Cause-and-effect is a presupposition. I'm under the impression that a lot of science - not all - no longer thinks of cause-and-effect as an adequate description of how the world works. I think the replacement is to think in terms of fields - subject to correction.What do you mean "my law"? — Alkis Piskas
Logic is fine. What does it have to do with the world?There's only pure logic here. — Alkis Piskas
If you only assume there is a first cause, then you've shown nothing. If your law is that every effect has a cause, then is every cause caused? If not, then what is different about a first cause (and why only one)? If yes then what causes the first cause? And, this is just an exercise in language; what does it have to do with the world?In my case, the frame of reference was the "law if cause and effect".... Only that you didn't show why the first cause doesn't work and/or why it would be a paradox — Alkis Piskas
Nope, not the beginning, but a boundary that when crossed took all prior matters off the table until this one settled. As with a rabid dog or a medical emergency, you do what is necessary first. In the present case hostages and criminals.Weren’t you the one saying you consider October 7th to be the beginning of this and that nothing prior matters? — Mikie
7 October is a fact. The events of 7 October are a fact. The behaviour of Arab/Palestinian/Hamas on 7 Oct, murderous and bestial, also a fact. But there is one whole side of this thread that simply fails/refuses to address those facts. "Oh my yes!" they proclaim, "They did bad things, but those poor people, the awful Jews made them do it." And then they dismiss the Arab side of it, as has been done since at least Yasser Arafat in my recollection, and according to others, well before that.How is this language, and the poster who posts it, even tolerated on the forum? — boethius
Creatures of logic yes, of the world, no. From missing pieces? I prefer to say from incomplete or inadequate descriptions. Case in point the Cantor paradox referenced above. The idea is that the set of all sets presumably contains its own power set as a subset, which implies that the cardinality of the subset is greater than the set itself. The resolution in this case is to correct the description to state that there can be no set of all sets because it leads to a paradox - or contradiction if you prefer. But you may protest that the universe itself is the set of all sets, but that would simply be a misunderstanding of the terms: the universe contains everything as distinct elements, no subsets, and thus cannot contain its own power set, which in this case would be meaningless. .You think paradoxes logical things categorically apart from hands-on material things? You think paradoxes the products of narratives made incoherent due to missing pieces? Do you have any ready-to-hand examples? — ucarr
You say language reaches its limit dealing with empirical experience. Can you elaborate on "dealing with"? For example, "Dealing with" means perceives and understands as if through a glass darkly.
I've been forming the impression you see clearly two distinct experiences, one linguistic, the other hands-on material. — ucarr
Not that I know of.Are you steeped in linguistic philosophy? — ucarr
I think language can at best only deal with empirical experience - what other experience would there be? The trouble comes about when empirical experience is taken for the world itself as it is in itself.Do you think language is inherently limited in its ability to characterize empirical experience truthfully and completely, or do you think language has innate potential to do this, but your endorsement of this characterization comes with the proviso that, up front, tremendous work over eons is necessary? — ucarr
I'm of the mind that there are no paradoxes in the world, only in descriptions of the world. Of course when descriptions are incomplete, that leaves apparent paradoxes.Do you think paradox exists only within language? I ask bearing in mind superposition at the quantum scale. — ucarr
And there you have it. Assuming you accept X, you get Con(X) (consequences of X). Except of course when you don't, then you can either reject X, or develop X', and maybe X'' or X'''.Assuming one accepts the law of causality — Alkis Piskas
What do I infer? That lacking a lot of preliminary groundwork, mostly in establishing working definitions - though they be provisional and subject to change, pace Banno! - the question remains a non-sense question. That is, an attempt to make sense where there is no sense to be made.What empirical conclusion do you infer from the open-ended question of First Concept? — Gnomon
Along with any reason for doing foolish philosophy. But one place a fool never sees a fool is in a mirror. I attest to this from my personal experience with mirrors.Along with any reason for doing philosophy. — Gnomon
