did Plato escape from being a Don Quixote — Beebert

:D no

I see something:

Argument A
1. All dogs are mammals
2. No dogs are cats
So,
3. Some mammals are not cats

Argument A is valid from the Aristotelean standpoint given that there's at least 1 dog.

However, from a Boolean perspective it's invalid. The Boolean perspective doesn't allow us to conclude anything from the premises. I wonder why.

What if X and Y have different features? X is 1.2 m in height and Y is 1.9 m and a different set of features. Can they be identical? If not, then I do not share identity with the child my mother raised. — noAxioms

Personal identity is quite a complex subject. My argument skips the issue you raised and depends on uniqueness of identity.

What happens if we discover that there is nothing to discover except mechanisms and technological change? — schopenhauer1

At that moment the meaning of life will change

Because these are just two statements about dogs that are not connected — charleton

I think you have a point. Can you be more specific

Only that I was wrong. — unenlightened

I can't see where the problem is.

Delete

questionable competence of the system. — Bitter Crank

This is one more con against capital punishment. The system has to be perfect. If not innocent people may be put to death.

However, what about the moral aspects of capital punishment. Is it good to take an eye for an eye? The modern justice seems to suggest the answer is a ''no''. We don't beat a criminal for assault and many countries have abolished the death penalty.

There is no conclusion here. The premises may be true but nothing further can be draw from them — charleton

Why?

In Plato's defense, to ask the question ''am I dreaming?'' is an indication of greater awareness than someone who doesn't ask this question.

Ok.

What about this then:

Premise 1: All dogs are mammals
Premise 2: No dogs are cats
What is the conclusion?

But isn't quixotic predicated on some form of absolute knowledge - that sees the difference between the practical and impractical. That in itself seems rather quixotic.

You don't see a problem?

By what principle or law is Prometheus ever identical to himself? — Nils Loc

Good question.

The law of identity (one of the three laws of thought) states that ALL things are identical to themselves i.e. A = A
A proviso, which I think is necessary, is that identity is about uniqueness and that is predicated on one-ness. Put otherwise, two or more things can't be identical to each other because then each member of such a set would lose their uniqueness and thus their identity.

Another interesting thing...

Leibniz's law in logic
1) Pm (e.g. m is good)
2) m = n (m is identical to n)
Therefore
3) Pn (n is good too)

In short, IF m = n THEN what is true of m is also true of n.

The converse however is not true:

1) X has features a, b, c, d,...
2) Y has features a, b, c, d,...
Therefore
3) X = Y (this is false)

IF X and Y have the same features THEN it isn't true that X = Y. To illustrate take 2 cars (X and Y) of the same model. They're perfectly identical in every respect BUT being two, they aren't identical i.e. they're NOT the same car.

thanks

Premise 1: All living things are things that suffer
Premise 2: No living things are things that want to suffer

Yes, the conclusion should be, as you said:


No suffering thing wants to suffer

But there's an error. The conclusion distributes the class ''things that suffer''.

However, it's not distributed (it should be) in the premises.

That's the problem. A more easier example is below (uses the same form):

All dogs are mammals
No dogs are cats
Conclusion???!!!

No cats are mammals???!!!

Yes, could it be that Plato was inside his own cave, thinking he wasn't.

Maybe earth is a biological super computer. — ThinkingMatt

You're getting my drift sir/madam, as the case may be(Y)

The universe would in that case be an ignorant, brutish lout (carrying on with the mind-body analogy) fixated on a tiny planet. — Ciceronianus the White

Yes, different perspectives yield different conclusions. We're, as yet, not well-formed minds to deserve a status in the universe but it's a work in progress methinks. I think (fingers crossed) we can, sometime in the future, be worthy of an important position in the evolution of the universe.

I have always found the concept of learning for the sake of learning to be highly appealing, — VagabondSpectre

Me too. I wonder where the drive for this comes from. It doesn't seem to differentiate knowledge that helps survival and knowledge that is neutral/antagonistic to survival. As if the mind is hardwired to seek knowledge for its own sake. This fact makes my position more credible that we should aim to understand the universe.

I am talking about absolute truth. I believe Don Quixote is all men basically. — Beebert

Do you mean all men are mad fools? :)

16 fingers and 3 thumbs. — Sir2u

Can you look carefully at the maid's right hand. The finger(A) between the thumb and index finger is not right. If you zoom in you'll see that A doesn't align with the middle finger as it should.

From probability to certainty. That's fantastic. How does that bear on design argument for God?

The strong feeling of affection toward wife, sister and book aren't different. — ThinkingMatt

I think you're mistaken here. I don't want a baby with my sister and I don't want my wife to marry another man.

(Y) Ok

It may be rational to think that, but why is that the right approach? I still fail to see why different forms of love require nice tidy opposites. Numbers and love, for instance, are not of the same kind...obviously... — Noble Dust

My question is:
Why does Love have so many types and hate does not?

You don't like the number analogy so let me give you an example from morality. Good consists of many types and each has a distinct contrary e.g. goodwill - malice, kindness - wickedness, humble - arrogant, etc. It seems Evil, the contrary of Good is also well-differentiated.

