There's also this:

The PSR precludes “brute or unexplainable facts” as well as effects without causes. It would preclude mere factual coincidence, one thing following another without reason. (SEP on PSR, pg. 3)

The PSR is not equivalent to the assumption that the world is a rational place open to our questioning. The principle has radical implications:
“Among the alleged consequences of the Principle are: the Identity of Indiscernibles, necessitarianism, the existence of a self-necessitated Being (i.e., God), the Principle of Plentitude, and strict naturalism.” (SEP, PSR at pg. 4)

The PSR assumes that the world is constructed with internal logic (reasons and explanations) completely accessible to humans. As we’ve learned in the last century this may be an unjustified assumption. Incompleteness, QM uncertainty, and objective randomness produce brute facts (concrete and abstract) that are just so without reason. If there are exceptions to the PSR then it becomes merely an interesting heuristic device –not a universal law of truth. But frankly, I think the jury is still out on what sort of truth we are dealing with here. — Unknown

Would the PoSR not be itself a brute fact? One of many I assume.

In case anyone is wondering, here is the article that @tom is referring to.

I think we might be using "proof" and "true" interchangeably here.

Hence,

Schopenhauer’s argument against proof is paradoxical: “This principle of truth requires no proof.”

How do we know it's true if no proof is required? If it is an axiom, then seemingly the issue resolves itself. However, even assuming that introduces metaphysical baggage, I think.

I believe he concludes the work by quoting Novalis or some other poet - "the rose is without why, it blooms because it blooms," or something like that. So the principle of sufficient reason has its obvious uses and justification, but, taken to an extreme, it ultimately cuts us off from the source of wonder that is Being - which, once again, is without "why?". — Erik

There is a hidden paradox here, which I'm reading about in the previous link I posted, if you're interested. Let me quote (I hope at leisure) from what I have read there, that I have in mind.

Let me know if you find it of any use:

But what sort of principle is this? Is the PSR itself susceptible to proof? Must we take it as an axiom of sorts? Or is it just a general working assumption we make in order to proceed with proving other facts or theorems of interest? Schopenhauer argued that the PSR required no proof, in the sense that one “finds himself in that circle of demanding a proof for the right to demand a proof.” (Jacquette, pg. 280) Schopenhauer’s argument against proof is paradoxical: “This principle of truth requires no proof.” This is reminiscent of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem which utilized a form of the liar paradox: “This sentence is false”. According to incompleteness theorem a formal system is incomplete if a statement or its negation cannot be derived (i.e., proved) in the system. Is the PSR a provable truth? On its face this appears to be a valid question. If we use PSR as a sort of axiom, there is no further proof required, lest we fall into paradox, as Schopenhauer rightly claimed, in my view. — Unnamed

This hits a certain "nail on the head". Marx famously had England in mind as the country sufficiently developed enough to make socialism a reality - he was very clear that socialism would only succeed once capitalism had developed productive forces to the required capacity (he seems to have thought that only capitalism could accomplish this, but I'm not sure whether he was correct about that). Russia was way too backward economically, as far as Marx would have been concerned, to provide a viable context for socialism - and in the long run that seems to have been proven, although things may have been different if Trotsky had succeeded Lenin (far from certain). Lenin tried to adapt Marx (theoretically as well as practically) so that Russia could become a model socialist state, but arguably failed. — MetaphysicsNow

Yes, (was the gift a nudge from China indicating that Germany is ready for communism, one has to wonder).

Anyway, I think China learned their lesson from Russia in their own attempts at "communism". Hence, why they took a mercantilist turn with their massive population that could provide the world with most if not all their needs. I wonder about the future that the core party in China envisions for itself. Will it go back to its roots or not? Time will tell.

How about a book club on Capital? Starting with volume 1 of course. I have some side-projects to put to bed before embarking on that, but I'd welcome the opportunity to reread it whilst having an ongoing discussion about its contents. I'll try to set something up over the summer. — MetaphysicsNow

Yes, please. Keep me in the loop if and when you get around to starting a book club on Marx's Capital.

Thanks!

I think I hit the jackpot (thanks Google!) in regards to contemporary views of the PoSR and possible criticism it faces in view of Quantum Mechanics, Godel's Incompleteness Theorems, and foundational mathematics.

