Comments

  • What would Kant have made of non-Euclidan geomety?
    Yes, I'm quite sure he would have. If he found out about non-Euclidean geometry, he would have tried to re-adjust his theories. — Agustino

    Why would an empirical discovery (an a posteriori truth) impact an a priori one? If a priori truths are determined by a posteriori truths, then they're not known prior, but post experience, and therefore are defeated definitionaly, not empirically. The point being that an a priori truth need not comport to an a posteriori discovery. Neither type of truth is primary or of higher order. And by "higher order," I mean more consistent with reality, which is noumenal anyway.
  • What would Kant have made of non-Euclidan geomety?
    ↪Agustino
    Meh, you miss the point. Kant says nothing of reality (noumena) except that it can't be known. Space is a precondition of understanding, but he says nothing of the true reality of space.. Quoting you quoting him:
    Space is not something objective and real, nor a substance, nor an accident, nor a relation; instead, it is subjective and ideal, and originates from the mind’s nature in accord with a stable law as a scheme, as it were, for coordinating everything sensed externally — Kant
  • David Hume
    But even there some folk are asserting that stats is based on induction. — Banno

    The validity of statistics is ultimately proved by the occurrence of the empirical event it references. Certain empirical events occur with apparent mathematical precision and are thus predictable deductively, but the gold standard proof is the observation. The odds of 100 heads in a row is easily proved with a calculator, but best proved by flipping coins. Only if the coin tosses match the calculator will the deduction be inductively proved true.
  • What happens after you die. (I'm not asking, I'm telling you, so pay attention.)
    ↪Bitter Crank
    It's entirely unclear how the non-physical mind obtains information while embodied, so the decay of the body doesn't bring on new problems. My guess is that once disembodied, your mind can float around invisibly, gaining all sorts of previously unavailable women's locker roomish information. That's what my mind would do I'm pretty sure. 1000 years of ladies showering. Might get old.
  • David Hume
    And finish with a question: if there is a legitimate inductive logic, someone ought be able to set it out. What we have seen is some handwaving towards statistical analysis, but of course that is not induction. It has a base firmly in deductive mathematical logic. — Banno

    Inductive logic: Every crow ever seen is black. Joe has a crow. Joe's crow is probably black.
    Deductive logic: Every crow is black. Joe has a crow. Joe's crow is black.

    It's set out now.

    Statistical analysis is validated empirically and is therefore rooted in inductive logic. Primacy rests with inductive logic, not deductive. Deduction doesn't even tell us what crows are, black is, or who Joe is.
  • Feature requests
    We need a chatroom. I have things I need to say in real time, not in the form of posts to sit there waiting to be heard, but things that need to be heard here and now.
  • David Hume
    Talk of inductive logic gives an undeserved legitimacy to making a guess. — Banno

    Surely though you recognize where induction ends and speculation begins. Rational thought, even when not limited to formal deduction, is relied upon not because it's our religion, but because it works. I open the door in the morning and the cat runs in, not because we both guessed we would show up there, but we both expect one another from past events. That is logic, reason, and understanding the world. It is the J of Knowledge. Why is Gumbo there? She's hungry. That's not a guess. That's a reason, the basis that forms the reasonable and rational.
    None of which should be taken as disparaging Bayesian analysis and other legitimate and excellent work around this topic. Unlike the philosopher's notion of induction, and even worse, abduction, Bayesian approaches have a strong standing. — Banno

    You'll have to distiguish for me the distinction you're resting upon between induction and Bayesian analysis. Bayesian analysis is simply rigorous induction isn't it? Is your objection just that you find people sloppily drawing conclusions with incomplete information and you demand greater rigor? You're simply the juror who demands more proof because you see too many other possible explanations, but you're not the juror (as perhaps you suggest) who rejects the whole enterprise of induction and refuses to draw any conclusions from it regardless of the extent of supportive evidence, right?
  • David Hume
    Neat diagram.

