I get you, but you seem to be ignoring quantity and focusing on quality. Life's full of ups and downs and you have to take both into account; not only that, you have to also caclulate and compare the good times with the bad. If it turns out that pleasure exceeds pain by the right amount, antinatalism wouldn't make as much sense, oui?

Micrometeroids! Like viruses, itty-bitty things that can do lotsa damage! I guess this is the small but terrible era!

We all have our little problems. — Mr. Hyde (Van Helsing)

A direct & succinct answer to the OP.

However, both are unprovable inferences from Descartes' intuitive introspective "I am" argument. From that axiom, we can a> optimistically reason that similar minds exist in the bodies of our fellow philosophers. Or, we can b> pessimistically conclude that nothing exists apart from my own inner world model.

Both can be argued for or against, but not proven empirically. Yet, according to b>, even empirical evidence could be a product of my own world-modeling mind. We know both possibilities, only by reading our own minds.

From personal experience though, my own intuition is not smart enough to make-up all the observed complexities of reality. So, I have to assume that those counter-intuitive ideas & opinions are coming from external minds with different life experiences. :cool: — Gnomon

:up:

Idealism and solipsism are derived from the simple fact that a world external to mind or self respectively can't be known to exist. As you can see, these philosophical stances are predicated on possibility (metaphysics) and agnoiological (epistemological) concerns.

impositions — schopenhauer1

What do you have to say to people who exult "Thank god I was born!" To be frank, I've never heard anyone make that remark. It just doesn't seem to make sense, oui monsieur?

Shinto — javi2541997

The Japanese eat fish?! So much for ancestor worship! — Anaximander/Darwin

Idealism: Other minds exist!
Solipsism: Other minds don't exist!

Something hadta go wrong! :groan:

Correct me if I'm wrong but your main point seems to be the unethical nature of thinking for others (the child who's born). True, if possible I would have liked to be consulted on the matter.

However, isn't antinatalism the exact same thing, thinking for someone else?

It seems similar to the claim that the only thing one knows is that they know nothing. — DA671

:up: Indeed!

Arigato gozaimus for the warning!

Either you're with us or you're against us. — G.W. Bush

The fallacy of the false dichotomy.

Perhaps there's just one rule without an exception, that rule being "for every rule except this one there is an exception". — Michael

Can you work that out for me, please?

The point to my argument is that the rule all rules have exceptions ultimately contradicts itself, leading us to the conclusion there are rules without exceptions. In a sense, I've deduced that some rules simply can't be broken (no matter what).

This imposes restrictions on God's omnipotence; s/he/it can't do anything s/he/it wishes (a corollary, a side note only).

I tried but desired to establish a connection between there are rules without exceptions and Hume's problem of induction i.e. can we prove that the laws of nature are the rules without exceptions?

The world is on fire!

If your quote of my post isn't clear enough, my apologies, Smith, but I can't make my meaning (& parentheticals) any clearer. — 180 Proof

No problemo! Muchas gracias.

Rules, in my humble opinion, are first discovered (descriptive) which then we come to realize are prescriptive. I'm referring to the laws of nature here. These rules (laws of nature) are usually impossible to violate.

Man-made rules, on the other hand, are invented and aren't inviolable. Such rules are prescriptive first and then, subsequently, descriptive.

The rule that every rule has an exception is, like the laws of nature, first descriptive i.e. we study rules and find out that the words "all" "no" (re categorical logic) have very limited applicability, due to special cases in which rules are (apparently) broken.

