Probably you could be interested on reading this article: Madrid plans urban forest.

Despite the fact Madrid is the second city of the world with the most trees planted, I am happy our Mayor is motivated to keep planting more than 100.000 of many species. I guess it is important not only because our health and living but to show how a developed European capital city should look like.

I really want to see more green in this picture of my city!

we need to be prepared for either taking more than a generation to happen — Isaac

Completely agree. Good point :up: :100:

Good question. I guess it depends a lot of how are the parents. Sadly, we live in a very selfish/dangerous world so I think is not so profitable to this kids being born...
but it these parents are good persons and teach to the kids ethics, values, morality, etc... Probably it could be totally worthy

Even for someone like me, with basic training in math and logic, this makes sense. — TheMadFool

I thought exactly the same :clap: :lol:

circulus in probando - a premise is the conclusion. — TheMadFool

Interesting argument and point. What we are talking about here reminds me a lot from Aristotle's syllogisms, but I do not want put it on the table because it looks like nobody likes in our modern Era the syllogisms at all (they are pretty criticised by most of the authors), because this is all about (in my point of view) of how realistic or at least how solid the mathematics can be in our argumentation.

it assumes certain propositions (axioms) to be true and builds an edifice of true (mathematical) propositions on them — TheMadFool

Exactly in this part, I guess Gödel and Ravitch concided. Those axioms or propositions are so related with the "realism" itself.

he is already dead... after 53 years of his thesis approval. — javi2541997

Update: he retired from teaching in 2019. Look: https://www.coursicle.com/lavc/professors/Harold+Ravitch/
So, for more than 50 years he was a teacher. Probably he has a lot of papers related to this

Thanks for linking the article. — fishfry

Thank you and welcome :up:

ps -- I noted that the passage you quoted about vicious circles mentions the problems with Dedekind cuts. I'm not entirely sure of exactly what they mean, — fishfry

Despite the fact Ravitch quotes a lot of interesting teachers or PhD’s, the language and technical paragraphs are so complex. I don’t understand some parts of his dissertation neither so is up to us trying to give our meaning as we are doing here, debating. I am agree with you, this is an interesting academic paper and dissertation. Imagine trying to debate with Ravitch himself about he was thinking back then, but probably he is already dead... after 53 years of his thesis approval.

How do we download our posts? — TheMadFool

Good question! I also would like to download my posts as a PDF file or something related.

But in fact that's an accurate account of a position Gödel is refuting, not thinking — fishfry

:up: Reading deeply the dissertation, Ravitch wrote that the main goal of Gödel was “believing in the existence” of realism (thus, mathematics). But, he expressed this context as a criticism on Gödel’s philosophy of maths. For this reason quotes David Hume about the meaning of “existence” and “realism” and then wrote the following statement:

Gödel is primarily concerned with the clarity and force of our conception (ideas) of mathematical objects. One can follow Hume and simply refuse to consider questions involving 'existence' in this context — Professor Carnap and Ravitch

The second is that Wittgenstein's notion in §201 of Philosophical Investigations might be applied here. — Banno

Interesting! Because according to Ravitch, who made this dissertation, he referred and applied Russell’s and Poincaré’s solutions of circle paradoxes, writing:

The search for a once-and-for-all solution to the paradoxes led Russell, Poincaré, and others to the observation that each of the paradoxes trades on a vicious circle in defining an entity which ultimately creates the paradox. — Harold Ravitch, Ph.D.

When I check the bibliography used in his dissertation he never mentioned Wittgenstein: https://www.friesian.com/goedel/biblio.htm

Nevertheless, of course I think we should consider Wittgenstein here because supposedly this dissertation was about metaphysics not philosophy of science.

About Camus, I have in my room “The Plague” waiting for been read by my lazy ass!

Beckett — 180 Proof

“Malone dies” is a magnificent play of theater :100: :flower:

very interestion OP, javi; — 180 Proof

:up: :100:



To be honest with you I only picked up not only the interesting facts I read but the one I understood. In such difficult dissertation of “maths” and “philosophy” together I have to admit I need to keep reading some books to increase this area.

Sextus Emipricus had done in the former. — 180 Proof

I going to check this out more deeply. It sounds so interesting because I like Roman philosophy or thinkers a lot :up:

I haven’t revisited it since then neither! Herman Hesse was a big influence when I started in philosophy as beginner in my school.
I remember my teacher recommended me “Siddartha” too but I don’t read it yet... probably I am ready to read a Herman Hesse’s book again :up:

You should read Herman Hesse’s ‘Steppenwolf’ — Wayfarer

This book is so good :up: I read it when I was 18 years old and changed my life for good. What a good writer Herman Hesse was.

