I pass the torch to someone else. 3017Amen? or Qwibbjizz. Whoever. — god must be atheist

Perhaps another or easier (at least for me) way of looking at it would be through lens of the movement known as Logical Positivism. This Analytical approach seems to think in terms of either/or. Either tautological/mathematical truths exist, or synthetic contingent truths exist. But not both together.

IMO, although a lot of what philosophy does in expressing truth is through the logic of language (what we do on this forum, books, etc. which is fine) there are other ancient/existential/postmodern/Continental-Kantian things like cognitive intuition, phenomenology, metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, and other cognitive phenomena for which Analytical/Logical Positivists deny (including contradictions and paradox).. To me, the Analytical approach would be to deny any real existential import or angst or emotion, etc. relative to figuring out the human condition and why we exist.

Thus, Analytical/Logical Positivists would default to dichotomization of truth's being either a priori or a posterior, but not both. A Positivist would deny the synthetic a priori (all events must have a cause) judgement in exploring truth. They think that either mathematical truth's exist (and tautological necessary truth's exist), or empirical contingent truth's exist. But not existential phenomena associated with living life and the sentient human condition (why we wonder about things, care about things like Love, the Will, and other metaphysical/psychological wants and needs, etc.).

Scroll down to 'Analytic/Synthetic gap and Cognitive Meaningfulness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

I hope some of that helps. Again, all this is just my interpretation, so I could stand corrected. And, as it relates to Analytical/Continental Philosophy/Post Modernism, I've posted this amusing video before:

Thank you P. I am sure it brought back memories...and I do appreciate your attention to this matter. I admire your candor, particularly from the various excerpts from this thread. So before I unpack a few things, let me return the favor.

My point relates to Romantic Love:

I will try to give a synopsis rather than elucidate over the details for now. Years ago, I ended a relationship (a marriage) that was purely based upon Romantic Love. By all accounts, it was indeed a fever pitched, passionate, very intense, somewhat lustful relationship. Almost to the extreme in a selfish way, where we blocked-out the rest of the world. It was movie-like, in that it could have easily been us all alone in the Blue Lagoon or in Endless Love. Or, like a Country song, 'Living on Love'. Nothing else mattered but her and I and our physical desires and passion's. We would have what we called 'all dayer's', where we would be in bed all day, loving each other (usually on a Sunday for some reason). It lasted to the day we parted.

In that marriage, as the years went by, I changed and became a different person with a different perspective. I was forced to change as I got promoted at work (having to lead people), got back into performing music, and explored other hobbies that were very mentally stimulating for me. I grew and evolved from essentially an introverted person, to an extroverted person. My partner stayed an introvert. Additionally, through that process of change I experienced (subconscious) growing pains. I did not know where these pains were coming from; I just knew that something didn't feel right. As I've come to realize, I discovered I only had one component from the so-called Mind, Body, Spirit connection. And as you might have guessed here, the only connection I came to realize then was primarily relative and exclusive to the Body.

To make a long story short, I decided to divorce. I knew it was the best for the both of us in order to continue to grow as people, both personally and professionally. I also became aware that ' homeostasis' would further, only rear its ugly head if I were to try and salvage it. I wanted more. I wanted a higher Love. I wanted the so-called Mind Body Spirit connection.

Fast forwarding, I subsequently learned a little more about Love (through experience and theory-cognitive science-The Psychology of Love, Yale University Press). That there are many theories about Love, but that is all that they really are; no concrete answers, just theories.

A couple statements and questions:

1. How did you resolve your so called struggle or dichotomy with Romantic/Pragmatic Love?.
2. How important do you consider Romantic Love?
3. Can we escape the physical and sexual energy that exists between man and woman (somewhat rhetorical I know)?

One thing (that may be helpful) I did learn through psychology, that there is another component to Love ( among many components of course). It's called Love as an Attachment theory. It basically says: mom sees baby, baby is happy. Mom leaves baby, baby cries. That phenomenon essentially says there is arguably no real intellectual or higher love connection, just a lower- level Body connection ( from the Mind Body Spirit paradigm). Albeit one could argue that there is nonetheless a spiritual connection, I'll just interpret it as contextual in the adult-adult dynamic over the importance of a physical connection- the object itself known as the Body.

