Where is this given? — Noble Dust

Read this

If you have another definitio of the Devil I'd like to hear it.

Few things...

Objectivity doesn't entail God, does it? Science is, supposedly, objective and nowhere do they invoke the divine.

What does it mean to say moral values are objective? Do we mean that there are some truths, unchanging and universal, about morality? What are they?

As an angel that has fallen and now opposes god. — Sir2u

Well, I can show you that such a being is indeed a moron and also powerless. The omnimalevolence part is obvious and needs no further discussion.

To fight or rebel against an omnipotent being (God) is clearly a stupid thing - moron.

Compared to an omnipotent being (God) anyone, even Satan, is obviously impotent. Add or subtract 1 or 1,000,000,000,000 to infinity (God) and we're still left with infinity (God). So Satan is, simply put, as insginificant as zero to God - impotent.

So, Satan is an impotent, omnimalevolent moron.

What do you think?

The devil can certainly be omnimalevolent, but were he impotent and stupid he would be unable to perform the deceits, seductions, frauds, and misrepresentations necessary to dupe even the brightest human. — Bitter Crank

That's what I mean.

If only true things can evoke emotions, the story can evoke emotions because its existence is true. — BlueBanana

Well, it's not that truth (of existence) that has emotional relevance, is it?

Life is truly complex. We seem to think we know something when in fact it's just a part of the truth or worse just plain wrong.

Initially, I thought philosophy was about sharply focussed images but it seems even blurry pictures are of value. Do you think poetry is a pro or a con to philosophy?

The devil is not the exact opposite, he is a lesser power altogether. He is not a god but a fallen angel — Sir2u

How would you define Satan then?

A bee
staggers out
of the peony — Cavacava

(Y)

The existence of the story is true — BlueBanana

What do you mean?

I would say logic is an abstraction. There's no evidence that classical Aristotelian logic is part of nature. — fishfry

Classical logic can be understood as an approximation of reality. Just as Newton's physics is an approximation of Theory of Relativity.

I see no problem. In fact the world at our scale (size, speed, etc.) seems to obey classical logic rules such as the law of noncontradiction.

But logic, as an aspect of the human mind, is an abstraction. Like numbers. Like justice, or law, or religion. These are abstractions of the mind that become part of the real world only through common agreement. — fishfry

But, you'll agree, the ''common agreement'' is based on reality. Abstraction is based off off reality, don't you think?

Anyway, my main point is that no particular frame of reference is more ''valid'' than another. That makes simultaneity just an artifact of a particular frame of reference. If this is so, the law of noncontradiction, which depends on the notion of simultaneity, isn't a truth, in an absolute sense.

Of course there is such a thing as simultaneity. It's that silly word "absolute" that causes the problem. — Banno

You're right. The term ''absolute'' is key to the issue. The law of noncontradiction is aboslute, isn't it? It's supposed to be true in all possible worlds, otherwise classical logic, as it stands, breaks down to mush.

Therefore, there being no absolute sense of simultaneity, the law of noncontradiction has lost its crucial footing and it simply fades away into meaninglessness.

One could argue that IF we're in the same frame of reference then simultaneity is possible. But, which two objects can ever claim such a sameness? We're all moving at different velocities relative to each other. Given that is the case, no two objects can ever be in the same frame of refernce.

But what is time? According to theory of relativity time is relative, at least in our world. So if you are making statements involving simultaneity you must define the frame of reference. Otherwise the sense of your statements is not sufficiently defined and you cannot judge the consistency of insufficiently defined statements. — litewave

What does physics say about time? To me, it's simply a frame of reference for the universe. It moves in one direction, ''forward''??

No two objects can ever have the same exact velocity - there are too many variables to manage. Given this, it's obvious that no two objects can ever be in the same frame of reference. Thus, no simultaneity and no law of noncontradiction. So, fixing a frame of reference doesn't solve the problem.