Here it is.

Please build on this or reference other papers if possible. It's been a great interest of mine to understand the PoSR, which seems so central to philosophical analysis.

There are, apparently, game-theoretic Marxists, so I'm not sure why you believe simply being sympathetic to the use of game theory would lead one to be a capitalist. In any case, as I understand it, to apply game theory to economics you need to come with certain background assumptions about what a rational agent is, and of course for Marxists, there is no non-historical conception of rationality, and so they would perhaps be likely to suspect that if a game-theoretical model leads to capitalism as a choice of economic system, then the dice were loaded from the beginning. — MetaphysicsNow

If you would allow me to address this, I believe that communism requires a level playing field for all actors on the global arena. Hence, why I believe that the communism we have witnessed already have all been premature. This begs the question if we will ever be 'mature' enough or developed enough to move onto communism, and since (in my opinion) many of the attempts at implementing communism have been premature and unsuccessful, if this has soured any future attempts at implementing it?

Furthermore, I don't think Marx saw the role of the state and private enterprise in making credit ubiquitous for the masses to engage in capital intensive tasks. Is that a common criticism of Marx?

Finally, did Marx assume a steady state economic model, if I may ask?

I'd be highly interested in a thread on Marx's Capital if you are ever interested in making one.

Some scenes might be NSFW (mild nudity).

Good lord I posted my whole playlist (just edited that out). I feel naked now...

Assuming I understand Heidegger - a very large assumption - I read him as focusing finally on the word "is." — tim wood

That sentiment that I've heard so many times is one of the primary reasons for my aversion of reading him. Besides, I have piss poor concentration, so I doubt I'll ever get past the first page of his The Principle of Reason.

Diplomacy and philosophical principles.
Yes, I know. Diplomacy is the most maligned political move given the nuclear temperament. And so is mind over matter doctrine. — Caldwell

When philosophers become kings, eh?

Well, given that we require someone with at least some background of education, I tend to think that they can be reasoned with. Does that mean that we need less impulsive and more cool headed leaders? Yes, I think so; but, I don't know what can be done in that regard, speaking of the US, here.

It goes to the question of what the problem is. If it's fear, then there are various therapies. If it's the fact of big bombs as causing fear, then that's your personal version of polio, malaria, leprosy, the black death, gangs, bullies, guns - no end of things-as-facts that can cause fear. If it's the fact of a thing as a fact, then what fear? — tim wood

Just to quell the fears stoked in the OP, our collective aversion for war has kept us more safe than ever in modern history. People are averse to war and rationally, given nuclear weapons, there is nothing to be gained from it. Madmen are spotted on the spot and have a next to nil ability to gain power or influence. Populism, arguably is on the decline, and no sane politician is going to saber rattle another country, at least not in practice (politically maybe yes).

So, what I have posted is from the source of an overactive mind. Not to be taken too seriously. *Man, am I pontificating, or what?*

And are you asking on your own behalf, or on the behalf of "us." Usually, fear is personal, to the person experiencing the fear. And the dilemma is? is it how to live in the knowledge of facts that are unpleasant? Or fear that you cannot yourself eliminate the cause of? All of these are different questions that call out for different answers. — tim wood

I hope I answered my half of the question in the previous. What about you?

As to fear in general, if you mean a generalized fear that is essentially a fear of nothing in particular, that's usually called anxiety/angst/dread. Again, a matter for some counseling (which we all could use, at one time or another). I'm not calling you out, just sayin' I can't make headway in the face of so many different possibilities. — tim wood

Yes, true. I figure it's just some generalized anxiety of some sort, haha.

Are you asking about fear or the thing feared? Are you asking for yourself or for "we"? — tim wood

Could you clarify, as I'm not sure what exactly your asking? If you mean fear in general, I wonder if that is the cause for such situations to arise. If that is the case, then how does overcome that fear?

Just to go to the logical conclusion of my last post...

In many cases people with disorders (read distress) shut off from the world and don't want to have to do anything with it. To be quite honest, as a person who has suffered, I completely understand the desire to cut oneself off from the world and fantasize or indulge in bad habits or obsessing over trifle stuff. Even people without mental disorders live in a manner that shuts themselves off from the concerns of the world or their neighbors and friends. It's just easier that way to live in our modern society.