But society’s view of love and marriage dictates that we can only feel this romantic love with one person (at a time). The institution of marriage, with its origins as a property exchange contract and an effort to control sexual drive, restrict our capacity to love when the conditions suggest this interconnectedness to be of a ‘romantic’ nature. So we strenuously deny our interconnectedness with other ‘romantically compatible’ people around us, rationalising physical and social compatibility boundaries to love, and channel our capacity to love towards that one person. — Possibility

Hi Possibility!

I read this thread and found it most interesting, and I thank you for your candor... . In adding to the intrigue with the love phenomenon, I would like to ask a few questions if I may. Could one interpret your forgoing quote to include the notion that men and women are naturally open to other sexual relationships even when they are in an exclusive one?

I see that making an obvious commitment would involve the channeling of our energy towards just one person. But it seems as though human nature has it that reading from the menu is more or less an intrinsic past-time full of intriguing distraction. Sort of an existential question, but in your view, why is that (I'm sure Freud could speak to that Ha)?

I think you mentioned in this thread that at one point (during your marriage) you had your own radar tuned to that frequency or said possibility. And that's because I think your criteria at the time was 'pragmatic love' and not 'romantic love'(?). You were struggling to integrate the two and I think you indicated you had been successful in doing so... .

Accordingly, you also were brave enough to share that your sojourn included an introspection that involved a form of repression or suppression or denial of certain romantic feelings that possibly presented itself earlier in life.

Is the thought I am having right now certain in how it is? — Kranky

Yes it should be, but you can never be absolutely certain ( at all times and in all places). That's because you have a consciousness and subconsciousness (or in Freudian speak; conscious, preconscious, unconscious).

Examples:

1. Is one aware of their consciousness while sleepwalking?
2. Having a fatality while driving and daydreaming suggests uncertainty as to which brain is doing the driving(?).

don't think you've got anything to teach me. If you could show me how, by denying the reality of necessity and contingency, I am bound to find myself affirming contradictions, — Bartricks

I hate to call you out on this minor detail but you just contradicted yourself by asking for help when apparently your suggesting that you don't need it. That's the second time that happened... .

At any rate, I have demonstrated by that simple syllogism (including of course my other responses) where contingent/necessity is appropriate in (cosmological/metaphysical) discourse, without going into any extraneous explanation that could confuse you.

But to answer your concern, you denying those so-called logical tools of discourse would not present any contradictions. However, with all due respect, by denying them you would also be denying yourself of a higher level of understanding. At the risk of redundancy, theoretical physics uses those tools to help advance various theories about same.

Does that help any?

and proud. — Bartricks

Well, perhaps a slight teaching-moment detour is in order. How has pride enhanced your cognitive abilities in understanding the distinctions between necessary and contingent truth's?

I realize you prefer ad hominem when pushed in a corner, but that's ok. (Unfortunately, many people resort to that behavior as a deflection mechanism when denying facts.) It's a cognitive science thing too expansive to unpack here. LOL

Yep, I agree. That's my belief as well...that we didn't invent mathematics as a human construct but rather we discover and uncover it's truth... .

Do you have any good links for Carnap?

Thanks

Not sure what you're referring to, or are getting at... I'm simply showing you that necessary and contingent truth have their relevance per your OP.

Be well

Are you thinking Berkley's Idealism? (Kinda reminds me of it, in your OP.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_idealism

If nothing else, I suppose it's a starting point for clarification... .

That is a problem, because a thing that does not exist, cannot have predicates. — alcontali

Hey Alcontali, your quote got me to thinking about Intuitionism:

"...while other philosophies of mathematics allow objects that can be proved to exist even though they cannot be constructed, intuitionism allows only mathematical objects that one can actually construct."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionism

Of course in thinking about it all, the question of whether mathematics is a human construct, or whether it is something already existing 'out there' rears its head... . One thing we do know is that; it is timeless a temporal, Platonic, metaphysical, a priori etc. much like the human concept of God.

Existence is a property, it's just not what is wrong with the ontological argument.

In layman's terms, this may help some:

I think belief in God comes from being aware of the despair we have in our life without God. Only God can cure us from that despair. — Wittgenstein

I think it was Einstein who said basically if human's weren't sentient creatures, Religion would have no meaning. There would not be a need to posit God.

