No I don't. I conclude that I exist at the time of my death. — Bartricks

"Premise 2: I am harmed by the event of my death when it occurs" . This premise assumes that I exist at the time of my death, which is also your conclusion. Hence premise 2 assumes your conclusion.

No I don't. I conclude that I exist at the time of my death. Jesus. — Bartricks

No, you specifically concluded that existence does not end upon death. That's specifically what you have claimed:

"Which means my death cannot be the cessation of my existence."

This is specifically the conclusion you've drawn that follows from no argument made in this thread.

Validity is a property of arguments, not propositions.

And a valid argument can have a false conclusion. You're confusing validity with soundness.

If a valid argument has a false conclusion, then we have discovered by it that at least one premise is false.

Now, I have a book to write and I am behind so I will have to reply to the rest of your squawkings later. — Bartricks

That's true, arguments not propositions. But no, you're still wrong:

"A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.

A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound."

https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

Bye, now.

I find no pleasure in that.

What? Death?

Charming, Hugh. — Bartricks

Hugh Janus, get it? He's clever this boy, but he still doesn't know how valid arguments work. Willful blindness?

Hugh Janus, get it? He's clever this boy, but he still doesn't know how valid arguments work. Willful blindness? — Janus

No, it's not willfull blindness. It's a complete tantrum in the face of being shown one is flawed in their basic assessment of a philosophy, an assessment upon which they predicated their entire view of that philosophy. Thus, dissonance. It's little mommy-boy stuff.

I find no pleasure in that. — Arne

That's correct. Death is the absence of the ability to experience pleasure. Thus, not finding pleasure in it as an experience is not to be worried about, ethically; there is no experience. But, of course, this can't be your only assessment of the greatest person to ever grace philosophy, can it?

Yeah, you may be right. I've had a bit of to and fro with Bartricks, and he is an odd one with a very weird conception of reason and what it entitles one to claim.

Yeah, you may be right. I've had a bit of to and fro with Bartricks, and he is an odd one with a very weird conception of reason and what it entitles one to claim. — Janus

Yes, by "conception of reason," you mean his own, fabricated use of the word which clearly already has a working definition. I call this conception of reason of his : Bullshit. Bullshit which I have clearly demonstrated to be guiding his consistently invalid and unsound logic, and with pleasure.

Bullshit which I have clearly demonstrated to be guiding his consistently invalid and unsound logic, and with pleasure. — Garrett Travers

Lots of fun bullshit coming from Bartricks. Also he wants to make sure everyone knows he has a PhD in philosophy. :lol:

He's a huckster and not a good one.

Lots of fun bullshit coming from Bartricks. Also he wants to make sure everyone knows he has a PhD in philosophy. — ZzzoneiroCosm

That is specifically why he isn't a philosopher. The Academy is overrun with social-constructionists, Marxists, relativists, Kantians, Cartesians, Nietzscheans and all other manner of plagiarised, deformed, Christian-Mysticism adapted bullshit used by the controllers to ensure a faith in a non-reality. Which is why I started this thread, to provide an example of a real philosopher, and the most important in the history of the tradition.

Nietzscheans — Garrett Travers

Just curious, what's your beef with Nietzsche?

Just curious, what's your beef with Nietzsche? — ZzzoneiroCosm

What's my beef with a person who theorized in so much anger that the only ethical frameworks that can possibly exist are Master and Slave frameworks, a demonstrably false claim? Who theorized that God is dead, knowing what that would mean for an immoral world, and provides no framework with which to replace it except brute/slave altruism? Who theorized that it was Godly to let people walk all over you, trample and rob you without protest? Who theorized that morality was a snare men fell into that ruined them and turned them weak and bitter?

Just about everything that he said that mattered, I have a beef with.


The guy was an angry, miserable, inconsistent, religiously obsessed, evil as ethical framework espousing, blot on this tradition that is the Human Race's greatest achievement, or was . He belongs in the same pit with all the rest of the useless vipers that have envenomed this tradition. That being said, there are of course some interesting things he said, some of them even correct. But, he is ultimately a force of wickedness on the tradition. That's why his framework can inspire Nazi's, and Epicurus' inspires science and peaceful societies. And, where the hour is late, and the spread of poisonous philosophical frameworks have covered the world in wars, massive states, religious zeal and mysticism, hatred for individual talent, and rejection of the primacy of the Human Consciousness that even now threatens the world with an incipient global conflict... Well, I'm afraid to say that I am no longer willing to be nice about this subject. The time has come for the complete rejection of all non-objective ethical frameworks of any kind, all metaphysical woo that implies or asserts the absence of reality, and all epistemological systems that regard the human mind as incapable of knowing and existing in harmony with reality. In other words, the complete rejection of all systems that have been used to justifiy the worlds greatest acts of evil and atrocity in human history.