You're on the wrong road. Non-contradiction may guide how I think about what I think about, but it has nothing to do with the world.When you say "paradox in this case nature's way of saying "Dead-end. Turn about and go another way, "are you invoking the principle of non-contradiction? — ucarr
This site was referenced in another thread.I'm interested in learning how and why "A set of all sets" is not reasonable. — ucarr
Can you sketch simply and briefly what such contradictions might be? Or point to where they are laid out?when mathematicians saw that Cantor's naïve set theory — an attempt to axiomatise mathematics — had contradictions, — Lionino
What is clear is Biden's cognitive decline — boethius
So tell us, then, why exactly are Hamas still holding the hostages?There's no excuse to collectively punish, through starvation, a civilian population for the crimes of a terrorist organisation in their midst, or indeed, their government. — Benkei
Your point being? Or is that your defense to continue to defend Israel? Starve 2,2 million to save a few hundred (who are probably starving as well!)? If so, my point stands, go fuck yourself. — Benkei
How the hostages doin', Benkei?go fuck yourself doubly for misrepresenting my position. — Benkei
You need a pause and reset. The issue is not stupid people. The issue is murderers whose "right to life," both quality and quantity, is compromised by their own actions.As if stupid people don't have a right to their life. — Benkei
What Israeli terrorism? I've been aware of middle-east news since the mid-fifties and I know of no Israeli terrorism. But I know of lots and lots and lots and lots of murderous Palestinian terrorism.And October 7th doesn’t happen but for decades of Israeli terrorism. — Mikie
Have you even read the news of what happened on 7 Oct.? What do you think happened on that date?I love the line of “Hamas could end this war immediately,” as if every innocent child Israel murders, deliberately and intentionally, is really the fault of Hamas. Like a law of nature.
But saying something like the above is considered absurd.
No wonder the world is condemning Israel. Easy to see through such stupid propaganda. — Mikie
A question: Are Hamas the Palestinians? Are the Palestinians Hamas? Imo they're different, but not entirely different. The Palestinians (therefore) have some culpability in 7 Oct., and certainly in their harboring Hamas and in keeping the hostages. Accessories at least, then, before and after the fact. So "expendable" not at all the right word.This answers my question then. The population is expendable in the pursuit of Israel’s objectives. — Punshhh
What crimes? And what occupation?As well, there are the issues of crimes committed on Israeli territory, the perpetrators subject to Israeli law.
You seem very one sided in these comments. What about the crimes committed by Israeli’s in the West Bank and Gaza? Or is it that carte blanche thing again? — Punshhh
What about the reverse, until Israel stops occupying Palestinian territories, withdraw from Gaza and rebuild all the buildings they've knocked down and paid compensation to the families of all the dead, isn't that carte blanche for Hamas to hang on to the hostages? — bert1
Personally I would want the hostages to be returned unharmed along with the Palestinian people being left unharmed. — Punshhh
There is an easy solution here. Israel should provide refugee camps for Palestinian refugees in Israel. — Punshhh
"Expendable" is maybe not the right word, certainly - obviously - at risk.So unless the hostages are returned, the whole population of Gaza is expendable? — Punshhh
One is too many. That limit being blown up on 7 Oct., let us hear no more of it.Simple question, how many Palestinian deaths are too many?
At what point do the IDF say we’ve gone to far and stop? — Punshhh
:100:10/7... Hamas was just trying to open the gates to hell and they did it.
Because of the intifadas Israel established these checkpoints....
I think what we're seeing here is the 3rd intifada and the gloves have come off.
Israel has given ceasefire offers to Hamas but Hamas rejects it.... Culture of life versus culture of death. — BitconnectCarlos
To my way of thinking, on 7 Oct. Hamas rendered history irrelevant. The same way Yassar Arafat and the PLO did, and Black September, and their predecessors. The Jew's crime is existing, and for that they are condemned, apparently. To my way of thinking the Jews/Israelis are cornered into acting in self-defense from necessity. But they compound their crime by not dying nor consenting to be annihilated.(Oh no wait it’s the Palestinians that are terrorists…yada yada yada.) — Mikie
How about the hostages, Mikie, you down with them being murdered, assuming they're still alive at the moment?
— tim wood
That’s up to Israel. — Mikie
The terrorists should be eliminated. We can all agree. So let’s start with the ones who kill, injure, and starve the most people— in that case, the Israeli government. Maybe kill 10 or 20 thousand Israeli children as well, in pursuit of such ends. I’m sure the forum chickenhawks would be fine with this, given how consistent they are. — Mikie