So, using a Star Trek metaphor; we are either Spock or Captain Kirk. Or maybe a combination of both :wink:

Sure. Kant studied/taught math and thought the act of computing mathematics itself was a synthetic a priori exercise in cognition. I tend to agree with him on that.

And I agree with you that propositions, or as you say arguments, relative to EOG are usually for those who already have experienced God or otherwise infer God as a causal agent to their own existence. But the distinction there is a priori v. a posteriori.

In other words, not to detour off topic; deductive reasoning v inductive reasoning. The ontological argument only fails because it's primarily deductive (or analytical as it were).

Also, I would recommend something like this:

https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Made-Simple-Complete-Important/dp/0385425333#reader_0385425333

I have an earlier version I bought about 20 years ago...it's kind of a good synopsis covering the basic domain's. I still refer to it on occasion when I'm trying to KISS something :wink:

Why? I don't see that at all. — Bartricks

In a cosmological context, this would be an example of 'why':

1.Every contingent fact has an explanation.
2.There is a contingent fact that includes all other contingent facts.
3.Therefore, there is an explanation of this fact.
4.This explanation must involve a necessary being.
5.This necessary being is God.

I think of necessary and contingency when I think of Cosmology. And when you say 'all bachelors are unmarried men' I think of that being an analytical truth. But I suppose you could call it a logically necessary truth, since it is true by definition or because it is 'necessarily true' by definition.

But I'm not sure that's proper. Or at least I haven't thought of it that way. Instead, I just call it an analytical truth or an a priori truth.

And so, I tend to categorize it in this way and define the a Priori-a Posteriori Distinction, the Analytic-Synthetic Distinction, the Necessary-Contingent Distinction as follows:

•The analytic – synthetic distinction: Analytic statements can be proven true by analyzing their terms (they are tautological), meanwhile synthetic statements cannot be proven true by analyzing their terms.
•The necessary – contingent distinction: Necessary statements are necessarily true in all cases, meanwhile contingent statements depend on more information (they are conditional).
•The a priori – a posteriori distinction: A priori statements do not rely upon direct experience (they are rationalized), meanwhile a posteriori statements do rely on direct experience (they are empirical).

In my studies, necessary/contingent statements usually are in the context of theoretical physics. But there are all sorts of combinations thereto. For example, in Metaphysics, the infamous Kantian statement 'all events must have a cause' is of course a synthetic-a priori judgement or statement.

And that's because that statement makes a general claim on everything without having experienced everything, yet would require experience to explore/determine its truth value. And the Metaphysical part is our sense of wonderment about it, and why we even have the capacity which causes us to make the statement in the first place (or as Schopenhauer might posit, our metaphysical will to wonder).

In other words, if you said 'all events have a cause', then you would be suggesting a necessary truth.

On the other hand, if you said 'all events have causes' you would be suggesting a contingent truth.

That's not an example of liars paradox, but this is:

1. this statement is false.

Liar's paradox is usually from the paradox of self-reference. My example is not referring to self-reference. It's an example of a necessary truth.

I think all events do have causes. I don't think they have to. But I think they all do. — Bartricks

If you are saying that you think all events have 'cause-s', you are saying that it is both a necessary and contingent truth. ( At first you said 'False', so I'm just trying to understand you.)

Please share how you think it is false?

Sure. That is where he uses the word predicate as "concept" instead of the literal meaning of an action word/verb.

Similarly, imagine a spinning ball in space or otherwise... . The ball is black on one side, and white on the other. But when it's spinning, all we see is a color somewhere between the two; a mottled color of grey. If we knew how to stop the ball, we would know its true color(s).

So to quote Kant directly:

"Being is evidently not a real predicate, or concept of something that can be added to the concept of a thing".

I realize you prefer ad hominem when pushed in a corner, but that's ok. (Unfortunately, many people resort to that behavior as a deflection mechanism when denying facts.) It's a cognitive science thing too expansive to unpack here.

Maybe, 'contingent truth' will be easier for you to grasp.

First answer this question:

1. all events must have a cause

Is that proposition true or false?

You do realize I absolutely didn't? This: "There is at least one true proposition" does not mean the same as "There is necessarily at least one true proposition". — Bartricks

Yes it is. Go back and read my first response.
Don't overthink it. It's easier than you think.

