I recommend sitting back and observing whether or not Banno can get through to Corvus. — wonderer1

It seems not, but

Are You Not Entertained? Is this not why you are here?? — Maximus, and Banno

You're just going on and on with a strawman that no one who takes biblical critical theory seriously would take seriously. — Hanover

Quite right. The religious need scholarship in order to make their scriptures palatable, even unto themselves.

Ok. This is why we can't have nice conversations on these forums.

...which makes (t→e) False too. — Corvus

No, it doesn't.

You have been battered about this for a few days now, and it is difficult to back down when you make a mistake, even in the most friendly circumstances.

But I really do have to go water the garden. You see,

If it rains, then the ground is wet.
It doesn't rain.
The ground is not wet.

and

If I don't hose, and it doesn't rain, the ground will not be wet

But

If I hose, the ground will be wet.

All I did was remove "Hence". That's were you went astray.

How is it tell you nothing? — Corvus

Because (t→e) can be true and yet (¬t→¬e) either true or false.

He thinks implication is equivalence, it seems.

I have to go water the garden. It's not going to rain today.

That whole conversation is an exercise in missing the point... — Fire Ologist

So you are certain of the Cogito without any justification?

Of course I deny its Truth. It is FALSE. — Corvus

It's not false - if by that you mean that it is a contradiction and false for every interpretation.

(t→e) tells us nothing about (¬t→¬e).

If you don't think, you don't exist. Is this not False? — Corvus

There are things that... and here one needs a free logic... that don't exist and don't think.

But you have gone off on a tangent, I asked if you would explicitly deny that (t→e)→(¬t→¬e).

I can coherently deny any sense data, like reading “this post”. — Fire Ologist

You replied to the post. Now you would deny that there was a post, and supose this to be somehow coherent?

I have not claimed that the cogito is meaningless.

I commend On Certainty to you.

I don't know what you are asking. Shouldn't that be (¬t→¬e) → F? Which is not valid, as shown by the countermodel.

https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~3t~5~3e)~5(p~1~3p)

I gather (¬t→¬e) = F is to be understood as "(¬t→¬e) implies the false"?

No, it doesn't. Countermodel: Rocks don't think, but exist.

But you see that even a simple logical formalisation and reasoning of Cogito, proves it is false. — Corvus

You have not shown this.

Whatever. Flogging him repeatedly is tiresome.

If one is carefully considering whatever may exist, once one comes to be considering one’s own existence, one finds something existing that one can’t deny. — Fire Ologist

Notice the "if...then" in that? If what you say were so, someone ought be able to set the argument out formally.
If (one is carefully considering whatever may exist) and (one comes to be considering one’s own existence) then (one finds something existing that one can’t deny)

One can find all sorts of other stuff that one cannot coherently deny - like that you are reading this post. So if that is our standard, the Cogito is hardly special.

You think you have proved it false, but you apparently use an invalid argument.

Others here claim that it is true, and indubitable, but offer no support for that contention.

It would help your standing immensely if you were to explicitly reject the argument that
(t→e)→(¬t→¬e).

Well, blessed is just about everyone with a vested interest in the status quo, as far as I can tell, Reg. — Francis, LOB:3

You're denying what is explicit in the text. No citation will help you.

God said, 'Take your son, your only son, your beloved Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, where you are to offer him as a burnt offering on one of the mountains which I shall point out to you.'
— 22:2 — Banno

Unconscionable.

The interpretation I offered that interpreted the story as offering opposition to child sacrifice isn't a new fangled liberal interpretation — Hanover

I didn't say it was. I said it suits our more liberal times. In other times it was no doubt understood as showing how a vassal must obey their lord. Nor are the various interpretations mutually exclusive. It can be an admonition both to obedience and against human sacrifice.

But in no reasonable reading could it not be understood as advocating that one ought do as god commands even if what is commanded is abominable. That one's own desires is to be secondary to God's will.

Thank you Rabbi Banno for that comprehensive and contextualized analysis. Thousands of pages and hundreds of years of interpretation crystallized. — Hanover

An ad hom already. That was quick, even for you.

But he did screw with Abraham’s head and majorly gaslighted Job in the pursuit of “testing” their loyalty. — schopenhauer1

Which is at the least good evidence that the god described in such books is not worthy of praise for his morality.