The law of non-contradiction states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense. So if you completely define the sense of your statements, including the temporal component if relevant, and they are contradictory in the same sense, then they cannot both be true. — litewave

My point is without simultaneity, which I think you agree is impossible, there can't be a law of noncontradiction. You could say that ''simultaneity'' is meaningless and so, the law of noncontradiction is nonsense.

When they aren't, when they're timeless propositions, then nonsimultaneaty doesn't apply. — Michael Ossipoff

I agree that some propositions are ''timeless''. ''Timeless'' because nothing is really timeless is it? Even abstractions in the mind have to be thought of in a brain (matter). Also, let's leave this issue aside and focus on propositions about the physical world e.g the well known flashlight in a train thought experiment (you can google it). Propositions about the physical world are relative because the physical world is relative. The notion of simultaneity is meaningless in our relativistic world and without simultaneity the law of noncontradiction is nonsense.

What have you seen on that picture I linked before? — Vajk

An eye.

The faculty of vision, the ultimate sense organ; used as an analogy for understanding, comprehension.

The importance of perspective. At close range, it's just a bunch of blots of paint. At a particular distance, we see an eye. Go farther out and it becomes a point.

A painter's inner thoughts. May be s/he thinks eyes are a window to the self. It reveals a person just as it reveals the external world.

A complex organization...irreducible complexity...god?

Sorry, my imagination fails me. What do you have in mind?

So, will you be there? — T Clark

In one context, yes. In another, slightly late or early.

One is a principle of classical logic; and the other is a principle of modern physics.

It's like asking why you can't score touchdowns in basketball, or put hotels on Boardwalk and Park Place in chess. — fishfry

Well, ToR applies to Earth and Logic is an earthly thing. I can see the overlap of the two worlds.

Nothing is nothing.

If someone would say that ‘‘There is not even nothing‘‘ then perhaps I‘ve could say, that there is not even even.

Or what about this?
If not anything, then nothing is bigger then human ego. — Vajk

I fail to understand you.

Nothing is better than sex. $1 is better than nothing. So, $1 is better than sex.

Your point seems to revolve around the above fallacious argument. Am I right?

If you can be there, I'll PM my cell phone number and we can talk about it. I think we can achieve the required level of simultaneity. — T Clark

Well, by ''required level of simultaneity'' I assume you mean an approximation. That's fine.

I have to drive to New Haven tomorrow morning. I'll meet you at 9:15 at the McDonalds at the rest stop on I90 west right before the I84 exit. Ok? 2013 Toyota Corolla. Goldish color. Small dent in rear bumper on passenger side. Do you think we can do simultaneity? — T Clark

Well, IF we're in the same frame of reference, we can achieve simultaneity. However, from another frame of reference you may arrive at 9:15 and I at another time. No frame of refernce being more correct than the other, it follows that what we perceive as simultaneity is, to say the least, only a local phenomena.

Well, first off, as you indicate, the law of non-contradiction applies to propositions, not the world outside our heads. Not knowing the difference between those two is one of the primary mental, or at least intellectual, disorders displayed on this forum. — T Clark

This is a stretch but thoughts, propositions included, are, so far as we know, matter-based. Is it too much, then, to say that the ToR applies to propositions that aren't about our physical world?

I mean, in the time when I think x = 2 AND x = 3 (contradictory non-physical propositions), my brain moves through space and this simple fact obviates any possibility of simultaneity. This makes contradictions, which require simultaneity, impossible.

Therefore, unless one of the propositions is travelling near the speed of light, simultaneity occurs. — T Clark

The ToR is applicable at all speeds. It's just unnoticeable at our scale. Time differences at our scale may be (guessing) 0.00000001 seconds. Simultaneity, which requires a time difference of zero, is impossible. So, contradictions of physical propositions are impossible.

