Comments

  • Quine: Reference and Modality
    Meanings can be learnt via inferences from observations on the real world and how others use the words in social situations.Corvus

    Yep - The meanings of words are learned by using them...
  • Quine: Reference and Modality
    Is there more here than the collapse of "meaning" that occurs as one attempts to say what meaning is? That circularity is answered by looking to use, or, which is the same thing, by showing rather than saying. So if what you are after is the bit of intentionality that is inexpressible, then what one can do is acknowledge that inexpressibility and carry on.

    One cannot use words without knowing the meanings.Corvus
    If that were so, no one would ever learn the meaning of a word.

    I can't decide if your talk of receptors is anachronistic or just incongruous. Let's keep this conversation to the PM - it's a bit too off-topic here.
  • What is faith
    It's not all that odd. If someone tells you how things are, it is up to you to decide whether to believe them.Ludwig V
    Perhaps the point might have been expressed better. If someone says the cat is on the mat, there is a fact of the matter that we can check against - take a look and see. If someone says that cat ought be on the mat, there is no similar process available for us. We must instead decide.
  • Quine: Reference and Modality
    That's pretty opaque. You seem to see everything through Nietzsche. I don't find that at all helpful.
  • Quine: Reference and Modality
    ...means...J
    That word. If everything hat applies to {1,2,3} applies to "...is red", then what more is there to "meaning"?

    And yes, it is not necessary that {1,2,3} are red. They might have been blue. That's kinda the point, isn't it?

    I think the power of an extensional first-order language is easily underestimated. It'll not do to just assume that extensional contexts are inadequate, it must be shown. It is not clear that there is ""failure of substitutivity" in the instances Quine lists. The whole substitutivity issue doesn’t pose a deep problem if we understand "meaning" in terms of systematic extensional correspondence rather than some mysterious intensional essence.

    But doubt this will convince you.
  • Thoughts on Determinism
    Then there is something about Popper and falsification that you have missed, and I have not adequately explained.

    Popper draws a clear distinction between the logic of falsifiability and its applied methodology. The logic of his theory is utterly simple: a universal statement is falsified by a single genuine counter-instance. Methodologically, however, the situation is complex: decisions about whether to accept an apparently falsifying observation as an actual falsification can be problematic, as observational bias and measurement error, for example, can yield results which are only apparently incompatible with the theory under scrutiny.Popper, from SEP, (my bolding)

    There is a difference between being falsifiable and being falsified. Have a read and a think.
  • Thoughts on Determinism
    A quick version of naive falsification. A theory is a universal statement - "all swans are black". basic or protocol sentence would be "Here is a white swan" and "Here is a black swan". "Here is a black swan" is consistent with the theory, but by itself cannot verify it. To verify the theory we would have to check out every swan, not just the one before us. "Here is a white swan" falsifies the theory.

    The not-so-naive version of falsification is to note that "Here is a white swan" might be countered - it's not a swan, or it only looks white in this light, or other ad hoc hypothesis that protects the theory from falsification. There is a difference then between a theory being logically falsifiable, and the decision that the theory has indeed been falsified.

    Protocol sentences were taken as irrefutable - the idea being that one could not be wrong in thinking "I see a white swan, there, now".

    Theories are falsifiable becasue hey have the logical form U(x)(fx⊃gx) - for all things, if they are swans then they are black.

    Protocol sentences have the logic structure "f(a) & ~g(a)" - such a sentence falsifies U(x)(fx⊃gx). "This is a swan and this is white {ie, not black)" falsifies "for all things, if they are swans then they are black".

    Can you see how protocol sentences do not have structure that is falsifiable?

    The above is Popper's own logic, from The Logic of Scientific Discovery.
  • What is faith
    My point is, one can always blame the God character and think how things should have gone, but in doing so one simply takes on the role of God. It's very natural to do this.BitconnectCarlos
    It's not just natural, it is inevitable. A part of the human condition is that we each decide what we do next, so in your words we must each "take on the role of God".

    That's the odd thing about "ought" - even if someone else tells you how things "ought" be, it is up to you to decide if they are right.
  • What is faith
    Ah, too many threads here.

    So long as you don't do it to my face...
  • What is faith
    It's not between man and man. It's between man and God.BitconnectCarlos

    It was between Abraham and Isaac.
  • What is faith
    After reading it, summarily reject all it says and tell me how horrified you are at the binding of Isaac. That's the process we've followed going on a couple of years here.Hanover
    That's not what I recall. I will happily accept the essay you point to as a valid interpretation.