Why would it be idiotic? — MetaphysicsNow

Well, I have heard of only one case in my lifetime for whom their schizophrenia was treated via psychotherapy. Some people decide to live with their condition. But, the important thing is that they know that their thoughts are disorganized or in a constant state of paranoia. Keep in mind that these people we are talking about feel very strongly about what they're experiencing. In other words, it's very easy to get lost in the void of turmoil and chaos of an (I wince using the following word) "ill" mind.

Schizophrenia, which I can pontificate about here since I was once diagnosed as a schizophrenic, is primarily an anxiety disorder gone wild. That is to say that the schizophrenic (in most cases of the paranoid subtype) lives in a constant state of fear. Now, the issue is that the desire to control oneself is imbued by persecutory beliefs and the whole list of other disorganized thinking that a schizophrenic experiences. In other words, self control mandates an objective view of oneself in relation to the world, which in most cases can only be provided through a therapist or (yes) trough self therapy or put more bluntly "reality-testing". However, if the world of a schizophrenic or similarly any other disorder by extension is disorganized or twisted by said disorder, then the effort for self control will be mostly futile (I'm talking about people who authentically believe the voices they hear, which are 90% of the homeless population for your information). Therefore, the absolute need for medication to balance the 'flux' and then proceed with therapy.

No, I think I was just spewing BS. Just because I spent a year in college doesn't merit what I said about Marx. I had better read him before I mount any criticisms against him.

Isn't the first rebuttal of Marx, that he underestimated the power of competition? Given that I went to college for a degree in economics, I think it would be high time for me to read my Marx; but, am filled with so much prejudice over the years that I don't know if I can read him with an unbiased mindset.

Given my affinity for game theory, I surmise that capitalism will always be the first choice (in an uneven playing field, that is to say the playing field will almost always be uneven), as is establishing a monopoly the ideal choice for any firm.

Well, we can be prejudiced against antidepressant drugs or we don't have to. I see no issue taking antidepressant drugs if there is a clinical need that needs addressing Do you?

It's the fall back to medication - and specifically justifying that fall back by the argument that the actions are simply not under the sufferers control - that bothers me. — MetaphysicsNow

Well, I tend to believe that medication in combination with therapy leads to the best prognosis of remission. If one so chooses to not take medication, then that is a personal choice, though I don't understand the issue with taking medication, if there is a need.

I agree 100% that getting OCD under control can be hard and that sufferers might need a great deal of emotional and practical support. However, the medications that are prescribed in these cases are antidepressants which are not harmless and there are arguments to be made that in many cases the OCD symptoms are to be preferred to the side-effects of taking antidepressant drugs. — MetaphysicsNow

Well, yes. Ideally, if we could we would want to start therapy first instead of medicating an individual. However, due to the issue of cost and the powerful pharmaceutical lobby (at least here in the US), people are referred to psychiatrists instead of psychologists. Do I think that needs to change? Sure, just that the politicians in power assume in part your position in that depression, anxiety, phobias are individual problems, not social ones.

But in any case, the philosophical issue here is largely independent of our sympathy for OCD sufferers, and concerns the metaphysical presuppositions behind the notion of self-control and (as Norman Malcolm put it) the conceivability of the mechanicistic stance in regard to human action. — MetaphysicsNow

I don't think self-control will solve the issues a schizophrenic or bipolar individual might experience. To say that would be idiotic.

I think the motivation behind my position is that where the condition involves action, it is always possible to reason through it (even if doing so requires emotional support etc). That being so I'd be committed to saying that there are no conditions of the type we are discussing that cannot be reasoned through. — MetaphysicsNow

Hard to say. There are some conditions that are hard to address through therapy alone. OCD seems to be one of them that is best treated with psychotherapy and medication, from what I surmise.