    Notice that the syllogisms under Inductive and Abductive are invalid?

    Giving them a name does not alter their invalidity.     — Banno

    I'd submit that not only are the conclusions under Inductive and Abductive invalid, but that the chart defining inductive and abductive is invalid. That is it say, inductive logic does not lead one to the conclusion that since Socrates is a man who is mortal that all men must be mortal. Inductive reasoning does not mandate anything, but simply suggests that which is more likely. It would not be a reasonable inductive conclusion to suggest that from a single instance we can draw any likely conclusion either. But, should we observe millions of men all of whom are mortal and should we never observe one who is not mortal, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that all men are likely mortal. Sure, one day a man might emerge who is not mortal, but inductive logic doesn't mandate there will never be an immortal person. Such is no different than any other scientific, empirically based conclusion. We conclude based upon the best evidence we have.

    And all of this is apples and oranges anyway because while there may be a limit to what inductive reasoning tells us about the actual world, deductive reasoning tells us nothing about the world. It tells us only about whether truth has been preserved from our premises, yet there is no suggestion (or requirement) that our premises be a truth about the world (e.g. all glurgs are gurps and all gurps are glomps, therefore all glurgs are glomps). So, you can talk about the limitations of inductive reasoning, but the limitations of deductive reasoning are more severe, as it tell us nothing at all other than whether we've correctly solved our Sudoku puzzle.
  • The American Dream
    I don't give a fuck if it makes you yawn. I'm not here for your entertainment. — Pseudonym

    Sounds like you do give a fuck.
    So America offers immigrants a slightly better deal than they get in the countries that Western trading policies trashed in the first place. Well done them. — Pseudonym

    America remains the country where immigrants want to come for a better life, despite very clear declarations they are unwelcome, and they do in fact find great success here. If they didn't, they'd stay home.
  • The American Dream
    ↪Pseudonym
    It's just a boring routine, arguing about whether the disparity among various races is caused by government imposed limitations, cultural problems within certain groups, de facto racism, or even genetics. After that discussion, which will entail you vomiting your hyperbolic claims of injustice, we'll be left with the remaining unaddressed question (i.e. the actual OP) of whether success can still be acheived even though some people will have less success than others. A Hispanic immigrant who cleans homes but who gets her child through college has likely lived her American Dream despite all the injustice, inequity, struggle and whatnot. In fact, I'd argue that her success is what makes America great. All of this is to say that I don't find your concerns about class injustice relevant to the topic at hand and your attempt to interject it here is similar to your injection of it in a prior post where the OP concerned the best car to buy.

    I get it. You think certain groups are unfairly disadvantaged. I don't need to keep hearing it. It makes me yawn.
  • The American Dream
    ↪Pseudonym
    Yawn.
  • The American Dream
    ↪Pseudonym
    It's the achievement of your goals generally, which would include some degree of wealth, but it would more likely include security, freedom, upward mobility, and greater happiness generally. I'd imagine it's subjective and variable from person to person. If you're currently living the life you desire (more or less), I'd call you successful, even if not wealthy.
  • The American Dream
    The American dream says that if you want to get rich all you have to do is work hard. — Pseudonym

    No it doesn't. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Dream

    The American dream says that success is achieved through hard work. It doesn't say everyone will be rich or even expect to be rich. It is the reason immigrants flock to the US despite leaving everything known and familiar to a nation not entirely welcoming them.