Dissociative identity disorder (DID), previously known as multiple personality disorder (MPD) and colloquially known as split personality disorder,[7] is a mental disorder characterized by the maintenance of at least two distinct and relatively enduring personality states.[3] The disorder is accompanied by memory gaps beyond what would be explained by ordinary memory issues. The personality states alternately show in a person's behavior; however, presentations of the disorder vary. Other conditions that often occur in people with DID include post-traumatic stress disorder, personality disorders (especially borderline and avoidant), depression, substance use disorders, conversion disorder, somatic symptom disorder, eating disorders, obsessive–compulsive disorder, and sleep disorders.[3] Self-harm, non-epileptic seizures, flashbacks with amnesia for content of flashbacks, anxiety disorders, and suicidality are also common. — Wikipedia

:snicker:

poisoning the atmosphere with oxygen — unenlightened

:rofl:

One man's food is another man's poison, oui monsieur?

Life has a dark history - we need to deep-six this investigative, detective mentality lest we discover the awful truth behind our so-called evolutionary success, our bloodlust to put it mildly.

For some reason being alive doesn't make me as happy as it used to!

Acknowledge the bad, but recognise the good too! Some wings are quite large. Doing so might give on the necessary resources to start working for a cure to make the rest of the body look just as good. Also, I would like to say (even though it's a bit trite) that true value lies within. — DA671

:up:

Just the other day, I was imagining angels and to me, they be grotesque, hideous in form, not exactly a sight for sore eyes, but they have beautiful white dove wings. I decided if ever I encounter one, I'm just gonna focus on his/her wings!

Influenced by the pragmatists, I look to our practical/technological power as a species and think that we have more than a grain or two of truth or knowledge or whatever you want to call it. Various neo-Kantians accepted the existence of a science as a fact and went on from there. I think they were correct to do so. That doesn't mean we can't articulate what's going on better and better, etc. And it doesn't mean we aren't in the dark or talking nonsense as we get farther away from practical life in our talking (so I sympathize with the idea that lots of metaphysics is pointless, not even wrong.) — Pie

I couldn't have said it better mon ami, I really couldn't have!

As you are already aware, philosophers are, how would you say it?, frontline personnel - I compare them to explorers and as we all know, explorers are the ones who take all the risk - losing an eye, even dying are part of the job description - operating as they are in what in the game universe is known as the fog of war. Hic sunt dracones comrades, hic sunt dracones. Careful now, careful! :snicker:

1. Every rule has some exceptions.

Ergo,

2. The rule 1 itself has exceptions.

Ergo,

3. There are rules (1 for example) that have exceptions.

4. Statements 1 contradicts statement 3.

Ergo,

5. Statement 1 is false

Ergo,

6. There are rules that have no exceptions.

What are these rules? They seem the kind we can use to build a robust system on/around.

So I'm reading Penrose, and all of sudden he explodes into excitement like a schoolgirl, fawning over complex numbers because they are "magical" and perform "miraculous" things, further spilling exclamation marks in the surrounding paragraphs about how he's only scratched the surface of "number magic!"

Alack, these be feelings I'll probably never experience!

A weak argument follows:

Time is Flowing Backwards

Chronologically, Buddhism & Jainism preceded Christianity & Islam (can't comment on Judaism).

Logically, Buddhism & Jainism succeed Christianity & Islam.

[My argument is premised on the ethics of these religions. Mahavira's & Buddha's morality are more advanced than Jesus' and Mohammad's]

Who needs a proof when one has found a truth?

Not that science can't confirm to satisfy our curiosity for a proof. — PoeticUniverse

Proof, everyone needs it! At a bare minimum, evidence.

Yes, reality is numero uno, but coherence is the next best thing!

As I see it, scientists and philosophers are both constrained by facts and the way their beliefs and hypotheses are expected to fit together. An exalted submission is perhaps involved in the pursuit of objective knowledge. As someone put it once, freedom is just living by norms that make sense to you (the right kind of prison). — Pie

On second thought, the reason philosophers tend to grab at anything within reach, the closest object as it were, when doing philosophy (of mind) is due to the fact that they (we) are by and large ignorant, we're in the dark and it shows.

That said, the efforts are laudable and there maybe a grain or two of truth in what is essentially fumbling (for the keys) and stumbling (towards the door with the sign TRUTH).