Wittgenstein compared the definition of certain words to family resemblances, that is, there are many overlapping resemblances that fit within the descriptive universe of family members; and just as no one description will adequately describe all family members, so no one definition or theory of meaning will cover every use of certain words. The example Wittgenstein uses in the Philosophical Investigations is the word game, there is no one definition that will describe every possible use of the word game because the universe of uses is just too large to describe precisely. — Sam26

I haven't read the entire thread; but, words derive their meaning by the way they are used, and currently talking about NDE is grounded by convention of science (although, I think Quantum Mechanics and the 'observer' effect is changing minds about the issue) or the 'rules of the game' at play say that the whole thing must necessarily be empirical. So, what I'm saying is that maybe a new paradigm shift is needed to rescue the subjective validity of Near Death Experiences from the dogmatism of the empirical and whatnot to some objective and palpable phenomenon.

But, that gap will always exist, for as long as we can tell.

That part I don't care about, as it is a pointless argument. — Jeremiah

I think it's pretty important, at least psychologically or not, for many people. This entails, the desire to better educate oneself, which are necessary steps to fulfill your conclusion hereabouts.

Things like philosophy and religion those are the tools to bridge that gap, science is there merely to inform. — Jeremiah

Agreed, so science serves an epistemic purpose, utility, function of informing oneself, when making valid inferences. I don't think I can boil it down anymore than that.

So, what is this 'bridge the gap', which you mention?

I did not confuse facts and truth in the OP, and if you check there was a mistype in the post you just quoted; you were just faster on the reply then my ninja edit. Furthermore science is not a method that "optimally derives facts", it is a method for exploring the reality we find ourselves in. — Jeremiah

Fine, I won't get into semantic squabbles and just straight out ask you the hard question. Namely, if science is a method at arriving at 'truths' (as you seem to assert), then what method, purpose, or function does philosophy serve? The same thing, or something different?

I have no confusion of what facts are but I don't really feel like haggling over it. — Jeremiah

But, you confused 'truth' for 'facts' in the OP. If I want to make a valid logical deductive argument, I had better get the facts straight if the issue is about something empirical. Like the fact that Hesperus and Phosphorus are both the evening star.

However, I would like to point out that facts are not the only contribution science makes. — Jeremiah

So, what other contribution does science make apart from discovering new facts? Genuinely interested.

I am a student of statistics, a science that does deal out facts. — Jeremiah

Not quite following you here.

Facts are a result of science, but more importantly science is a method. — Jeremiah

Yes, so if science is a method that optimally derives facts and not truths, unlike philosophy, then why conflate the two?

Agreed. Hence, my next logical question, is, 'what are facts'?

So, since you agree with that, then instead of the false equivocation about 'truths' that is being made and befuddled other members, we can maybe deflate the issue and talk about getting the facts straight.

Let me know when you figure out what truth is. — Jeremiah

Yeah, well, I tend to think science is capable at arriving at facts, not truths.

I never said science was suited for every task. — Jeremiah

So, why not talk about the 'truths' that science is apt at answering instead of the ambiguity of what kind of 'Truths' it can answer? As everyone seems to think that not all 'truths' can be answered by science.

I am sure you believe that distinction is important; however, I don't. — Jeremiah

Well, some truths are contextually bound, like ethical claims, which science cannot answer or does not care to answer.

Why do some of you seem so resistance to the central role science plays in the pursuit of truth? Even the religious crowd sees its immense importance. — Jeremiah

Is that truth with a capital T or lower case t?

All non-scientific claims are by most definitions unfalsifiable, which therefore includes all the claims made by philosophers. — Thorongil

How does one know that? What criteria are we applying here to validate or invalidate unfalsifiable claims as 'unfalsifiable'?

From a philosophy of science point of view, that statement seems very disputable. — apokrisis

How so? I don't have much to go on about here.

Some people might think ethics is the prime purpose of philosophy. Others might target being. Or reasoning. — apokrisis

Thus, why the ambiguity inherent in philosophy, as opposed to the clear cut nature of science, which the positivists cherished, although fallaciously via the inability to verify the verificationist rule.

Morality is concerned with what is right and what is wrong, in general, and so this extends to include right and wrong in various logical processes. So the field of study which deals with correct and incorrect logical process, and acts to determine logical fallacies, is a subcategory of morality. This is why Socrates had to ascend all the way to "the good" in order to establish a foundation from which to attack the fallacies of the sophists. The method which supports this ascent is Plato's dialectics. This method involves an analysis of the use of words in argumentation, to determine improper use and the fallacies which follow, in an effort toward producing true definitions. — Metaphysician Undercover

Another epistemological gap manifest here is how do we know that a tool is being properly used in the context of some inquiry to the truth of some matter. The logical process, as you call it, is independent of this function, no?

