Hope you like her.

Well, what does it mean to talk of a necessary condition and of a sufficient condition that is separate from it? — leo

Belief is necessary and insufficient for both - true and false - belief. Without belief, there can be neither.

My contention has been that it is only in relation to empirical (and logical and mathematical) matters that definitive inter-subjective corroboration in a cross-cultural sense is possible. — Janus

That would be true if those were the only matters agreed upon cross-culturally. They are not.

Hannah Gadsby

Something tells me that you may find something in her.

Spiritual beliefs are explanations. Here's where Ockham's Razor applies.

Spiritual beliefs may not be empirically falsifiable/verifiable, it does not follow that they lack meaning. Meaningful unverifiable beliefs are anything but empty. Rather, they are chock full of connections with/to the world and/or ourselves.

If we teach our children to appreciate and respect diversity; if we teach our children that everyone deserves a certain modicum of respect; if we teach our children the keys to learning new things is most often other people; if we teach our children how to get along best with others even though those people may not have our best interest in mind, they would know better than to kill others. They would know better than to harass others. They would know better than to make broad brushed statements about groups of people.

We would avert many a scenario.

There will be no systematic mandatory retrieval of guns that are publicly owned by legal means.

Public spaces ought have rules that keep the space usable by all. If the best technology is good enough for screening public passengers as a means for keeping the public airways safe, then what on God's green earth are we doing not providing those same safeguards to our children?

Well regulated.

I'm left wondering...

Do you disagree with the report I offered regarding the go-to talking points of pro gun people(including but not limited to NRA members)? I mean, was it in some way inaccurate? Did I misrepresent something that those folks think/believe and/or otherwise argue for? Do they talk about the insufficient funding of American education? Do they actively lobby for laws and/or legal actions that have a negative effect/affect upon the public funding situation at hand?

The NRA is not the problem. It is a symptom.

What statement of mine are you disagreeing with?

By my lights it's quite a bit more complicated than that. The NRA is doing exactly what they are allowed to do, and what they are doing is - in and of itself - just one facet of many on the set of problematic jewels within the US.

It makes no sense to me when people start talking about unrelated events. The NRA is a group of people who do not seem to be making their voices heard except in light of gun violence. When that violence happens within an educational setting such as a public school system, the NRA is not focusing upon the funding thereof.

Rather, they all read from the same script. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Restricting all public access to guns by virtue of creating more involved complex access regulations will simple create more red tape for the citizens who obtain their firearms legally to begin with. That thought will lead one to further talk in terms of "punishing" legal gun owners for the crimes of others. This often continues on and will eventually arrive at the 'conclusion' that more regulation will not stop those who acquire firearms by illegal methods from acquiring a gun. With that in the forefront of one's mind, it is then argued that the overwhelming majority of gun violence in America is perpetuated by people who've purchased/acquired the firearms illegally to begin with. So the story/narrative then often further morphs... if the goal is stopping the crimes from happening and the means to that end is having less guns, then we need to stop those who acquire the guns illegally from acquiring them, and passing more regulations that only the law-abiding gun owners follow anyway will not satisfy that end.

You see...

The NRA doesn't talk about the insufficiently funded American public education system.

I understand your criticism, and it is no more a valid criticism of science than criticising mathematics for not having any input on the latest fashion trends.
— S

Would you say fashion trends are therefore incompatible with mathematics? — AJJ

:100:

This is true of any close relationship that shapes us. — Noah Te Stroete

We can change our own shape by seeking our influences. We do not have to remain in any particular way that someone else shaped us...

Step one is believing that much...

There is a true answer to the nature/origen of math. If there is no definitive philosophical answer, perhaps it's because no one has gotten it right... yet.

I already told you Im not going to do that. Did you miss that? Im really not going to do it. — DingoJones

So, you aren't willing to bear the burden of your claims?

:brow:

Tradition has it that when one voluntarily enters into a debate, s/he and/or they volunteer to justify their claims. You've a burden a bear here.

Sure... I'll run right out and prove that S has offered no argument here. How do I do that again?