Biblical interpretation has to be contextualized — Hanover

Hmm.

Well, obviously, this is not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any manufacturers of dairy products. — Gregory, Life of Brian

For God to be an ogre demanding obedience, you have to take a very literalist definition and you must assume he decrees without being subject to interpretation. — Hanover

Or you could read what he supposedly says and does in your text.

God said, 'Take your son, your only son, your beloved Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, where you are to offer him as a burnt offering on one of the mountains which I shall point out to you.' — 22:2

Pretty hard to misinterpret the obscenity here.

ust trying to analogize looking at the logic of the words before addressing the meaning of the statement. — Fire Ologist

Whaat does that mean - that we need a predicate logic? I offered that already. Have you an analysis that shows the validity of "I think, therefore I am"?

banno saying he isn't certain of it. — flannel jesus

To be sure, that is not what I am saying; but that certainty of my existence is not dependent on the cogito. Further, I suspect your exist was undoubted long before encountering the Cogito.

Why do you want to prove (t→e)→(¬t→¬e) is equivalent to A <-> B? — Corvus

I don't, since it isn't. And that was directed at

I can prove it — flannel jesus

That doesn't mean much — flannel jesus

I don't think it's trivial — flannel jesus

Make up your mind! :wink:

I'm out, I think. Too tired to think.

(Which can be seen in what I just wrote...)

It shows (I hope...) that your

(t→e)→(¬t→¬e) isn't itself equivalent to (t↔e), it's equivalent to saying "if you have an implicaation (t→e), it's safe to say (t↔e) — flannel jesus

is valid. If trivial.

I slightly misstated the argument. — flannel jesus

Fine.

If (t→e)→(¬t→¬e) holds, as a general rule, then all (t→e) are actually (t↔e). — flannel jesus

But...

Go on, then. Here is the premise:

P - > Q — Corvus

or in my parsing

(t→e)→(¬t→¬e) — Banno

Show how that is equivalent to A↔B.

it's equivalent to saying a <-> b — flannel jesus

No, it isn't.

What do you think his argument is? — Janus

I'm not going over that again. Time to move on. Corvus is wrong, but perhaps not in the way folk have suggested; and that he is wrong does not imply that therefore the Cogito is valid.

...where does that premise come from? — flannel jesus

The premise is invalid. But it is not a contradiction. That is, it seems possible. (But it has been a long few days and I may be wrong).

@Corvus' logic has been less than impeccable - we all make errors. But again, while he has not shown that the Cogito is invalid, no one else has managed to show that it is valid.

I don't know how to do that any further than I already have.

P = I think, therefore I exist.
Q = I don't think, therefore I don't exist. — Corvus

P= (t→e)
Q= (¬t→¬e)

The first assumption:

P - > Q — Corvus

(t→e)→(¬t→¬e)

I can't see how to make that any clearer.

It's not easy to see what you're saying here. It looks like you're saying

(t→e)→(¬t→¬e)

Is equivalent to saying

(t→e) — flannel jesus

Only if you misread what is writ.

I certainly did not write

(t→e)→(¬t→¬e) ↔ (t→e)

That's invalid.

Indeed, I am not saying anything of that sort, but pointing out that the argument Corvus uses appears valid.

I think an equivalent of 'I think therefore I am' is 'If I am thinking, then I must exist". 'If I am not thinking then I must not exist' does not follow, but 'if I don't exist, then I must not be thinking' does follow, as far as I can tell. — Janus

Ok, so

(t→e) ↔ (¬t→¬e) is invalid.
"I think therefore I am" is not equivalent to "I don't think therefore I am not".

And
(t→e)↔(¬e→¬t)
"I think therefore I am is equivalent to "I'm not, therefore I don't think"

But this is not the argument @Corvus presented in the quote.

your proof is treating (t→e)→(¬t→¬e) as a premise. — flannel jesus

Here's the argument quotes:

P = I think, therefore I exist.
Q = I don't think, therefore I don't exist.

P - > Q
Not Q (Q is FALSE)
therefore Not P (P is FALSE) — Corvus

(t→e)→(¬t→¬e) is a premise. it's P->Q.