The first person to begin this specific school of thought within the tradition, the one who directly inspired the resurgence of science and rationality in the Renaissance, the one who established the most peaceful societies that have ever existed numbering in the hundreds of thousands without governments, whose work has been used to predicate the first 2 Amendments of the U.S. Constitution which is the most prosperous society to ever exist, and from whom social contracts, communism, egoism, and Christian monasticism all plagiarised or forcefully murdered and stole their ideas from, and whose ideas now are our only hope as a species, was Epicurus.

Just about everything that he said that mattered, I have a beef with. — Garrett Travers

Reactionary anger and at times insanity. Sure.


Zarathustra appears to convey a more positive vision:

I conjure you, my brethren, REMAIN TRUE TO THE EARTH, and believe not those who speak unto you of superearthly hopes!

Nietzsche

Have you looked at Zarathustra?

What's my beef — Garrett Travers

As an aside, I think it's pretty hilarious that the autobiographical Ecce Homo is almost pronounced: A Gay Homo.

I'm persuaded, via what I've experienced and the little that I know, that the OP is on the mark. My hunch is that the history of the world, humanity especially, begins to make (more) sense if contextualized hedonically. The history of life is the history of pain & pleasure. I hope I understood the OP.

Have you looked at Zarathustra? — ZzzoneiroCosm

I have, my issue is inconsistency with his good stuff and his bad. That's realy why I put him in the pit. He could have been great, instead was practically schizo in his assertions.

I'm persuaded, via what I've experienced and the little that I know, that the OP is on the mark. My hunch is that the history of the world, humanity especially, begins to make (more) sense if contextualized hedonically. The history of life is the history of pain & pleasure. I hope I understood the OP. — Agent Smith

I'm going to be honest, I haven't been this excited about learning a piece of philosophical history in years, and I have maintained a passionate love for this tradition. I genuinely mean to say that according to what I know of history, this man was the single greatest contributor to our tradition. And his societies, the most peaceful and prosperous of the ancient world, were fucking murdered out of history. This man who laid the foundation of everything we cherish in the world from science, to free societies, I am unbelievably stricken with gratitutude for this man. And, I don't ever want to here a socialist open their mouth to me about communes for the rest of my days, I'm gonna let em have it.

I have, my issue is inconsistency with his good stuff and his bad. That's realy why I put him in the pit. He could have been great, instead was practically schizo in his assertions. — Garrett Travers

The first 50 pages or so of Zarathustra are a constant inspiration to me.

His reactionary shoutings down of effete Christian slave-virtue have helped a lot of sheep break away from the flock, myself included.

But sure, in the main he's a master ranter and raver, bitter, egocentric, etc.

I'm going to be honest, I haven't been this excited about learning a piece of philosophical history in years, and I have maintained a passionate love for this tradition. I genuinely mean to say that according to what I know of history, this man was the single greatest contributor to our tradition. And his societies, the most peaceful and prosperous of the ancient world, were fucking murdered out of history. This man who laid the foundation of everything we cherish in the world from science, to free societies, I am unbelievably stricken with gratitutude for this man. And, I don't ever want to here a socialist open their mouth to me about communes for the rest of my days, I'm gonna let em have it. — Garrett Travers

Epicurus got straight to the point. Stop trying to rationalize/sublimate; he cut through all the BS/noise that most other thinkers/philosophers were going on and on about. I like him for that.

a PhD in philosophy. :lol: — ZzzoneiroCosm

Seriously... ?

Also he wants to make sure everyone knows he has — ZzzoneiroCosm

Know? Or think?

