What you are discussing, isn't the degree of badness of an insult, but the way an insult is transmitted socially — Reformed Nihilist

Well, quantity is inherent in the statements, both of which contain ''ALL''. So, asking the question which is a bigger insult seems natural. Most people think ''all men are fools'' is worse than ''all fools are men'' but as I pointed out, both statements insult all men.

Well, I too think my grasp of Russell's paradox isn't up to mark to continue the discussion into anything fruitful.

As for time being involved in logic, I think I'm correct. Contradiction doesn't make sense otherwise. Take for example the statements ''It's 2:00 PM'' and ''It's not 2:00 PM''. As a day passes by both these statements acquire values true and false. It is only at exactly 2:00 PM that, together, they become a contradiction. Also, note that when it's not 2:00 PM, the contradiction occurs. Anyway...time is absolutely essential for contradiction to make sense. In fact, Russell's paradox is reliant on time being paused to generate the contradiction.

Here are two links re time and logic, specifically contradiction.

1. Stanford

2. Wikipedia

There is no time and no causality in sentential logic or set theory — fishfry

You're wrong.

Illustrating a general tendency in applied logic, Aristotle's law of noncontradiction states that "One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time. — Wikipedia

Sentential logic is ''stuck'' at one instant in time or else the law of noncontradiction doesn't make sense.

Russell's paradox is totally dependent on deriving a contradiction, which implies, it's also predicated on time not changing.

I'm saying if we simply switch from ''pause mode'' (sentential logic) to ''play mode'', as we do when watching movies, the contradiction disappears because time changes.

that's Mad Fool logic, or MF logic if you will. — fishfry

:D I knew I was sailing into unknown territory. Anyway, be lenient.

A: The set of all sets that don't contain itself.

Does A contain itself? Yes/No?

YES:
1) A contains itself. Then A doesn't contain itself.

In sentential logic:

1a) IF A contains itself THEN A doesn't contain itself

NO:
2) A doesn't contain itself. Then A contains itself

In sentential logic:

2a) IF A contains itself THEN A doesn't contain itself

3) The two implications 1a and 2a are necessary to derive the contradiction (A contains itself AND A doesn't contain itself)

In sentential logic:

3a) IF 1a and 2a are true THEN a contradiction follows

Reductio ad absurdum:

1a and 2a are false

The connection between ''A contains itself'' and ''A doesn't contain itself'' is not logical implication. It's something else. I like to think of it as ''causation''. A contains itself'' causes ''A doesn't contain itself'' and the converse. At one moment A contains itself. At the next moment A doesn't contain itself...and so on. There's no contradiction because the two opposing states happen at different times.

One could think of it as a rule:
1. If you see X in the box, then take it out
2. If you see X outside the box, then put it in

X being inside AND outside is a contradiction. But the rule doesn't say that. It simply alternates the two states on a timeline, at different points of time.

Please read here

(Y) Thanks for the inspiring poem.

What I was trying to describe is the complexity of these moral problems. — Noble Dust

(Y)

Well, looks like we need a different metric to answer my question. Can you think of another way to decide which is more insulting, 1 or 2?

I stand by my original answer. — Sapientia

Imagine yourself an American. Take the two statements below:

1. All Americans are pedophiles
2. All pedophiles are Americans

According to you, 1 is more insulting because it talks about ALL American.

What I'm saying is 2 is also about ALL Americans, although it's subtle and not captured by the logical structure of the statement. How did you feel, as an American, when your fellow citizen was killed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks? It wasn't ALL Americans that were killed. Yet, ALL of America went to war. (Sorry to stoke painful memories here but I needed a good example.)

So, quantity fails to make the distinction which of the two, 1 or 2, is the bigger insult.

(Y)

The assumption that we can form such a set leads to a contradiction, — fishfry

IF you assume that ''set contains itself'' and ''the set doesn't contain itself'' imply each other THEN we have a contradiction.

But contradictions are impossible

Therefore, ''the set contains itself'' and ''the set doesn't contain itself'' don't imply each other.

We may say, they cause each other, with a time gap between ''set contains itself'' and ''the set doesn't contain itself''. No contradiction.

o - it is malformed — Banno

Another way to look at it. Yes.

By acknowledging diverstiy — Jake Tarragon

Diversity breeds conflict. Look at the natural word. Diversity: prey - predator. I think there's a good reason why birds of a feather flock together. Perhpas we can control diversity, harnessing its merits and limiting its dangers.

That this involves time is a function of hunger, not logic. Hunger changes over time, but "This sentence is both true and false" doesn't. — Banno

Exactly. But the liar statement can't be false, because if it is, then it's true. So, it can't be a contradiction, because contradictions are false.

The same reasoning applies to Russell's paradox.

A) The set of all sets that doesn't contain itself.

B) If it contains itself, then it doesn't contain itself.

C) If it doesn't contain itself, it contains itself

Argument B:
1. P......premise
2. P > ~P.....assumptiom
3. ~P......1, 2 MP
4. P & ~P....1, 3 conjunction
5. ~(P > ~P)....2 to 4 reductio


Argument C:
1. ~P.....premise
2. ~P > P........assumption
3. P.......1, 2 MP
4. P & ~P....1, 3 conjunction
5. ~(~P > P)...2 to 4 reductio

So, the connection between ''it contains itself'' and ''it doesn't contain itself'' is NOT logical implication (simultaneous) because it leads to a contradiction. Therefore, as for the liar paradox, there's a time gap between ''it contains itself'' and ''it doesn't contain itself''.

Can you make it clearer. Thanks.

Time doesn't enter into it. — Banno

It does. The statements ''I'm hungry'' and ''I'm not hungry'' contradict each other if made at the same time. However, as we all know, everyday, at different times they're true and false.

Sorry, I made the correction but it does apply to Russell's paradox too (I think).

Prutopia must never be about one size fits all. — Jake Tarragon

How then are you going to set your goals in Prutopia?

Goodness doesn't require misfortune/badness. If you insist it does, can you explain a bit more?

It's ok. Thanks

To me, both statements insult ALL men.

''All men are fools'' insults ALL men directly. It's like calling your entire family foolish.

''All fools are men'' insults ALL men indirectly. It's like calling your mother a fool. It's an insult to the family.

Which is worse?

We can't decide because both statements insult ALL men - one directly and the other indirectly.

One could, of course, say that it's unfair to fools to call them all men. — StreetlightX

Yes, I know right.

I guess paralysis is ensuing... — Noble Dust

:)

Sorry. There's truth in what you said. There are many sides to an issue. You were right in saying that my moral take on the issue doesn't provide a solution, at least not in the simplistic sense I had in mind.

However, I don't think I'm completely wrong about it. It is bad to derive any sort of satisfaction, no matter how small, from seeing others in a situation as bad as yours. Perhaps someone who knows psychology can dissect this attitude.

Also, it is good to be happy to see others are not in a situation as bad as yours.

Your take on this has been to say this isn't true - that the thoughts/sentiments I described above can be read in both ways - good and bad. Now, this view is only possible if you factor in things like masochism and sadism. If you want to do that, fine. However, this seems wrong to me - like ignoring the majority for the opinion of a fringe group.

So that, I could interpret the first as saying that one is not a man until one becomes a fool. — Wosret

Yes, a fine interpretation. (Y)

You raise a good point. How do we quantify insults? Here I appeal to the quantitative reasoning that differentiates ''dislike'' from ''despise'' or ''like'' from ''love''.

But you haven't. — Sapientia

1)Do you feel insulted if I call you a fool?
Yes.

2)Do you feel insulted if I call your mother a fool?
Yes.

Which is a bigger insult?

Similarly...

A)All men are fools
This insults a man because he's a man and the statement asserts him to be a fool

B)All fools are men
This insults a man because the statement insults a fellow comrade, so to speak. Like insulting your family (see 2 above).

Can you tell me which is a bigger insult now?

I would suggest that if happiness is to be the scoring function, then only happiness which does not majorly involve anything "bad" should be counted — Jake Tarragon

This is what I was referring to but this is only partially relevant. Your Prutopia must be sustainable on some basis. Your objective is happiness. What are the means by which you'll achieve it? The only instrument that makes Pruotpia sustainable is goodness. Why? I'm simplifying here so judge me leniently. Goodness ensures that happiness isn't ''bad'' as you described it. You're aware of the problem that's why you spoke of it.