:brow:

Look Dingo, you're the one who said I'm wrong, and that he has... That's your burden to bear, not mine. Bear it.

I cannot prove that he has not. Anyone can look for themselves and see that much. The thread bears witness to that.

Show one. Just one.

there is still wisdom in religious texts if you are open to receiving it. — Noah Te Stroete

Indeed. Sometimes hard to pick out of all the other stuff, but there's some good stuff in lots of places, as long as one is willing to separate it from the other stuff.

Im not going to do that. Maybe I wasnt clear...I was asking if you thought you didn't understand the arguments or if you thought you might be ignoring them because you do not like S... — DingoJones

You were clear enough. You were and still are - quite simply - mistaken. I was clear as well, and I'm not. There has been no argument given by S. I don't know S. What I do know is that S substitutes ridicule and rhetoric for philosophical argument. I'm not making it up, rather, I'm pointing it out. Look for yourself. If you find one, then copy and paste it here. Easy enough right?

Do it.

I can find loads of personal insult and rhetoric offered in lieu of argument, as can anyone else who so chooses to look.

Quote them please.

Depends upon what else - aside from you - that that bridge is standing between my friend. Some bridges are best burned. The trick of course, is knowing which ones.

Of course. Helps me to make choices that increase my available choices, if that makes any sense...

It's a daft argument: — S

This coming from one who has no argument... mind you. Sitting high up in the stands heaving personal ridicule and criticism at those doing the work is the safest place for some. Such people do not have what it takes to garner the kind of respect that warrants much attention from those who actually get into the ring. Yellow Napes and African Greys are prettier.

I did an undergraduate unit in A J Ayer, Language Truth and Logic. And you're singing from that hymnsheet, even if you don't understand that you are. — Wayfarer

:wink:

Well Jeep you certainly recognized Ayer's influence on my position what... a decade ago? Unfortunately the positivist guiding principle is untenable/self-defeating. There is still much to be admired about the positivist outlook, certain aspects of it at least...

Just because we've been mistaken about some things, it doesn't follow that we've been mistaken about everything. Just because we cannot see everything as it is, it doesn't follow that we see nothing as it is. We are both objects in the world and subjects taking account of it and ourselves, etc...

I'm glad you've experienced improvement.

I'm not nowhere near presumptious enough to think/believe that I know what your thought life consists of aside from correlations between things, and some of those things being your own state of mind. That said...

For me it took the kind of self-introspection that can only come via looking through another's eyes. If that sounds odd, I wouldn't blame the reader, but it's sooo hard to put into words.

What I finally came to realize is that I am the common denominator in my life. While there are many things that can happen to us that is beyond our control, there are also many things that can happen - and do - that is well within our influence. Having a good grasp on the way things are helps. Setting attainable goals was imperative to keeping and building positive outlook(for me - of course). I made deliberate attempts to surround myself, in the thought, belief, and words of other people that I found admirable(those who seemed to have the happy, well grounded, down to earth life that I wanted).

Thought life to be clear...

For me, I think much of it boiled down to, and still does boil down to a single guiding behavioural principle... No matter what situation I find myself in, I try to be as helpful as I can. By no means am I perfect. I can be quite the dick at times, certainly. I also make and have made my own fair share mistakes. However, in general, I try to be helpful, do things that I enjoy doing, try to make at least some of those things practical/useful for improving the quality of my life. This included willfully separating myself from vampires(soul suckers). That was very hard, and still is. However, I now have quite the different outlook on life and people than the one I adopted...

Not sure if there's anything at all helpful for you in all that, but I wish you well.

Cognitive behavioral therapy doesn’t seem to be helping anyone here. — Noah Te Stroete

Well, I have a marked distain for modern day therapy.

Learning how to come to acceptable(different) terms with the same events is crucial to looking at the world differently. Looking at the world differently is crucial for feeling different about what you're looking at. This requires an other, and I'm left nonplussed about current methods(therapists and pills)...

...if one is depressed when one's experience is uplifting, then one is in some sense absent - not present with the trees and sunshine... — unenlightened

Indeed.