    The opportunity is in the US, often unrecognized by those borne into it who are more interested in complaining than appreciating the sea of wealth and opportunity they are truly blessed to be swimming in.
  • Therapeutical philosophy?
    Think of that feeling of a Saturday with nothing to do- you worked all week, you are not with anyone in particular, you join a group but still feel alone, you read a bit, write some ideas down, work out some puzzles, but there is that sense of lack. What are you even working and maintaining for in the first place? — schopenhauer1

    You describe your angst in terms of lonliness, offering the implied solution that meaning is derived through relationships with other people, perhaps even those similarly angst ridden. You just need a hug it seems.
  • Inability to cope with Life
    My dog Fred has never been alone. He was crammed in there with 7 siblings.
  • Sports Car Enthusiasts
    A car story:

    The side blinker assembly popped out of my car. Maybe I ran up against something. I don't know. A few weeks later a kid ran into the side of my car where the blinker was popped out. So now his insurance will cover the entire repair.

    When you're as good as me, you look forward to karmic paybacks.
  • Sports Car Enthusiasts
    Brilliant, I didn't think philosophy was that easy... All those wasted years. All right here goes.

    I do think Sam's car purchase would have a measurable impact.
    I think if you were hypocritical that would make you wrong.
    I think egalitarianism as a solution to poverty is logical.
    I don't think the cure for poverty is for the wealthy to get more wealthy.
    I think an egalitarian stopping point isn't arbitrary.
    I don't think it would be fine if people gave until they were completely impoverished I think it would be silly.
    (I don't refuse work, I give my excess to charity, usually Survival International, to help those Congolese bushman you're so fond of)
    And I think Sam shouldn't buy another car.

    You're right it's so much easier without having to bother presenting any logical arguments.     — Pseudonym

    You act as if your assertions have some firmer basis than mine. But let's go through these.

    1. What is the measurement of Sam's vehicle purchase. How much more carbon emissions do you expect and what impact do you think it will have?
    2. It is a logical fallacy to attack the speaker's hypocrisy as a basis that their position is incorrect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
    3. Granting everyone equal rights (egalitarianism) will not eliminate poverty. Not everyone owes their poverty to not having equal rights.
    4. This is a strawman. I didn't say allowing the wealthy the ability to get wealthier would cure poverty. I presented the tautology that poverty is cured with wealth.
    5. An egalitarian stopping point is how you intend to define when you should stop giving, suggesting that when you've reached the arbitrary mean, you've given enough. I'm not judging your generosity, but I see that as no more or less arbitrary than tithing 10%.
    6. Some people do give to the point of poverty, with some taking a vow of poverty. That you think it's silly isn't based upon any philosophical basis. It's just you disagree. I have no problem with people giving whatever they want.
    7. I don't care how you give, but it's good you do.

    I don't care if Sam buys another car, but I do think he should do what he wants.
  • Sports Car Enthusiasts
    Cradle-to-grave, electric cars are better for the environment in most places in the world depending on the power plant generating the electricity and further improving due to development in battery efficiency. — Benkei

    It does seem to depend on a number of factors, including the power plant, but also on the manufacturing process and battery disposal issues. http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph240/lambilliotte2/
  • Sports Car Enthusiasts
    Apparently the average person is a 28 year old Han Chinese man, is right-handed, makes less than $12,000 per year, and has a mobile phone but no bank account. It doesn't say, but I suspect he owns a computer.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1362709/Typical-human-face-28-year-old-Chinese-man.html

    Edit: Although it looks like it uses the mode rather than the mean.     — Michael
    To be in the upper 1% of income globally, you'd need to make $34,000 per year.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2082385/We-1--You-need-34k-income-global-elite--half-worlds-richest-live-U-S.html

    38% of the households in the world own a computer. http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/03/19/internet-seen-as-positive-influence-on-education-but-negative-influence-on-morality-in-emerging-and-developing-nations/technology-report-15/
  • Sports Car Enthusiasts
    By what standards? Many well respected ethicists and even quite a few economists would disagree with you. You can't have a concept of 'acceptable resource use' without 'unacceptable resource use' so what would be unacceptable and why? — Pseudonym

    Any standard is going to be arbitrary. What I'll say is that Sam's car purchase will have no measurable impact on anyone.
    If he honestly expected an uncritical conversation about the merits of different sports cars from a community of philosophers I can only imagine he's never met a philosopher. — Pseudonym

    I do think the conversation is off point, and whether one should expect an off point conversation with a philosopher I guess depends on the philosopher. It's like the annoying guy at the Thanksgiving table who insists he can't give thanks while others suffer.
    As I said, I'm not an idiot I'm hardly going to start critiquing other people's morality without ensuring I've met those standards myself. — Pseudonym

    If you didn't adhere to the standards you set, you'd be a hypocrite, not an idiot, and just because you might be hypocritical wouldn't make you wrong.
    As Parfait points out, we cannot just keep giving all the while there exists someone less well off than ourselves otherwise we will end up in a perpetual cycle of giving. We would eventually end up the one who was worst off, someone would have to give to use, who would then be the worst off, and so on.

    Parfit, and dozens of ethicists after him, recognised that the only logical way out of this is to focus not on relative poverty, but on equality. That's why I ensure my income (and therefore expenditure) is no greater than the average (in price equivalent dollars, according to the World Bank figures). That way I'm not using more than my fair share of the world's resources as measured by their economic value. To go any further would enter Parfit's cycle of giving.     — Pseudonym

    That solution is illogical if the goal is the eradication of poverty. The cure for poverty is wealth, which would mean that if you made more money, you could give more money, which is precisely why the US provides so much charity to the rest of the world. I guess if you want to give until you've reduced your wealth to the average wealth of the community, you could, but that'd be an arbitrary point to stop giving. Some might give until they're completely impoverished, which would be fine if that's what they wanted to do. At any rate, if I'm looking for securing financial help for the poor, I'd be likely to turn to those who've not artificially limited their income to that of the mean, but I'd look for those with more expendable wealth. I also find it hard to follow how you limit your income. Do you refuse raises or take jobs that don't fully take advantage of your talents so that you can keep yourself making less?

    But what I really think, in terms of the OP, is that Sam ought to buy the fastest, coolest car he can reasonably afford and he can let his gray hair fly around as he accelerates from 0-60 in 4 seconds.
  • Sports Car Enthusiasts
    ↪TimeLine
    I wanted you to note that in my recent post to Pseudonym, I said "the truth is that you're fabulously wealthy, with your carbon footprint greatly exceeding the Congolese."
  • Sports Car Enthusiasts
    I don't know if you're being deliberately polemic, but I don't understand your argument at all. You seem to be saying that because all our purchasing choices involve some degree of unnecessary resource use we should abandon all attempts to limit their impact. All wars kill people so should be we abandon any attempt to minimise wars? All our actions have impacts, no matter how small. Moral consideration is about minimising those impacts, we don't abandon the project just because we can't eliminate them altogether. — Pseudonym

    I'm saying that the purchase and use of a sports car is within the acceptable limits of resource use as is your use of your computer. If Sam didn't buy that sports car and if no one bought sports cars we'd be no better off. In fact, it's not even clear that electric cars are any better for the environment than gas powered ones. And what we have here is a sidetracking of a conversation where Sam wanted advice on the best car to get and you decided a good lecture was in order.

    As to me, the computer is second hand, it's powered by electricity from renewable sources and purchased from my earnings which I maintain at or below the global average. — Pseudonym