What is your idea of self for you? Is it your physical body, mind? or the combination of both?
Which one do you regard as your true self, and why? How many self / selves do you have? — Corvus

The idea of self for me depends a lot of what Descartes developed as “cogito ergo sum”. If I think and I am able to reasoning, myself exists. That’s what I consider a true self. Perhaps the exterior or my environment cheats on my but at least I don’t have a doubt about my existence.

I think it is a very good question asking how many selves can be. It depends a lot of the people we interact with. Each person has different “selves” in other people’s minds. The word person meant in Ancient Greek “mask”. I think this statement says it all. According to how we interact with others, they would have a better or worse self of me as a person.

To be honest with you, I don’t know if I have a true self... and if I have so, I want to keep with me. This is a good treasure.

I want to share this cartoon.
It is about Spanish politics. The person with the yellow scarf is an independent politician from Catalonia, called Puigdemont, who literally says: "I do not have immunity I do not have immunity!" because the European Parliament removed his condition of deputy and then Spain could prosecute him.
Nevertheless, the person in the left is our PM, Pedro Sánchez, with a vaccine saying "don't worry I will vaccinate you" because the last month he and the Justice minister decided to put free all independent Catalonia politicians prisoners.

You might like this cartoon: — Amity

I really liked it :up:

I just checked it. The cartoon is so funny and how Boris Johnson appears as a Roman Emperor is grandiose.
Anyways, Latin has always been a culture study just for the elites, as philosophy for example. This is why back in the day most of the people were angry due to “lack” of studies opportunities.
But now... as you recommend me to read the comments in the news it makes me feel sad. The most valued comment said: “If YoU FeEl BrItiSh wHy NoT StUdY WelSh?” This is clearly a statement against European values and culture, or at least Mediterranean ones.

In conclusion, probably my plan of preparing ethics as a gift could be a big failure... it looks like most of the people do not want understand anything.

Which should come first safety or freedom of choice? — SteveMinjares

I think safety comes first. If we allow people act so freely they will not respect public rules and spaces because most of them do not care at all.
Wearing a mask should be as important as a security car belt as you explained. Delta variation appeared due to the big and quick infections among the people. The only way of preventing this issue is more responsibility...
Do the most of the people have responsibility? No so we have to act applying the law

Because I believe so... You would think I am a dreamer or a rookie in basics economics :death:

Exposure to more considered ideas is helpful, but considered ideas often don't have the same kind of influence on children that deranged, paranoid, hateful ideas to. — Kenosha Kid

True. This is why is difficult to pursue because every individual is special and their mind is complex. Nevertheless, I guess we both are agree with the fact that we should not leave these kind of kids “ flowing around” with suck negative backgrounds.
I do not know yet which could be the right phenomenon to increase more consciousness about this issue. I mentioned Taoism previously but you all are right that it sounds so doctrinaire.
It is sad when these kind of kids end up harming others. Here the State failed both.

Point being, hateful and violent behaviour is typically associated with irrational notions that are immune to reason, empirical counter-evidence, etc. — Kenosha Kid

Good one :up: developing into educational classes the abilities of having better notions and knowledge could be helpful too. It is difficult to achieve and this is why some people can be pessimistic.

I wish the story ends good Baker... :flower:

Thanks for the feedback Tom and also for debating with me in this thread I think it was interesting :up:

But on the grounds of what? — baker

On grounds that, at least, people do not kill or harm each other. Because what are you saying is a vicious of competitiveness inside the money makers. But it is so different when this attitude attack the integrity of citizens.

I can't see how you think children don't know what violence is. — Isaac

They can know it but in a very simple way... It is not the same when you are more mature and can understand it more deeply.

you seem to be promoting the rather heterodox theory that it's the former not the latter that's the problem. — Isaac

Understandable. So what do you think is the solution to this and why I am seeing it bad?

Why should children not get psychological help? — Isaac

I’m not saying they do not need psychological help but avoid it because somehow this tool is still stigmatized in our society... so I don’t know what can be worse the issue or the solution.

As long as we live in a capitalist society, the above is a lost cause. — baker

It is not lost if we believe in it. Probably in a capitalist Era is difficult but we can work together and establish some moral and ethical principles.

Yes, I guess it is positive to teach them what violence is without taboos. The opposite would make them blind. So if we take this from the roots we can avoid conflict situations in the future.
It is not the right way when we see a kid suffering of domestic violence and then say the usual: "let's put him in a psychologist"

Is a lack of Taoism in this kid's life really the thing pushing him toward following a similar path to his father, brother and neighbours? — Kenosha Kid

What a good example. First of all, I think this child has bad luck because he is raised in a very backwards house. We have to do something with this kid because is our duty.
Probably Taoism will not be so effective but who knows? What if we can expand his point of view?
Due to his racist father the kid never heard about Asian culture, so we can be there and help to understand the world is bigger than hate.

