it here. I am much more familiar with his student Heidegger but Husserl was definitely a giant of his time

Whether the abortion doctor is female or not does not matter. I don't know if we can judge pregnant women in their abortion decisions but we can judge the doctors (they aren't real doctors of course). As for frozen embryos, you just don't make ones you plan to kill and if you have too many you let some die. This is not the same as stopping the fertilized egg from getting to the uterus wall. To me the answer to these questions are very easy, you even said they were simple. Pro-abortion people are stuck with the mind numbing problem on when to kill the young offspring and I imagine this issue has caused for more pain for people then relief from sufferings

I know how this forum works. I have 3000 posts and 100 threads. Studying philosophy is a big part of my life and I have a unique approach it seems in comparison to others in that I read some of Hegel everyday (I'm reading phenomenology of spirit for the 4th time now, or as I like to call it "appearance of Brahmin").

I will just add that you could have disagreed with James above when he said fetuses are persons we're allowed to kill, but you didn't object to it. We dont get to decide on our own how we are to view pre-born life. But anyways thanks for the conversation

The only people I called Nazis was, firstly, you because you did not hesitate to say "I'd be perfectly willing to kill a pre-sentient foetus". That's very cold blooded and the type of of philosophy your into makes the situation worse. And the other fella said fetuses are people but their mothers can kill them anyway, which shows where bad philosophy leads