Also,

The logically entailed negation of 'I think, therefore I exist' is 'I don't exist, therefore I don't think' not 'I don't think therefore I don't exist'. — Janus

t→e negated is ¬(t→e))


but

¬(t→e) ↔ (¬e→¬t) is invalid, and
¬(t→e) ↔ (¬t→¬e) is invalid.


¬(t→e) ↔ (¬e∧t)?
(fixed link)

I was going to agree, but...

Editing post now I have time to take a look...

t=I think
e=I exist

P = I think, therefore I exist — Corvus

t→e

Q = I don't think, therefore I don't exist. — Corvus

¬t→¬e

And the syllogism is...

P - > Q — Corvus

(t→e)→(¬t→¬e)

Not Q — Corvus

¬(¬t→¬e)

therefore Not P (P is FALSE) — Corvus

⊢~(t→e)

Giving
(((t→e)→(¬t→¬e))∧¬(¬t→¬e))→¬(t→e)

Which is valid.
Check my working.

It's a story about obeying one's master, like it or not. Abraham does what he is told, to the point of obscenity, and is rewarded.

Rescinded, see below.

That's the pat reply, softening the story for more liberal times. It's about fear, submission and obedience.

It happened some time later that God put Abraham to the test.

'Do not harm him, for now I know you fear God. You have not refused me your own beloved son.'

All nations on earth will bless themselves by your descendants, because you have obeyed my command.'

Faith is believing despite the facts. It is obedience even to committing abominations:

God wants us to behave in a particular way, that if we don't do so we sin and are subject to punishment. — Ciceronianus

And the reward is to "make your descendants as numerous as the stars of heaven and the grains of sand on the seashore".

...if you're interested — Hanover

In folk apologising for their book? Not so much.

, your post here: sets out a denial of the need for hyperbolic doubt, while seemingly defensive of the Cogito.

But if you are saying "I am" will do, without the "I think, therefore...", then we can agree.

My general take is that there is no good way to say what the cogito is trying to say. But at the same time, what it is trying to say can’t be denied. — Fire Ologist

But it is denied...

Here's my position again. The enterprise of the Second Meditation relies on doubt, and doubt is a language game. Doubting some proposition implies a range of other propositions which are held to be true - if only those that set the doubt out. Hence doubt is only possible if some things are held to be indubitable.

The things which need to be taken as granted in order to accept the Cogito include far more than one'e existence. One has to be a member of a language community...

And all this is to show that the very idea of finding some foundation that is "100% certain" is somewhat fraught.

Yep, I can go along with that, at least as a speculation.

Because things don't cease to exist when they don't think. — Lionino

Well, they do if they are by definition thinking things. That's rather the point. It seems that the defenders of the Cogito now want something like "I am by definition that which thinks", which is not "I think therefore I am", and which has it's own difficulties. In particular, the bit where you stop existing when you go to sleep.

Yes, you went into great lengths about the difference between extended substance and cognitive substance, but having to invoke dualism to solve this issue counts against the whole enterprise.

I do not have access tot he full article. What do they take Russell's argument to be, and why do they reject it?

Ooo I take that back. I hadn't logged in. And now the reply I write as an edit to this post has gone into the aether.

Roughly, I take Russell as making a point about the illegitimacy of the move from "Something is thinking" to "I exist". See https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-free/#inexp

I fully agree with you. — ENOAH

Then perhaps you might explain it to me?

isn't metaphysics necessarily metaphorical? — ENOAH

Are you suggesting that the arguments in the Second Meditation are metaphors? Metaphors for what? They look very much like arguments to me.

You said:

"the cogito as a poem, rather than a complete thought"
"It's not the poem that gives certainty"
"this poem... implies a more complete argument within"
"My thoughts grant certainty to me"

So, what is the compete argument that grants you certainty? Presumably: "I must exist in order to think". But that is not an argument, or at the least is not valid. Sure, something is doing the thinking. Why presume it is you?

Are you just stipulating that you are the thinking?

But then, why did you laugh at the suggestion from @Corvus that you cease to exist when not thinking?

Presumably for you all this holds together somehow. I'm not seeing it.

So you are convinced by incomplete thoughts. Ok.

I don't think it is I who is not being serious.