Yes! Exactly, because only in this way I guess it could be more understood (ethics and being a good citizen) in those young minds.
I am perceiving that Confucius or Taoism is not conceived good enough among the members. What I was trying to say is that probably teaching kids something so exotic as "Tao Te Ching" could impact positively in them. But forget it, I am dreaming a lot :death:

Agreed, but that's no reason to indoctrinate children with them. (There may be better reasons to do just that.) — Kenosha Kid

I promise I laughed :rofl: because my intention is not about indoctrinate them but just assure these ideas or principles are clearly taught in society because I feel they are like forgotten or something.

Why would you assume children do not already know? — Isaac

Because children tend to be innocent in these issues and complex aspects. Sometimes they are linving/making violence when they don't truly know what they are doing.
There are cases where children live domestic violence but they don't get the situation until they become older.

I think we need to look principally to the present problem and future solutions more than picking a past philosophy though. — Kenosha Kid

I understand your point but I think Greek philosophy or Taoism is not old because their principles are everywhere and I guess we can grew our future up starting in this area. We should never forget these old theories

.

We need to understand what makes people antisocial. — Kenosha Kid

Probably but being antisocial not necessarily drive us on being violent or having aggressive attitude. To be honest with you, I consider myself as antisocial but this doesn’t cause on me have the feeling or ambition to fight against another one or being involved in a riot...

And if Confucius and Chinese philosophy have failed to promote ethical behavior in China, why should we expect them to do so in the West? — Apollodorus

This is a good question indeed. It made me feel a feeling dilemma. If in China doesn’t work Taoism why I should believe it as a West citizen? It shook my head.
Despite the fact it could have their own debilities I still believe in Tao and Confucius as in Greek philosophy. As a globe with many paradigms, and then just probably the situation can change.

For example, what we are sharing both you and me is beautiful because we are debating different points of views without aggressive vocabulary. This is due to how we have a good development in philosophy and knowledge. Why not develop this practice as a normal issue?

So it seems that Confucius and Chinese philosophy was not much help .... — Apollodorus

Dude, it helps... The problem here is that the people is not caring at all. The example you wrote above increases my arguments. It does not mater if we are in Asia or West. Guangxi massacre is another example as Holocaust. Society acting violent because the lack of ethics.

But what could such a "solid base of violence" be? — Heiko

For example:

If I live in a backwards country where I cannot even go to university, it is acceptable and understandable to be violent with the government because it is literally limiting all my rights as a person.
But, it is not the same if I use violence as a normal/regular practice or even just to have fun. If I am in a mass and then I kill you because you are different, this is totally insane and should not be allowed in our modern Era.

The problem here is that people looks like not care at all about the government but confronting with individuals just to calm their own frustrations.

You think you are alone in seeing this - that you are somehow exceptional ? — Amity

No. I don't think I am the only one since the moment I share the same importance of avoiding as you do. But yes, sometimes I feel I am alone in this context or probably how I overact in this iusse. Am I sounding paranoid? Probably...

I disagree and think you are wrong to come to such a generalised conclusion. — Amity

It could be. I posted a generalised conclusion. Nevertheless I still defend that the porcentage of people not caring at all is big enough. Trust me. You can feel and see the violence and aggressive vocabulary everywhere. When you watch a football match and a random player calls to another an offensive word, everyone looks cheerful in it and it is disgusting as hell.
The masses are revolted and hesitated than ever. I guess we will not see a good pacifier leader as Muhammad Ghandi anymore...

There have been to many of those who were legitimated by history. — Heiko

It is not the same context... We live now in a democratic world. Probably in the most peaceful period humans ever lived by far...
Also, I do not mean about politics or revolutions. I am talking about violence without a solid base. Killing another person just because is funny or different from me... This is happening more than ever.

Extreme capitalism (with no reigns) — Trey

This is how literally you ruled the world for a century. I don't understand why you complain right now.
You say Americans don't feel proud and united? I bet you don't know Spain :rofl:

Join the :broken: Dreams Club. — TheMadFool

Already joined :broken: :up: :rofl:

think both children and adults know exactly how outrageous violence is. Victims and perpetrators alike.
When it comes to gangs involved in e.g. drug feuds and targeting pupils out of school, then the question is how to reach them and change behaviour. Why do gangs exist ?
This is not a new phenomenon - here's a history of Glasgow gangs:
It starts with a black and white photo of 'A gang fight on Tollcross Road, Parkhead in 1933'
https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/history/history-glasgows-street-gangs-tongs-12252432 — Amity

Thanks for sharing this article. Nevertheless, I disagree with your point that most of the people know how outrageous violence is. I feel like literally the young people love this issue. They are most of the time making riots and not respecting the authority at all... Covid is a good example in this context. Most of the people do not care at all. Instead of giving a good image as a young people they only make messes and chaos.
When I see or read a news where some young group kill another for no reason I feel how our education system is in a collapse. It is time to reinforce it.