If that's the case, why not just change priorities? Make goodness your priority. Happiness, ''good'' happiness, naturally follows. I don't accept the argument that we're good because it makes us happy. No! Because goodness involves the distinction between ''good'' happiness and ''bad'' happiness and this is crucial if your Prutopia is to be self-sustaining and not spiral into chaos.

How so? — Noble Dust

If everything can be read both ways, there's nothing to pin decision on. In a way, my OP is similar. We can't decide. Paralysis ensues and no thought/action is possible.

Why is the decision of which is a bigger insult something that anything should hinge on? What exactly is the hinge here — Noble Dust

Well, people seem to instinctively choose statement 1 as the bigger insult. This I've shown is a misconception. So, how do we break the deadlock? We can take it as a purely intellectual exercise or as I've shown, explore the question's moral, psychological, or other implications to make a decision.

Are they/do they? — Noble Dust

It seems like it. Why are moderate Moslems engaging in PR battle to restore the reputation of Islam and Moslems? Why do women dislike and speak out about men objectifying them?

I'm just looking at the problem from a perspective that has more to it than what appears prima facie.


Anyway...

How do we decide which is a bigger insult? You think moral analysis doesn't help. So, what's left?

I think the moral angle should work because I think the knife-cuts-both-ways argument of your is flawed. Your argument focuses on outliers and unique cases e.g. masochism and sadism. While I don't deny their existence, they're too rare to bear on the issue. Speaking in general terms, what good and bad, suffering and joy, etc. mean to most of us, I think my solution is not bad.

slightly tipsy — Noble Dust

(Y) Drink but don't Drive.

Your analysis is too, let's say, poetic. It's good - makes sense but it's romantic - impractical. I learned something new though. Thanks for that.

Anyway...let's say I agree with you that the moral dimension of the two statements isn't as clear cut as I thought.

If so, we're back to square 1. Which is a bigger insult, 1 or 2? On what other factors does the decision hinge on?

Again, I think it's a false binary concept that doesn't apply to the real world. — Noble Dust

Moslems are faced with the accusation ''All terrorists are Moslems'' and women too face such accusations e.g. ''all women are whores''. May be I'm oversimplifying it but the vilification of Moslems and the objectification of women are real truths in this world of ours.

Now, this goes back to my critique. Why does this matter? I don't see how any of this matters in the real world. Why does this question matter to you — Noble Dust

Here's my problem.

To me, both statements are equally insulting. Statement 1 does it directly to ALL men (doesn't require the feeling of belonging or brotherhood but its presence will amplify the insult) and statement 2 does it indirectly to ALL men (requires the sentiment of belonging, brotherhood).

We can't decide, on these statements alone, which is a bigger insult.

That's why I delved into the moral implications of both statements. Statement 1 can be mitigated through inclusion i.e. we feel better in knowing there are others (women?) who're fools and statement 2 can be mitigated through exclusion i.e. we feel better in knowing that some men are not fools.

So, from a moral perspective, statement 1 is a bigger insult because a man's relief is obtained through including others in the same bad situation (foolishness).

As for statement 2, a man is comforted by excluding others from a bad situation (foolishness). This is much better because it's a good thought.

Well, I don't know where philosophy comes in. Perhaps its more about psychology, decision theory, morality.

Anyway...

1. All men are fools is insulting but men could derive some relief by knowing that there's the possibility of some non-men being fools too e.g women. This mitigating factor is inclusive, as in men are comforted by the possibility that others may be in a similar situation. Psychology?

2. All fools are men is also insulting because there's no fool who's not a man. Think of ''all terrorists are Muslims''. Here the mitigating element is the possibility that some men may not be fools. As you can see, here men are comforted in an exclusive sense i.e. the possibility of some men not being fools lessens the blow. Psychology?

Morally speaking, which point of view is better? Is it better to be relieved that others are in the same bad situation as you are (inclusive above) or is it better to be comforted by the thought that others are not in the same situation as you're in (exclusive above)?

I think we need to rethink the notion of Utopia or Prutopia.