    I doubt the average person globally owns a computer. While you might feel your resources are limited compared to those closest to you, the truth is that you're fabulously wealthy, with your carbon footprint greatly exceeding the Congolese. It's disgusting really how you flaunt your wealth and burn the resources that the bushmen would never think to destroy.
  • Sports Car Enthusiasts
    ↪Pseudonym
    What I'm saying is that all purchasing decisions involve consumption and most purchasing decisions are not out of necessity. If I buy a dog, the chain of consumption from my having to work for the money to buy him, to buying a car to transport him to the vet, to buying him food that had to be processed somewhere, to having a vet treat him that had to be trained somewhere, and on and on and on. So, unless we limit ourselves to the truly necessary, we could not justify any other purchase. And why are you typing on your computer? You don't need it and the amount of industrial waste expended making it is destroying my planet.
  • Sports Car Enthusiasts
    ↪Pseudonym
    Your suggestion that the purchase of a sports car is immoral gets nothing more than an eye roll. So move along and feel superior.
  • Sports Car Enthusiasts
    If I had the money, I would love to have one of those cars. Just so you know, a man can still be a man despite driving a canary yellow Holden Barina. It is the utility of the car, whether you will save money in the long run, whether it can hold its value should you decide to sell later, insurance, safety etc. — TimeLine
    All that you say is true, and I personally look to those practical issues when buying cars, but it's all a matter of priority and taste, and it just seems our beleagured poster is being asked to defend himself for simply having the extra money to spend as he wishes.

    Just because I buy used shoes, for example, doesn't mean you should. And you could wear used combat boots, and you'd still be just as lovely, but maybe you need [insert designer brand here] for some feminine reason that seems as silly to men as it feels to you when you see a man in a sports car. It's just boyz being boyz and girlz being girlz.
    Meanie. — TimeLine

    augeu2jxbra9qktk.jpg
  • Sports Car Enthusiasts
    Here's an idea, how about just sticking to the one car instead of fucking up the planet for the rest of us? — Pseudonym

    Why would having two cars fuck up the planet faster? You can only drive one at a time.
  • Sports Car Enthusiasts
    But, I would drive a Ford Focus or a Mazda 3 because it has the highest safety rating, economical, and I am not a rally driver to need anything fancy. — TimeLine

    He wasn't seeking advice on finding a car that could make him yawn the fastest.
  • Implications of Intelligent Design
    ↪Rich
    Why do you capitalize "Life"?
  • Implications of Intelligent Design
    ↪CasKev
    I don't follow how the poll follows the substance of the post. But to the question posed in the post, if instead of insisting that every event has a cause, you state that every event has a purpose, you are setting forth the basis of religious doctrine. It inserts meaning into life as it indicates higher purpose and a reason for our being in existence.
  • Please allow upvoting and downvoting
    ↪Baden
    Still at a loss, but a sudden hankering for the Sunday Indian buffet has overwhelmed me. I might head over there if the boy's up for it. Thumbs up for the suggestion.
  • Please allow upvoting and downvoting
    ↪Baden
    I got nothing. Help a slow brother out.
  • Please allow upvoting and downvoting
    ↪Baden
    Aren't we being rebellious.
  • Please allow upvoting and downvoting
    The problem is that I have lackeys like Baden who will upvote everything I say to curry favor. It's more embarrassing than flattering.
  • Beautiful Things
    Of course men can be beautiful. — Bitter Crank
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/147591
  • It is not there when it is experienced
    ↪bahman
    I think the mind does change. You think it doesn't. Are you trying to change my mind?
  • It is not there when it is experienced
    ↪bahman
    I followed you through the point where you argued that if State A changed to State B, there had to be some amount of time between those states where either A and B existed simultaneously or where neither existed, but I don't follow your solution that the mind is able to exist without being subject to the same problem.
  • Beautiful Things
    ↪ArguingWAristotleTiff
    Yep, Hanover circa 1966.
  • Beautiful Things
    nekt8d8iv8l28dlf.jpg
    Nascent beauty.
  • Beautiful Things
    ↪Bitter Crank
    That's a weird looking flower. It looks like it has some evergreen needles on it, but then the flower. It'd probably be best if you stomped the shit out of it. It's fucked up and I don't understand it.
  • Beautiful Things
    ↪ArguingWAristotleTiff
    Dasher is a reindeer, not a horse. A good name for a horse would be Magic or Fred, although Fred is already taken as my dog's name. I'd name that horse Snowflake, Spot, or maybe Big Red. Those names make more sense than giving it a reindeer name.
Home » Hanover