I would say that the part "at the same time" in Wikipedia's definition of the law of non-contradiction is superfluous. "In the same sense" is enough, because it also includes whatever is meant by "at the same time" (in the context of theory of relativity it means "at the same time from the perspective/reference frame of the same observer"). — litewave

First, the phrase ''at the same time is important for the law of noncontradiction. Take two propositions: ''it's raining'' and ''it's not raining''. If I say both at exactly 2:00 PM then we have a contradiction but if I say one at 2:00 PM and the other at 4:00 AM then there's no contradiction.

The problem is no point of reference is more correct than the other. There is no absolute time - no universal temporal reference. We could say, very loosely, that time is subjective and so simultaneity for one person is not for another. This means that the contradictions are either impossible or are illusions.

The 'truth' of a movie lies in its power to inspire us, to make itself into an unforgettable experience, one that changes the way we think about tools, machines and life. This is a thicker concept of truth. — Cavacava

I don't know. Can we play with the definition of truth like that? It's odd how the paradox depends on fixed meanings of truth and fiction and your solution tweaks them.

In a good work of fiction we suspend our belief systems. — Cavacava

This is very close to my ''solution''. We respond to certain permutations of things. For instance, a man slipping on a banana peel is funny or a child dying is sad. The truth value of these permutations don't matter insofar as the evocation of emotions is concerned. However, it (truth value) helps us decide how long we feel the emotions.

It depend, who made that definition I guess — Vajk

What is your definition of NOTHING?

For me, everything looks like this, and while I say everything, nothing is not an exception — Vajk

NOTHING is, by definition, NOT anything.

I don't feel any essential connection between emotion and truth. Beauty makes me emotional, whether it is fictional, illusory or something else. — andrewk

That's what I think too. Our emotional responses are triggered by, loosely speaking, the permutation of people, objects and events. A person in a particular situation is funny and in another is sad, etc. The emotional response is to the given permutation.

Truth and falsity matter only to our decision to continue the emotion or not. So, the paradox, which depends on truth/fiction distinction, is ''solved''. What do you think?

One more thing...

Do you really think truth doesn't matter to our emotions? For instance, bad/good news is always met with skepticism at first. There's a need to confirm its truth value before a person decides whether or not to continue the emotional response to it.

Can a positive mindset be based on truth? If yes then a positive mindset is good

Where are you headed?

Is it possible, that I see it differently, because while I hold (what you call) nothing in my hand I can see those ’’virtual particles’’? — Vajk

Yes, everybody sees differently. Can you expand on what you mean?

Growth why focusing on growth? — Scalpounet

What if we break growth down into its constituents? To me, growth boils down to value. If a product is more valuable (better than the competition in terms of efficiency, efficacy, greenness, cost, etc.) then the producer will experience growth. Viewed this way, growth is no more than a byproduct of healthy competition - an essential feature of a vibrant economy.

It seems to me that, being quantifiable, growth gets the limelight and thus the misunderstanding. Economics isn't about growth per se. It's about supplying ''better and better'' products to the market. This translates, mathematically, to growth figures.

Happiness is a feeling, and not a relationship to reality or to truth. Whether happiness is induced artificially or substantially, the happy person has no different experience in one way or the other. — szemi

You have a point. For instance when we watch a tragic movie we feel sad. There doesn't seem to be a requirement of factuality/truth for emotions. A lie and a truth both can elicit emotions of the same quality and degree.

But, what do you make of this: Experience Machine?

Even if it‘s not empty? — Vajk

Yes, I think empty space is a good analogy of NOTHING. Isn't that why we use it so often?

How poor or unstable to living conditions need to be where it is wrong to have kids? Do you think there is one? Does it vary? Thanks. — learner111

A Buddhist perspective...

Reincarnating as a human is considered a Golden Opportunity - undistracted by the pleasures of Heaven and the pain of Hell - to achieve enlightenment. It follows, therefore, that one must bear children, giving souls a chance to make it big - escape from Samsara.

However, lately, I'm considering the possibility that Hell may not be a place, as in distinct from our world, but a state of mind affected by one's circumstances. If so, being born in poverty, slavery, with a genetic defect or any other miserable circumstances is Hell itself. The argument then makes a U turn and Buddhism discourages having children if suffering is all they'll ever experience.