I think proposition A is true. Proposition A says "there is at least one true proposition". I think that's true, not false! — Bartricks

Okay, do you realize you just agreed to a necessary truth? By agreeing that there exists at least one true proposition, that is considered a necessary truth.

If you believe it's true then it's true by logical necessity. Here's why:

There is at least one true proposition. Call this proposition A. Is A necessarily true? Suppose I contend that is false. Call this proposition B "A is false."

But if A is false so is B because B is a proposition. And if A is false, there are no true propositions. So A must be true.

It is therefore logically impossible for there to exist no true propositions.

I propose is that there are no such things as either necessary truths or contingent truths. There are just truths. There are not two categories of truth. There are just truths and that's that. — Bartricks

Hi Bartricks!

Both truths still exist, much like objective truths and subjective truths.

Here's an appetite whetter for necessary truths:

1. There is at least one true proposition.

Is that true or false?

Thank you kindly Baden!

I will forward that to my Fundy friend and get his take...needless to say, he and I have had our 'moments'... .

BTW, I've got a 2020 slogan, so if you're feelin-it, please pass it on:

Dump-Trump

I strongly suspect that time does not exist in the abstract, Platonic world(s) that is/are model(s) that satisfy number theory. The axioms of number theory do not depend on the use of the verb "to be" nor on any of its tenses. As far as I am concerned, the world of natural numbers is entirely static. — alcontali

Thank you for that confirmation.

Just my interpretation. To briefly speak to the OP, and much like Pfhorrest, my opinion is that Kant used the term 'predicate' loosely as a mantra to poke-holes in the ontological argument (a priori/analytical judgements-of course). And that his ongoing mantra (critique) is simply to expose the inescapable truth that we can never really know existing things-in-themselves (and the true nature of their/our existence) through pure reason alone-a priori. Accordingly, he taught math, and believed that there were limitations to such a priori truths... .

Thus, from Pfhorrest's quote: "What Kant meant was that existence isn't a property of a thing. It's not like you can give a list of all of the properties of a thing and "existence" will be one of them. It's even more the case that you can't bake "existence" into the analytic definition of a thing"

Kant was right when he basically said existence can never be conceived by reason alone. (As you've stated, I think you already know that- 'the synthetic a priori'- but just wanted to offer another opinion to maybe arrive at some consensus here.)

His attack was on analytical philosophers... .

I 'voted' for Bloomberg. I'm hoping he gets some exposure here soon. From what I can tell thus far, he could be the 'moderate' (I'm a moderate independent) who has both political and business sense that appears strong enough to beat Trump. That could be a better alternative to sleepy Joe... .

Otherwise I'll settle for either Warren or Bernie (if I have to) as a protest vote to get Trump out. It's very clear now, Trump can't be trusted at all. (And finally BTW, Christianity Today recently saw the light in their Op-Ed where they apparently no longer have 'unanimous' support for the dumper Trumper. LOL )

Hey Alcontali, quick question if I could. Can you tell me which is correct:

If 'a is P' becomes P(a) in syntactical/first-order predicate logic, what are the real word implications?

For example, you would have two options I think:

1. This table is brown becomes, 'here now a brown table' or 'brown of this table' (Wittgenstein/Logical Positivism)

Or, another sort of paradox is the usage in ordinary language over the tense of the verb 'to be'. And if we convert them from its present tense (remove the word 'is'), '7 is a prime number' becomes:

1. 7 was a prime number
2. 7 will be a prime number

How do you think that would that square with Kant's view from the OP?

I embrace much of Kant's Critique' relating to the fact that existence (the nature of) can never be conceived by reason alone, but if you remove 'is' from ordinary language, you either get some variation of an a priori logical abstract (which is fine) or something nonsensical.

Thoughts?

In my opinion, legitimate philosophy is about scanning knowledge databases for surprising or otherwise interesting patterns. — alcontali

Well said. I wish Philosophy would focus more on that... .

I picked 'other'.

Whether folks are conscious of it or not, almost all domains of Philosophy, at some point, asks the question about how that something, got started in the first place. And when asking that question, causation rears its head. Thus, a Deity or a God can't be avoided or invoked, or ignored, etc..

And so the regressive Turtle argument can't be avoided, particularly when using the logic of language that Philosophy is doomed to rely so much on for its truth value (versus, say, phenomenology or cognitive science and/or empirical sciences).