Is it really about happiness? Me thinks the heirarchy of needs is still not clear enough to formulate any plans, practical or not. To me, goodness comes before happiness. I know the two are tied together at a fundamental level - goodness is a means to achieve happiness and all. But, to me, we should place goodness above happiness and make it the primary objective of Utopia/Prutopia. Why? Happiness follows naturally from goodness but the converse isn't true; and where goodness is missing, happiness won't last for long.

This view agrees with the Buddhist point of view. Heaven is a happy place but the Gods, who have human failings, must cycle through Samsara. Only the truly good, like the Buddha, are truly happy.

This is the first time I've heard of such a concept so it must have gone viral last night if it is generally understood. — Rich

Well...

Free Will

Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of actionunimpeded — Wikipedia

I think they just feel comfortable knowing that it had all been taken care of by some supernatural forces. Very common among religious people. — Rich

Free will is inseparably tied to the notion of choice. Remove choice and free will is meaningless. Since choice-making is programmable, it loses the utility of being a discerning factor in deciding whether free will exists or not.

Let me give you an example. In consequentialism, good and bad are differentiated by consequences. I'm saying conequences simply can't make the distinction. So, consequentialism is meaningless.

Do you want to have faith in your own 'first person' experience or in the 'third person' scientific view of human nature? — John

Good question. Please read the post above.

I see.

But ''all fools are men'' say that the entire class of fools is included in the class of men. I don't know how to word this but what if I were to say ''all evil people are Americans''. This is not true but just assume for the sake of argument. Isn't ''all fools are men'' equally, if not more, insulting?

To me, 'all men are fools' is the bigger insult, because it says that, being a man, I am definitely a fool. 'All fools are men' is fine, because I'm not one of them — CasKev

Ok, but I'd like you to look at the problem as a man, a class, not as an individual.

you don't know if the cat's interference will improve the outcome or make it worse. — CasKev

Ok but that still leaves the door wide open for personal bias to creep in, shaping the uncertainty that you mention into well-formed beliefs.

God made me do it or Natural Laws made me do it is not considered a viable defense strategy. — Rich

Indeed, our whole lives are predicated on free will - we're responsible for our actions. That's why the justice system, and morality as a whole exist.

All I'm saying is, as is generally understood, the ability to make choices can't distinguish the presence or absence of free will because it's programmable.

EDIT: Free will and choice making ability are not connected in any real sense.

A tool follows instructions, humans do not. — Rich

Is that a categorically true statement? No, because it's impossible to know we aren't programmed. Think of God as the programmer and the human mind as a computer.

The computer may or may not have one of those, but if it does, it is apparently not capable of altering the determined course made by the program, and therefore is not free. — noAxioms

Brain:Mind :: Hardware:Software.

It's impossible to know the mind isn't software coded by, say, God.

The point is choice-making is programmable. That nullifies the discriminating power of human ability to choose to make the distinction free will as opposed to no free will.

That effectively makes free will an impossible concept to even think of. ''Free will'' can't be defined and is meaningless 4 ÷ 0.

(Y)

At the root of that series of choices are inputs over which you had no control — CasKev

Yes, I understand. What I'm referring to is the essential nature of choice in the free will problem. The way to distinguish free will from no free will is through studying the nature of choice. Choice comes first and then existence/nonexistence of free will follow. In short, choice is necessary to keep the concept of free will afloat because the ability to choose freely is a criteria to make the distinction between free will and no free will.

So said, computers too make choices and we all know they're programmed to do so. Therein we realize that the ability to choose loses all utility in distinguishing free will from no free will. And without this free will ceases to be a concept at all.

In a way, my argument literally destroys free will as an idea, even in its simplest form. Free will simply cannot exist as a concept. It's like a square circle in this sense - impossible.

You have that choice — Rich

But choice is programmable e.g. a simple code below is a choice making step:

If x > 1 then 4/x else goto line 10

If choice is programmable then free will becomes nonsense.

Ok

The butterfly is an example, not just a metaphor. — noAxioms

Now I'm confused. Let me restate my understanding. See if I got it right this time.

The butterfly flapping its tiny wings represents the small changes in weather variables. It doesn't mean that a butterfly can actually affect the weather.