What do you think? Is all human life, as I said, a one-in-a-million opportunity at enlightenment or are there situations where suffering (poverty, disease, etc.) is so overwhelming that some folks simply can't avail of that opportunity.


Also, keep in mind that life, everything in it, is a work in progress. Present circumstances may discourage having children but who knows what the future has to say on the issue. May be a time will come when we would have reduced all suffering to a minimum - may be our socio-political and economic philosophies will correct the evils of the present system - and it'll be, as the Buddhists say, almost mandatory to have children to allow souls a rare shot at enlightenment.

Love, friendship, health, pleasure, joy, interest, fearlessness, conversation, fellowship, curiosity, understanding, compassion, gratitude, generosity — T Clark

I understand. It's something I always say to pessimists but they don't seem to agree. Why?

Well, one factor is historical - in a very short time-frame all of the diverse cultural and ethical systems are jostling one another in the global village. — Wayfarer

I guess it's a work in progress. I wonder how things will turn out though. Will it be reason that'll decide which ethical system will ''win'' or will it be power, cultural or military, that'll decide which ethical system will be universally adopted. I ask because Western ethical systems, religious and secular, seem to overpower other ethical systems. For instance, pedophilia over child marriage, etc. Is this trend based on rationality or is it cultural and military dominance?

I suppose one answer to that is that it is up to individuals to wrestle with these issues and try to make the best and most meaningful choice. After all one of the attributes of liberal democracy is supposed to be the ability to engage in principled opposition. — Wayfarer

What if the individual is prejudiced through religious, cultural and political indoctrination? Can we trust an individual to find his way through the moral labyrinth? The answer is probably no and this suggests the need for, as you said, an ecumenical effort.

So, if I hold nothing in my hand, I‘m not expereriencing it at the same time, is that what you say? — Vajk

You're experiencing a spatial form of NOTHING. Empty space is commonly used to convey the meaning of NOTHING.

May I ask you, what do you think about this? — Vajk

Please read above.

What else is it? It isn't ever anyone's experience. — Michael Ossipoff

NOTHING is nonexistence. Nonexistence can't be experienced. A concept, on the other hand, can be experienced - thought of, manipulated, etc. So, NOTHING isn't a concept. However, we do have a concept of NOTHING.

What is all this melancholy about or over? — Posty McPostface

I thought so too. It seems we're both wrong.

1) Philosophy is about being grounded in truth - that's the claim.

2) The truth is elusive and many issues are still unresolved. The truths that we can see - obvious ones - are painful: suffering, disease, poverty, death, torture, etc. etc.

1 + 2 = melancholy. The math is correct.

However, philosophers, at least on this forum, are a happy bunch.

I can't explain it but if you ask me, I think the relationship between truth and emotion, particularly happiness, is complex.

We are not geese who just fly South every winter and scavenge for morsels of worms without reflecting on it. We can see our situation while we live it out- the only animal to do so on Earth. — schopenhauer1

You're right. The faculty of reflection is highly developed in us. This leads to a conflict, between us and reality. We can project meaning, vague as it may be, onto this reality. Unfortunately, our meaning, whatever that means, doesn't seem to have a real image, something it can map on to. I think that's the gist of what you want to say.

Madness! A distinguishing feature of madness is losing touch with reality. A madman hallucinates and suffers from delusions - the point being that the insane have expectations and thoughts that don't match with reality. How then are your views, which are unrealistic, different from that of a madman?

I would query that view, it is negative and defeatist. It would be better to consider what ethical systems have in common - which is actually quite a lot - rather than to say that they all negate each other. — Wayfarer

Yes, I understand. I'm being negative. Philosophy has, to say the least, revealed important features of morality...consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics, all, unveil crucial details on what morality is about.

What surprises me, and I hope you have something to say about it, is why these various moral theories don't see eye to eye.