I suggest that you first figure out what incompatibility means... then re-read what I've said.
— creativesoul

And you know what you can do with that suggestion. — S

Suit yourself. Ignorance is bliss. Laterz. I have better things to do.

Of course it is. Science results in no such conclusion. — S

Again... you're conflating implication/entailment with incompatibility.

To be clear here, I'm an agnostic on the matter of the origen of the universe. I'm also a very strong adherent of Ockham's razor and the avoidance of unnecessarily multiplying entities in order to explain some observation. I work from the tenets of methodological naturalism, so...

:kiss:

I suggest that you first figure out what incompatibility means... then re-read what I've said.

Compatibility in the only relevant sense S. Not contradictory to science or scientific knowledge. You're conflating entailment/implication with compatibility.

I read somewhere that American public education is municipally funded-which means obviously, that poorer/under privileged communities will have less resources, organization, and whole mass of issues. I presume that European countries like Finland have a better and less discriminatory funding system. — Grre

Ding ding ding ding ding...

We have a winner!!!

Not all religious belief is incompatible with science. A creator of the universe that does not interfere is perfectly compatible. Many derive such from Spinoza. Einstein believed in a Spinozan God.

Einstein.

Many also derive pantheism, although I've read counters to that derivation. That's still the same point. Pantheism(God is within all things) is also not incompatible with science.

Read Spinoza's Ethics...

No. He's a behaviourist. The problem here, of course, is that behaviour is but one part of meaning, when it is, and not all behaviour is meaningful.

You've merely repeated (surprise, surprise) your heavily criticised prior position, from a prior discussion, which logically implies a form of idealism.

And there are counterexamples to this, but of course you won't acknowledge them whilst you cling to your position. And you cling to your position like Tara Reid clings to alcohol and fame. — S

Sigh...

You seem to be using the word "meaning" in at least three different senses:
Meaning as the definition of a word
Meaning as the interpretation of a set of ideas
Meaning as significance.

They all seem to get mashed up together. I think things would have been clearer if you had defined your term better at the beginning.
— T Clark

Bingo. — S

And yet a criterion for all meaning has been offered since, shortly afterward. There are no examples to the contrary. It's what all meaning has in common that makes it what it is.

When one attempts to take account of meaning by definition s/he will inevitably find themselves stuck talking about the meaning of "meaning".

All terminological definitions are meaningful as a result of the criterion I've put forth, including all senses of the term "meaning".

What's not to love?

It really is an odd state of affairs when someone is doing both, engaging in a conversation regarding meaning while arguing vehemently and exclusively about something that they do not think/believe is meaningful...

Well aside from all the love and affection being bestowed upon me, the bulk of the conversation is about something that they claim is not meaningful. What's the topic about again?

Well played. :clap:

So, let me just ask you this (as I am having trouble with it): does a game with rules, such as basketball, have meaning outside of its meaningful value in personal taste/judgment to so many people? Because I think alcontali might say that pure mathematics is a lot like basketball in that it is something like a game with rules. — Noah Te Stroete

Personal taste/preference aren't that relevant here. They are one result of things becoming meaningful.

Basketball is meaningful because it is existentially dependent upon certain language use, and that language remains in use. The same holds good with math.

I'm being reminded of apo by this sudden turn of events... this slide into rhetoric and personal insult.

Math is meaningful.
— creativesoul

I guess that you say that because you attach a value judgement to the terms "meaningful" ("good") and "meaningless" ("bad").

I don't.

Furthermore, fake morality often throws a spanner in the works. If you cannot view the technical term "meaningless" as morally neutral, then you will invariably look for meaning/semantics, where there isn't any, especially by design. — alcontali

You guess wrong.

It's not about good/bad. It's not about morality. Red herrings aren't acceptable.

Meaningless means lacking meaning. Meaningless things lack meaning. They do not have what it takes. It has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with what all meaning is existentially dependent upon as well as what math is.

Poisoning the well is not acceptable either.

I can make my own case.