Bonam fortunam o philosopher! We must presss on, we must!

Never say never or always. I'm exploring the intuition expressed therein.

In some legal systems (guessing here so cum grano salis) judgment is based on general features (how similar is the case to others?) and special features (what is unique about the case?).

1. Every rule has an exception (premise)

1 is a rule, ja?

If it is then, necessary that 1 itself has exceptions i.e. $\downarrow$

2. There are some rules that have no exceptions.

Bartricks, I'm depending on you to sort this out. You can do it!

No. Like I wrote, "equivalent to a tautology" (i.e. self-repetitive, lacks information) because a "rule without expection" is inapplicable (i.e. applied in every case is applied in no case). — 180 Proof

How is it a tautology? Either I don't know what tautology is or you've got the wrong end of the stick. The former is more likely. Do explain if you don't mind, please!

Gracias for explaining Wittgenstein's views. Personally, I don't understand the hype around Wittgenstein. People have recommended countless number of times thst I read his work, but my gut instinct informs me that he's wrong about it all. If I am to be charitable as possible, I'd only concede that he's conflated meaning's, how shall I put it?, flexibility with absence of meaning in the conventional sense. In short, I don't feel the necessity to invent new concepts when old ones can be reworked to accommodate new discoveries perspectives. :snicker:

Since philosophy is abour truth ...
— Agent Smith
Is it? I thought philosophy's about folly (i.e. being unwise) – how to reduce foolery, how to unlearn foolish habits. :chin: — 180 Proof

An aspect of foolery/folie is believing in falsehoods, oui?

Fun fact:

Anadi has no beginning, but has an end ($- \infty$) — Wikipedia

In our world then, 0 is the smallest number in geometry.

What is the length of the sides of a square with an area of 4 cm²?

$\pm \sqrt 4 = \pm 2$ cm.

+2 is the real solution and -2 is, in high school math, an extraneous solution

However, I've always wondered about a (mathematical) universe that contains a most intriguing square with sides = -2 cm. A mirror dimension perhaps.

Wittgenstein claimed (there's an active thread on the topic, go look it up + there's a download link for the book Philosophical Investigations penned by Wittgenstein himself) that philosophy doesn't explain. I'm at a loss as to what he meant by it.

From a scientific perspective, explanations can never be true, they can only be unfalsified i.e. at best, scientific explanations (hypotheses/theories) are (only) assumed true until proven false. Since philosophy is abour truth, it looks like it has no links to science and explanations.

My two denarii.

There are rules that are partial and others that are complete and by that I mean partial rules apply in most cases while complete ones all the time. Both would qualify as rules, oui?

Observation > statement rather than statement > observation? 1. I see the table. 2. The table exists so I see it. Very simple example of the two. I don't know. I am just trying to make sense of this, how sentences relate to observations.

What is the approved process of verification? Can I demonstrate x,y,z? If yes to any than x,y,z are verified to exist. In such an example as, x's are blue, as x has been recorded to emit blue light (I am remind of science lab we were using spectro-analysis). Anything blue would be equilvant to x. x=blue things. So I could say the x is blue upon observing that blue was a quality of x.

I don't know. I have a poor understanding of the scientific method and deductive logic, and pointedly here how they relate to propositions. — Josh Alfred

Well, it all begins with, as usual, definitions. The moment I define the words "the", "cat", "is", "on" "mat", it's true that the cat is on the mat when the cat is on the mat.

:fire: Keep it coming!

I think Agent Smith has made the most intelligent comment in this whole dialogue. — alan1000

You're too kind mon ami, too kind! Merci beaucoup!

To give the devil his due, my hunch is it (discrimination against the poor) isn't intentional/deliberate - it can be likened to crime, but not organized crime if you catch my drift.

Again, like I've always said, the flaw is in the system and not the people. Can you blame people for taking bribes if their salaries/pay ain't enough to make ends meet?