    I offer another interpretation, were the actions described are seen as obscene, and were we look on the faith Abraham placed in the Lord even to the point of committing an abomination, and are asked whether as mere humans we ought follow our beliefs with such confidence. Because we might be wrong.

    "After the trial in which God was found guilty of abandoning his people, a dark and profound silence fell upon the room. A few moments later, the men realised it was time for the sacred Jewish ritual of evening prayer."

    Or Cromwell's "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
  • What is faith
    So we are to get personal?

    From your "about" page:
    I actually have it all figured out, understand the meaning of life and the nature of what exists, I'm just not telling anyone so you can all discover it for yourselves.

    And yet you say of me, "You just won’t give an inch".

    There's nought so queer as folk.
  • What is faith
    Oh, . Good of you to worry about me so.

    I believe quite a few things. I trust in quite a few folk. But in neither case would my belief or trust be unbounded. There is a point at which I would be willing to say "This is wrong".

    That point has been sorely tested at times, and sometimes I got it wrong.

    There is a place for doubt as well as faith.
  • What is faith
    All we need is to trust God and no one gets hurt.Fire Ologist

    There are few folk as dangerous as those who are certain they know the will of god.

    prima facie, trussing up your son, placing him on a pile of wood and holding a knife to his throat is abuse. It takes a good lawyer to explain this away. Even our @Hanover is not up to the task. But the various churches have been quite adept at hiring good lawyers in cases of child abuse.

    Trust in god does lead to people being hurt.
  • What is faith
    But we are never fully informed. We don't know everything there is to know. That's kinda the point, isn't it, that we have to act despite not being fully informed?

    So if your argument is that Abraham was fully informed, then the story does not apply to us.

    And we are back to having to decide without knowing all the facts.
  • What is faith
    So we have faith as either trust or belief, taken to an extreme. Considered as belief, it becomes believing despite the evidence; considered as trust, it becomes trusting to the point of engaging in turpitude.

    Neither of these is acceptable.
  • What is faith
    That was the sacrifice - not the act of a madman; not someone blindly obedient - it was a fully informed decision to, despite all else, trust God.Fire Ologist

    ...to the extent of performing an abominable act. That the decision was as you suggest "fully informed" only serves to add to the affront.

    Had Abraham acted as suggests, the story might have had some merit.

    And we might follow on from reply to you to ask who it is to whom you owe obedience.
  • What is faith
    It can't be stated often enough that if perspicuity is rejected (which I do), then a 4 corners literalist interpretation is irrelevantHanover
    That argument might hold if there were agreement amongst the learned. There isn't.

    However,
    Remember then: there is only one time that is important – now! It is the most important time because it is the only time when we have any power. The most necessary person is the one with whom you are, for no man knows whether he will ever have dealings with anyone else: and the most important affair is to do that person good, because for that purpose alone was man sent into this life.” — Tolstoy, The Three Questions
    And by this standard the stories of the Binding and of Job show culpability.
  • What is faith
    As humans our perspectives are limited and biased and to draw such broad and universal judgments such as which suffering is ultimately "justified" and which is "unjustified" is beyond us. The book stands against man's hubrism and his tendency of all encompassing judgment.BitconnectCarlos
    This is simply to renege on your responsibility to decide if an act is right or wrong, to hand that most central of judgements over to someone else. To look the other way.

    What God does to Job is ethically wrong.

    What follows is that if god is loving, then the story of Job is not about god. Or that it's part of an iron-age morality of servitude that we might transcend.

    A better lesson would be, rather than accepting one's place, not to accept injustice and to work toward making the world more just.
  • The Musk Plutocracy
    For what it's worth, the dash in a Tesla looks like they decided to glue in an iPad as an afterthought...
    tesla-model-3-journey.jpg?s=1024x1024&w=is&k=20&c=heMHlNGRzpg-INszt6IKvI2_meSqzvXjVtyk9nBKskU=

    Compare Mercedes...
    mercedes-eqs-580-interior.jpg?s=2048x2048&w=is&k=20&c=VdN6Al_parz1P_okrQePOWKlIdfa0C8DCYEt9RtdCWY=
  • What is faith
    Nothing in that proposal implied self-sufficiency; quite the opposite. Interdependence leads to trust and a better quality of life.

    But that is hard to explain to 'Mercans.

    And off topic.

    I'm European.ChatteringMonkey
    Replying her as this is off topic - fair enough. Present circumstances place the point in high relief. I've in mind something along the lines of John Rawls as modified by Martha Nussbaum, adopting a capabilities approach.
  • The Musk Plutocracy
    Eliminating both taxes and services would be fairly straight forward - it's called serfdom.
  • What is faith
    Yeah, well, my inclination is more towards the social order being sorted so as to serve the "personal interests" of the populace.