I can see how you might think this, but it really doesn't tell us anything. In other words, it doesn't get us anywhere. I could say this about any virtually any subject. For example, my errors in mathematics, biology, history, etc, are due to gaps in knowledge. — Sam26

The whole purpose in a Wittgenstein'ian sense is to know the limits of one's knowledge as to prevent nonsense from arising.

This is one of the biggest mistakes we make when it comes to knowledge, viz., that science is somehow superior to other methods of knowing. It really depends on what we're talking about. Is science superior to my experiential knowledge of say, the claim that yesterday I tasted orange juice and it was sweet. I don't need science to make the claim, and I don't need science to know it was true. However, science maybe superior when it comes to analyzing what it is about orange juice that makes it sweet, i.e., what is its molecular makeup, or some such thing. So whether one area of knowledge is superior depends on a variety of things. — Sam26

So, we just need to know when one or some other tool is appropriately used in discovering truths about facts instead of another. I already outlined that science is one tool for discovering certain truths not all. The deeper question looming in my mind that I might not have expressed adequately is what tool does philosophy serve or to what purpose?

There is no one method that works in every situation, i.e., there is no one description or method at arriving at truth that works in every context. — Sam26

Agreed.

Well, isn't that some form of prophylactic therapy in your mind? To better address any potential future issues that may arise in your mind or in the real world?

But I can't see how either approach might be better; it can be equally unhealthy to turn to pessimism or optimism in those circumstances... again, the issue seems to come down to action. If neither approach can lead to real action in the real world, then?...But what can catapult action in the real world, when depression is preventing action? Again, not just ideas, not even optimistic ideas. — Noble Dust

What you're really talking about is change. That's hard to do through reason alone. Though, I am in the same boat, so to speak, and treat philosophy as therapy.

I only said that pragmatism is epistemically closed by the fact some position works. There has to be a purpose that was thus served. — apokrisis

You seem to have packed in some concepts quite tightly. Could you expand on the above for my simple mind to comprehend?

Whether that desire is for the good is another issue. It becomes part of the meta-ethical question being explored. You could take it as foundational - to the degree you have got a clear idea of its antithesis. — apokrisis

Well, it is the whole purpose of philosophy according to Plato, to want and attain the good through the practice of philosophy. I don't see how any progress within the field of philosophy has emerged in regards to that, apart from just squabbles about process based evolution of concepts or dialectics or the comprehension of the platonic forms, which always seem to be fleeting. In some strange sense, it would seem that what people take from philosophy seems always perverted or disguised as snake oil to the betterment of the individual promoting the 'good' in the real world.

It’s a corollary of starting a deductive argument. You have to start somewhere. And a foundational fork in the road is the most definite kind of place to start. — apokrisis

Pragmatically speaking you are aware that there has been little benefit in trying to state the objective from the subjective. Take the following statement for example to illustrate the futility in trying to do so:

,,There is no objective truth."

And that is also a reason for pragmatism. If you believe reality starts in the vague, then form is what gets imposed by the dialectic. It does still start in the either/or of a foundational act of dichotomisation. But the goal is then a resolution or synthesis. — apokrisis

Or maybe it's just all logical simples at play in logical/state space. Excuse me for that blurt.

I just re-read through, as I tend to do (because I tend to respond too quickly), and I think you edited this, right? — Noble Dust

Yeah, I tend to edit everything I post. For spelling mistakes and clarification of my position and thoughts about things.

It's interesting you bring up nihilism and absurdism, things that I don't think I would say are rampant on the forum, but definitely present. — Noble Dust

Well, they are strong triggers to the emotional aspect of human beings, especially those that display an attitude of depression or pessimism. I would call them the logical consequence of a depressive mindset. Since, they are based on emotions and emotive reasoning, they are hard to argue with and seem very real to the arguer. Hence, it is easy to get 'stuck' in that mindset and then indulge in the philosophers who also felt that way about life.