The implicit tip-off's if you will, often include an evasive style of euphemistic double speak that tries to explain the nature of a thing or things, and/or of Being.

An example could be something like this:

Socrates: you cannot even explain the nature of your own conscious existence, nor explain how and why we got here and how the universe came into being, so how can you really know what you know is true?

Plato: because if you take the logic of language and multiply Pi times ∞, then you extrapolate the square root of the hypotenuse into the cognitive process by which all that can be known or unknown, eventually one will be able interpolate the existence of the cosmological order through a positive regression that requires nothing outside itself for it to be and become beyond the paradoxical nature of time itself, and thus can further be thought of why human's temporal finitude is...ad nauseum.

Philosophy student 101/unassuming person: Wow, Plato, you've said a lot of words...!!! They don't really make sense, but because you said so much, you must be right!

Plato: thank you

In all seriousness (as it relates to the OP), if Philosophy itself, cannot answer the questions of self-awareness and the nature of existence (causation), and if most people are misguided into thinking it can, does it simply become an interminable exercise in politics?

Please note that question does not consider all the other obvious benefits of practicing Philosophy itself in everydayness, and the body of knowledge viz the human condition.

Keep in mind that not all interpretations of evil relate to moral concerns. And in existential ethics (what it means to live a happy life) and cosmology, evil is considered a lack of perfection or lack of knowledge about the secrets of the universe and its complex nature. It also speaks to the Christian metaphor viz the tree of Life.

Therefore, my theory of everything must be existential and not universal; regarding the universe, but not falling too deep within it's contraint. — Qwex

Hello Q! Can you expound a bit on that one?

Managing the relative uncertainty of our predictions is already beginning a paradigm shift in how we do science. Recognising that what we understand as ‘value’ or ‘potential’ is not necessarily numerical I think is the next big hurdle for science. — Possibility

Physical science/theoretical science already uses Kantian tools like synthetic propositional logic and inference in their sense of wonderment about the cosmos. Meaning, synthetic propositions are almost always used for discovering newness or testing a new physical theory uncovering truly novel ideas/discoveries about same. Also, as you may know, cognitive science will take empirical studies or otherwise take human experiment's and infer other theories about existential phenomena. All of which can lead to a greater understanding about things like EOG/Love phenomena and other ethical/cosmological concepts and so-called intrinsic human needs... .

While we can have Kantian intuition, we can act on our those intuitions by experience or experiencing similar phenomena in living this life. We then can infer the probabilities, much like science, that in this case a Schop/ metaphysical will/EOG is more likely than not.

I agree except for the many paradoxical phenomena viz consciousness. Most all physical theories about a some thing starts with a sense of wonderment (synthetic a priori propositions). The rub or irony is that wonderment is a metaphysical construct. And at the risk of redundancy, it's like the theory behind the existential nature of human Love (not to mention math & music). We seek that which we don't even understand.

Otherwise, one could argue we are back to the question of why human scientists posit : all events must have a cause.

Well said. And I agree with what other's have suggested.

To the OP's point, that's sort of an old paradigm (can science and religion co-exist?) where one seemingly has to dichotomize both domain's. Objectively, one can help the other.

Particularly in the context of creativity, in discovering truly novel ideas, revelatory knowledge can in fact uncover many things. There are many scientists who are in-the-closet theists and agnostics. In cognitive science Maslow, Jung & William James come to mind. In theoretical physics, Paul Davies is another. (Even 'old school' Einstein was more of an agnostic, not an atheist.) I'm sure there are many more in postmodernism and beyond-those are just a very few.

You might feel you need something higher, but that doesn't prove there is something higher. Desire is not an argument for existence. I think this is essentially where Schopenhauer parts with Aquinas — Gregory

Gregory, could you please elaborate a bit more on that point?

The reason why I'm asking, for one, is how does one reconcile Metaphysical Will in Nature (Schopenhauer) being beyond a material object or entity?

If you are equating "something higher" with the Will, I don't think you would be far off the mark there(?). Maybe try to define the Will first.

Analogous examples of those things from conscious existence could include of course the Will; sense of wonderment, Love and other metaphysical abstracts and phenomenon from our sense datum (mind-dependent 'objects' that we are directly aware of in perception).