    Suit yourself.
  • What is faith
    We should "sacrifice what may be in your personal interest for... ...what preserves the social order"?

    Fascism it is, then.
  • What is faith
    See the topic? See how it is not "Floods"?
  • What is faith
    A garage, by its very nature, tends toward disorder, for it is in its essence a space of storage and utility, where various objects accumulate over time. No matter how much one may strive to impose order upon it, the garage will inevitably revert to this state, as it is proper to its function. This tendency is not accidental but arises from its very purpose, much like how all things move toward their natural ends. — Aristotle
  • What is faith
    You insist that all align to your judgment.BitconnectCarlos
    Cobbler's awls. No, I hope for a bit of conversation, some intelligent disagreement. I'm not insisting on agreement so much as enjoying disagreement.
  • What is faith
    Perhaps.


    I have intuitions. I make judgments, for sure.BitconnectCarlos
    Cool. So it's not that people make judgements that is problematic when you say"
    I get it. You, like many others, have very strong intuitions about how things should be.BitconnectCarlos
    So your point remains obscure.
  • What is faith
    Kierkegaard saw something profound in it. You see nothing.frank

    I saw quite a bit in the story, on which I have been expounding.

    It was my reading of Kierkegaard that first brought this line of thinking to me. The Knight of Faith is not someone I would look up to.
  • What is faith
    You, like many others,BitconnectCarlos

    So... you think you do not have very strong intuitions about how things should be?

    Then why did you respond to my post?
  • What is faith
    There are those amongst us who see faith, understood as submission, as a virtue. I am questioning that. I suspect you might agree, broadly speaking.


    What do you make of this?Hanover
    Someone's made a model of my desk...
  • What is faith
    So Abraham was faking it? He knew all along that god would not allow him to kill Isaac, but went along so as to garner favour from the Lord?

    Moreover, such deceptions are somehow admirable?

    Or are these comments just designed to mitigate the discomfort of taking the story literally? Indeed, some fairly extreme rationalisation is needed to maintain that a god who loves us and one that demands child sacrifice are the very same.

    So the stories are indeed preposterous, as you say. The lesson one is supposed to take away is, as says, thoughtless obedience. This is not admirable.
  • What is faith
    I don't think nationalism is functionally all that different from religion.ChatteringMonkey

    That was my point.
  • What is faith
    Well religion is the institutionalisation of these values, how they get propagated in a given society, how and who can change them over time.ChatteringMonkey

    Those values are not necessary, let alone peculiar, to religion. Nationalism is an obvious alternative. Both are somewhat parochial, even anachronistic.

    This thread is at least in part an exploration of the difference between faith and mere belief. Saying that faith is just a belief in some set of values ignores quite a bit of what has already been said about faith.
  • What is faith
    Cheers. I hope what I have said makes at least some sense.
  • What is faith
    Faith then is the believe in a set of common valuesChatteringMonkey
    There's no argument here for that interpretation. You say religion is the believe in a set of common values, then in the next sentence replace "religion" with "faith".
  • The Musk Plutocracy
    Came across this, from @Wayfarer long ago, while browsing...
    ENRON CAPITALISM
    You have two cows. You sell three of them to your public-listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt / equity swap with associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax deduction for keeping five cows. The milk rights of six cows are transferred via a Panamanian intermediary to a Cayman Islands company secretly owned by the majority shareholder, who sells the rights to all seven cows' milk back to the listed company. The annual report says that the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more.
    Elon's fortune is of this ilk.
  • What is faith
    Anyone who thinks abandoning your own reason is ever right or good, is a fool, or not a functioning person. Faith is not opposed to reason.Fire Ologist

    Is it reasonable to truss up your son and ready the fire? Read this again, and reconsider:

    They arrived at the place God had described to him. Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He tied up his son Isaac and laid him on the altar on top of the wood. Then Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to kill his son as a sacrifice.
    No, this behaviour is abominable, unjustifiable.

    If a person performs some ritual, to praise God and bring blessings, they are using reason throughout, as necessary to complete any task successfully.Fire Ologist
    Madmen rationally justify their acts. What is described in Genesis 22 is madness.

    Biblical interpretation is a field unto itselfHanover
    Indeed, bending over backwards to justify the unjustifiable. In the place of all those words, see a man preparing a fire, fettering his son and taking a knife to his throat. Judge that.

    Stop with the literalism, becasue the literal story is of an horrendous act. One needs sophistry to move beyond that.