I agree that there is a point of morality here. But it is not in the doing, it is in the defending. The audience begins making decisions for Marina to protect her from the ambitious nature of the game players. That's the morality- they walk the fine line of letting her express herself through this game, and taking protective steps as to how far they will let the game go. — MikeL

(Y)

I completely forgot about the elements in the audience who acted to protect Marina. These people counterbalance those who chose to ''harm'' Marina. So, it seems, people come in many shades and without looking at the whole, everybody, we can't get the entire picture on a situation. Thanks for the conversation

I, more or less, agree with what you say. Marina was playing the audience...challenging them, prodding them, provoking them.

That said, I believe there's a moral aspect to Marina's work. The Muslim world doesn't allow women to bare skin. I have a feeling that Muslim men may view rape as the woman's fault...dressing provocatively, walking alone without an escort, etc. How different is Marina from a young woman dressed in revealing clothes and walking alone in a deserted street?

I have been pondering these questions for a while. Specifically, why is it that moral codes are different depending on where you are? If there really is a universal moral code then why is it that it is different depending on where you are? Also, where does Morality come from? Did it come from religion or did it come from our evolutionary past? I am curious as to what some of you think. — Matthew Gould

I've been thinking about this too. There are many reasons to be moral, to be good. We don't like being hurt, mentally or physically. That could be a basis for morality - a system that promotes and protects human (even animal) happiness and, in the same breath, limits and extirpates suffering. Another reason for morality could be as a cohesive force because without morality, society would be impossible. I think almost all moral theories can be reduced to the two reasons I've outlined above.

It seems, however, that these various reasons for morality don't converge on a single set of rules/codes. Even if they do, they contradict each other, rendering all moral systems pointless.

It seems that rationally speaking, to be good one must, paradoxically, abandon reason itself.

Actually, I think the quality of your input has increased considerably during 2017, if you don't mind me saying. — Wayfarer

LOL...thanks and (Y)

But then another goal takes its place. And another. It is not whether you achieve the goal that I'm getting at, but the insatiableness of goals, the neverending quality, and their instrumental nature. Also, its ability to narrow our focus so we don't see the absurd instrumental nature of the repetition. It's an opiate indeed. — schopenhauer1

What is the problem here? Circularity, not the logical kind, is part of nature...the planets revolve around the sun, biochemistry is full of chemical cycles. In fact I think cycles, of any kind, are an ineluctable part of our reality. Why point a finger at a very fundamental characteristic of nature itself and rue over it? I think this type of thinking, pitting unrealistic expectations against ''brute facts'' of nature, can serve only as a well of pain and suffering. What we should do is seek the truth and adapt to it, which you're not doing(?)

I don't know which is more absurd, life itself or people who think its absurd because it doesn't match their expectations?

It is hope that is the opiate of the masses. — schopenhauer1

Hope is expectation. Expectations can be realistic or not. If the latter, it leads to a downward spiral...into pain, suffering and despair. If it is the former then you're in sync with the truth - reality - and the cycle is merry go round. What do you think?

I don’t think philosophy ought to be productive - the wish to make it so, is part of the whole instrumentalisation of reason. It can be a waste of time, but that depends on whether it is achieving its intended aim - which in traditional philosophy, is the ‘pursuit of practical wisdom’, ‘the contemplation of truth’ and so on. They’re not productive concerns but nor are they intended as such. — Wayfarer

Hmmm...I'll chew on that for a while. Is this a case for Foucaultian criticism? Language, words like ''productivity'', for instance, influencing us - changing the way we think? Perhaps the word ''productivity'' is loaded - it seems to ''burden'' philosophy and other domains with a benefit condition for existence. In short, no benefit, no existence.

On a practical level, though, I find philosophy has helped my in my professional life (as a technical writer). Certainly helps with comprehension, problem-solving, and abstract thinking. — Wayfarer

I've learned a lot too. Not as much as I want but I have made some progress.