Love of car is not agape... — Noble Dust

Agreed. But agape is just another type of Love.

Yes, there are different intensities of Hate as there are different intensities of Love. But Hate doesn't have types like Love has.

Just by occupying a different spaces they are distinct — Nils Loc

Ok but which one is Prometheus?

God gives X a new pain that he is unable to derive pleasure from — matt

Ok. Can you conceive of such a pain, given the evil masochist X derives pleasure from ALL pain?

my question is what's the objective in doing so? — ThinkingMatt

What is the purpose of a knife? To cut.
What is the purpose of eyes? To see.
What is the purpose of phones? To communicate.

What is the purpose of mind? To understand.

The objective is built into a tool's form and ability.

As understanding the world around you isn't the only or maybe the best tactic for continuing the cycle of life — ThinkingMatt

Yes. Philosophy is an attempt to better understand the world around us. Doing so is advantageous as better understanding the world around you allows you to evaluate more effective or efficient means to essentially survive. — ThinkingMatt

What do you mean?

Then that leaves us with the question of why we need to understand the glory of the universe in the first place? — ThinkingMatt

As you grew up didn't you feel a drive to understand yourself, others, this world, this universe? As the only species to be awake on this Earth, isn't it a duty to understand this universe?

Please demonstrate that not believing in god = eternal torment. — PeterPants

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. — King James Bible

:)

Doing so is advantageous as better understanding the world around you allows you to evaluate more effective or efficient means to essentially survive. — ThinkingMatt

So, why isn't everybody doing philosophy?

The thirst for knowledge isn't a need to sustain life - learning is a mechanism to better understand our environment as a way to improve our chances of to meet the four necessities I mentioned above — ThinkingMatt

Does knowledge of philosophy help to survive? Did Socrates survive on philosophy? I don't think so. In fact Socrates had to give up the four necessities to quench his thirst for knowledge.

Its just another interest. — Beebert

I think it's more than ''just another interest''. Truth is necessary for survival. For instance, not knowing that a gun can kill you is dangerous. I think this value of truth carries on into other domains of human experience.

If reality is all interpretation, then we should be able to change reality by changing our interpretation of it.

We can't

Therefore, reality isn't all intrepretation

Where instead, happiness basically describes a sensation that can be derived right down to our four necessities of life being met. — ThinkingMatt

The conditions you describe are necessary for life. However, as is obvious from the fact that you're in a philosophy forum, these conditions by themselves aren't sufficient for life. There's something extra that is required - the thirst for knowledge, the hunger for meaning/purpose, the shelter of a holistic worldview, etc.

A basic example could be trying to get a promotion at work. — ThinkingMatt

Read above.

When you focus right down to it, every single behavior and action conducted by not only humans but all living things can be sourced right down to a mechanism just to sustain the continuation of life — ThinkingMatt

Read above.

If this logic is true, — ThinkingMatt

It's not false but it is incomplete.

tv show

the sort of syllogisms you're messing with have recently been featured in a TV show (an excellent TV show) — Srap Tasmaner

Sorry to bother you but can you give me a link, if there's one? Thanks.

Is it possible that no one has found a meaning to life simple because there is none to find? — Sir2u

My OP gives ONE, OBJECTIVE & GRAND meaning of life. That should satisfy most people.

A child playing with blocks would be a microcosm of this experience — Rich

I think we're on the same page.

Good but false.

Nonetheless, if we're the mind of the universe, the universe is diminished. — Ciceronianus the White

Why such a dim view of humanity? Are you saying this from a moral standpoint? Even if you are, I think we're doing quite well. Morality is, what, 2000+ years old. Evil is much older. It's an uphill battle and we're fighting hard. Shouldn't that be a good thing?

(Y)

Don't you think we've outgrown the ''survival of the fittest'' principle? Math, philosophy, music, art, etc. aren't necessary for survival. Yet, they're legitimate human pursuits at appreciating the universe and/or understanding our universe.

It's good to have a realistic worldview but isn't the meaning of life I painted also realistic and includes our greatest faculty - the mind?

Humanity is a silly mess. Literally, who cares about truth? — Beebert

So, what do you care about?

That we are the Crown of Creation is not a new idea, but neither is the idea that we are a terrible mistake. — unenlightened

I know biology, evolution, has no goal per se. That does place us in the same rat race as bacteria or viruses - simply finding a niche in the food chain and trying to survive nature's caprices. This is one way to look at it and it does make sense. However, in this view, we ignore a crucial fact - that we can think. The unique abilities of other animals serve only as a means to survival. Our ability to think goes beyond living for the sake of living. There's no need to know math or science or poetry or music to survive in this world. The examples you give are proof of that. Our capacity for abstract thought places us in a very special position that confers on us a responsibility to take a step beyond the ''survival of the fittest'' principle that seems to dominate other lifeforms. We are animals, no doubt but we are also thinking animals and that gives us a purpose that is much much grander than anything imaginable for, say a bat.