Epicurus got straight to the point. Stop trying to rationalize/sublimate; he cut through all the BS/noise that most other thinkers/philosophers were going on and on about. I like him for that. — Agent Smith

It's more than that, though you're correct. Epicureanism is the philosophical platform that directly gave rise to rationalism, science, capitalism, feminism, abolition, Anarchism, Communism, Utilitarianism, Objectivism, cognitivism, and the United States among other things... I'm not kidding dude, this guy is the foundational source of all of these institutions. The institutions that survived throughout the entirety of the Hellenstic era in the face of Stoicism, Skepticism, Judaism, the Roman Empire, in peaceful anarcho-capitalist communes numbering in the hundreds of thousands until being forcibly removed because they're ideas simply could not be challenged and overcome through reason, and with endless attemots to do so on the part of all of those people. This is a next level lesson from history that unequivocally demonstrates that almost everything we've been led to believe about the nature of society is a fucking lie predicated on murder and the domination of the Human Conscious. Check out this history with me, man. This shit is the answer to our problems:

http://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/Courses/Spinoza/Texts/Epicurean%20History.htm

As an aside, I think it's pretty hilarious that the autobiographical Ecce Homo is almost pronounced: A Gay Homo. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Hehaha!

The first 50 pages or so of Zarathustra are a constant inspiration to me.

His reactionary shoutings down of effete Christian slave-virtue have helped a lot of sheep break away from the flock, myself included.

But sure, in the main he's a master ranter and raver, bitter, egocentric, etc. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yeah, I mean, I get that. But, when I read about how Epicurus' ideas established the most peaceful, flourishing, non-political, literarily prolific, reationally informed societies in the history of the world, and I compare that legacy to the mass genocide that Nazi's used Nietszchean concepts to justify, as well as just about as many concepts that stand in direct contrast with the Epicurean tradition; you must be able to see what I see, right? Like, if I objectively have those results to measure as a matter of a 500-hundred year ethical experiment that never devolved into murder, violence, and depravity, as opposed to 12 years of Nietszchean philosophy that ended in the mass slaughter of human beings on industrial scale, you understand that I can justifiably, and ethically dismiss whoever produced those ideas that motivated such behavior as, not just as a bad philosopher, but with the most insulting, ridiculing, and vitriolic epithets that I could find for such a non-philosopher, piece of dog shit? Like, does that kind of thing register to you, or to most people? It's like Marx, or Jesus, or Maimonedes, or Kant, or anyone's philosophy that has been shown to be used to justify the most evil things to ever have been done, ever; should that such people deserve ever to be spoken about in any other light than dismissing them as utter dog shit humans and nothing else? You see what I'm saying here?

Epicureanism is the philosophical platform that directly gave rise to rationalism, science, capitalism, feminism, abolition, Anarchism, Communism, Utilitarianism, Objectivism, cognitivism, and the United States among other things... — Garrett Travers

I would say all these isms and whatnot are a mere smokescreen, a blind for what's really going on under the hood so to speak. If you disagree, here's a take that may be more suited to your sensibilities: at the heart of all these points of view, these ideas, etc., lies Epicureanism.

Hehaha! — Garrett Travers

What kinda laugh is this? :chin:

What kinda laugh is this? :chin: — Agent Smith

I put that laugh down when I read something that actually makes me laugh, as your statement did.

I would say all these isms and whatnot are a mere smokescreen, a blind for what's really going on under the hood so to speak. If you disagree, here's a take that may be more suited to your sensibilities: at the heart of all these points of view, these ideas, etc., lies Epicureanism. — Agent Smith

Yes, but it's more than that. It was the only real threat to Christianity when it was a growing religion. Christianity was not winning that intellectual struggle. Constantine united this ideology to his empire, and the anger that boiled over in Christianity incited murderous hatred in all of Greek philosophy. Alexandria was burned to the ground and the Schools of Athens shuttered, because of the battle between Epicureanism and Christianity. Epicureanism stayed dark until the fall of Constantinople, when Christendom after a thousand years was finally being questioned again. In that very century within a decade or so, the printing press was engineered and ignited the Protestant Reformation. Among that which was being printed, were the teachings of Epicurus that still survived after a thousand years. And that ignited the Scientific Revolution: Newton, Boyle, Hooke, Locke, all of these guys were directly inspired by Epicurean rationality, whose inductive investigations gave us modern physics and chemistry, and thus the Enlightenment. Epicurus is all over the Enlightenment. This is all a big deal historically speaking. This framework is at the bottom of everything we value as species. And nobody has ever mentioned this to me. I've been studying history and philosophy for years, and never a word about this, the most important intellectual movement in our history. It is almost guaranteed that Epicurean persecution is the single worst mistake humanity has ever allowed to happen. The bible speaks of the fall of man as the pursuit of knowledge, when the fall of man happened because those very people who believed that evil shit killed and repressed the people pursuing knowledge, setting us back thousands of years in advancement.

But sure, in the main he's a master ranter and raver, bitter, egocentric, etc. — ZzzoneiroCosm

O how I wish that was a description of me! :sad: