The Scribblings File - Starting from the Top - This is Nr. 12

Posted Feb 9, 2010 - 5:04 PM: Plotinus and Christian Cosmology

Maybe you are interested in these: A Solution to the Problem of Evil - A Theodicy, based on Plotinus. Advancing Non-Dogmatic New Intelligent Design (NDNID) The Modal Logical Argument of NDNID, logical formalisation.

Posted Feb 8, 2010 - 1:06 PM: Finitude and otherwise

I've been thinking of the finitude. Isn't it a requirement that they are supposed to actually enter a set rather than presupposing the extent of the set. Such that any infinite set is by definition impossible because to write/record such a set is impossible. One can take the full extent of human history, fx. Not only is it incredibly large if one is to count everyone into it at this moment with 6.8 Billion people, but also going back and looking at what is recorded, and going forward, thinking about the possible future limits/infinite. Well, at least, the set can grow incredibly big, but never become infinite for obvious reasons. What do you think? (I'm not particularly acquainted with the formal language of this type of mathematics and thus this comes in plain language. Excuse me.) Note: it's ended by Jorndoe's comment, "Aetixintro, what you're suggesting seems more along the lines of supertasks (or hypertasks)."

Posted Feb 8, 2010 - 11:02 AM: Hinge Propositions and Their Epistemic Importance - I will contend that hinge propositions form the substructure of our knowledge.

Comment: One should point out that preconditions/axioms for knowledge aren't really knowledge themselves.

Formally, you can (probably/likely) put them in the same basket (knowledge), but you don't say anything by uttering/writing/expressing them.

Posted Feb 7, 2010 - 10:20 PM: moral philosophy and psychopath

I don't think ethics/morality applies to insane people at all, most of all because they are insane, ie., lacking in cognitive ability. It's almost as if you're begging for an ethically/morally blind person to understand this person's blindness, the lack of ethics and morals. They don't go together. I'd rather look for remedies for preventing such a condition to occur in the first place.

Posted Feb 7, 2010 - 8:46 AM: Question about Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem

I've been thinking that you can add as many axioms to a system you'd like in order to have the useful scope of descriptive tools you'd like. That these axioms can't be proved by the very same system, can't hardly be a problem, no?

Posted Feb 7, 2010 - 12:50 PM: moral philosophy and psychopath

Hasn't it always been a "game of axioms"? Axioms don't come by themselves. They do represent hard work. So you say that the identification of the various axioms to a system makes this a different system than it's supposed to establish in the first place? You probably would like to introduce some kind of language-gaming element to every system there is then, yes?

Posted Feb 7, 2010 - 12:50 PM: moral philosophy and psychopath

Hasn't it always been a "game of axioms"? Axioms don't come by themselves. They do represent hard work. So you say that the identification of the various axioms to a system makes this a different system than it's supposed to establish in the first place? You probably would like to introduce some kind of language-gaming element to every system there is then, yes?

Posted Feb 6, 2010 - 6:26 AM: Education - What is the prupose of it?

Education is a system for making people able to solve all the problems we have at hand. That's probably the reason we have good contraceptives, plastics, engines, perfumes and so on... with all the technology and science. In a sense, I think education is the tool that let you be more of a friend to your friends and as far as you can go from there, you'll just be greater friends!

Posted Feb 5, 2010 - 10:26 PM: Fight the Cancer Before It Happens to You! - Philosophy of Psychology of Health

Women are indeed some ardent sunbathing people with or without using sunblock. Perhaps, men are even less sunbathing, but I stick to the theory for now and wait to see what the future brings. One should remember that the mode of one's relationship with one's own feelings/nerve signals/neurology is a quite big issue/factor in the actual person's and as such, I think this factor (feelings/nerve signals/neurology) may be decisive above rather minor factors such as diet. I very much agree, however, that smoking (a lot) or sunbathing without using sunblock are cancer causing activities, but cancers strike differently than staying persistently in this specific pattern. [Edit:] I also think nerves/nerve threads are a lot more pervasive/permeative than what is commonly known, at least in some people (some people think that nerves/nerve threads belong only in the skin). This should also be considered.

Posted Feb 5, 2010 - 10:22 AM: Fight the Cancer Before It Happens to You! - Philosophy of Psychology of Health

It's my view that the feelings/nerve signals/neurology are helping/controlling the body and more or less telling the body where to attack and where to hold off. This is part of the theory that feelings are just an addition to the largely rational system of being a body, that is rational according to function! I think one has devoted very little research on the issue of how the nerve signals work in the body and that I think there may be a "gold mine" there to be discovered in how nerve signals relate to the body, to the genes, to the immune system, to whole... The "Happy mood"-part is on you as my theory doesn't necessarily contain such an element. I'd rather say that your mood should reflect realities!

Posted Feb 5, 2010 - 7:49 AM:

As a Deist, I certainly believe in an intelligent cause effectuating our universe and all in it. I've made an argument here that may interest you: Advancing Non-Dogmatic New Intelligent Design (NDNID)

I side with jsidelko in post #8 and I like to add that science is agnostic in its openness to the future.

Posted Feb 2, 2010 - 2:08 PM: Wiser Words Have Never Been Spoken - Capture words within our own PhilosophyForum...taken out of context of course~

The words
Willowz writes:
"x - HUMAN = AI , true?

HUMAN - x = Zombie"

I think these two statements represent quality and fine moment on PF. Perhaps not revolutionary, but very nice!

Posted Feb 2, 2010 - 1:55 PM: X marks the spot.

AI + Zombie = 0 , true?

I'd say you have AI in an "empty" (organic) body. Perhaps, when we have developed DNA processors and can put this into an artificially grown body, you may see what "0"-entity this is!

I must commend you, Willowz on doing this, I've never seen it done before. Thanks!

Willowz writes: "x-HUMAN = AI , true? HUMAN-x = Zombie"

Posted Feb 1, 2010 - 12:51 AM: Islamic Justice

To say that countries like Egypt, Turkey, Libya, Malaysia and Singapore (only a state?) have no room for intellectual thought, is bold indeed! Perhaps, too bold.

Posted Jan 31, 2010 - 5:00 PM: Hinge Propositions and Their Epistemic Importance - I will contend that hinge propositions form the substructure of our knowledge.

It seems Wittgenstein is wrong to criticise Moore if "I live on the earth", "I have two hands", "2+2=4", "I am a person" are those that he is attacked for. As far as an object is subject to knowledge, they will always fall under the scrutiny of Epistemology. It's strange that Moore is attacked on such obvious propositions. I also think the propositions are made up of well defined words. Yeah... Let's see what falls out!

Posted Jan 31, 2010 - 10:33 AM: We should admit it - that we feed on tragedy

Time for some introspection?

However, I don't deny the phenomenon. It isn't very...

Posted Jan 31, 2010 - 10:16 AM: If religion is true, are we immortal?

I'd say on some personal level that I expect some kind of eternity, "Heaven" or "Hell", rebirth/incarnation or not!

Posted Jan 30, 2010 - 2:07 PM: Best Argument Against Utilitarianism - Please offer what you think is the best argument against utilitarianism.

Firstly, it seems that Deontological Ethics and Rule Utilitarianism converge into the same good ethical picture. Further, Rule Utilitarianism and Act Utilitarianism resemble the discussion of Universals and Particulars in Metaphysics in which case I just say both! I bow to this. I can't see any important differences.

Utilitarianism Ethics = Deontological Ethics (identity)

Posted Jan 30, 2010 - 1:35 PM: Why do we doubt in death's finality?

"Why do we doubt in death's finality?" Because some people can talk to the dead or see ghosts! More seriously, there's a definite feeling/sense of seeing a person go from alive to dead, I think. Like the dead person is missing a crucial feature/quality.

Posted Jan 30, 2010 - 1:33 PM: Best Argument Against Utilitarianism - Please offer what you think is the best argument against utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism is rather a crude approach to situations of ethics. It's very much ready to kill for the benefit of what is reflected in the numbers. The Utilitarian has this cold approach of letting the quantifications rule the situations. Therefore, Utilitarianism is insensitive and it seems that the person who is the Utilitarian never falls into one's own unfortunate groups of famine, death and destruction.

Posted Jan 30, 2010 - 2:31 AM: What is Pseudophilosophy?

It appears to me that Nicholas Rescher seems to think of philosophy as only belonging to the actual academia of philosophy, which I find to be intuitively wrong. Nicholas Rescher's definition may also lead to the notion of "ivory tower" and also to academia being a paper mill with no real relevance. I think philosophy enjoys its reputation (vibrant activity) because people everywhere can take part in it, whether as readers or readers and writers or readers and thinkers and writers.

[Edit:] It's funny to note that on the very Wikip. page that describes Rescher's Delphi method, it says: "Secondly, sometimes unconventional thinking of amateur outsiders may be superior to expert thinking." I think this flies in the face of Nicholas Rescher's definition. Is it impossible to formulate a problem or a solution by simply being outside the doors of academia? Surely not! For me, pseudo-philosophy is to step outside the defined fields of the various disciplines of philosophy and to break those "codes"/conventions (which are like HDM in science, wide intakes, but being "no-crap" prohibition) in these fields of making arguments. I don't share anyone's non-expressible approach, but that's just another philosophical discussion.

Posted Jan 28, 2010 - 9:12 AM: The Ambiguity of Moral Language - A (possible) solution to (all) moral debates.

Possibly, in Bloomfield's sense, a group of animals or humans has greater chances of making the future generations of itself by "morality" insofar it effectuates "physical health" in that group. Yes? If not, what is not understood?

Posted Jan 28, 2010 - 8:59 AM: The Ambiguity of Moral Language - A (possible) solution to (all) moral debates.

At least, "morality" to effectuate "physical health", perhaps pointing to a basic property in nature in living things. Where it leads to is the cusp of that specie's world.

Posted Jan 28, 2010 - 8:53 AM: The Ambiguity of Moral Language - A (possible) solution to (all) moral debates.

Theoretical ethics = ethics! Applied ethics = morals! At least, Comment on Companions in Guilt - Arguments for Ethical Objectivity - By Hallvard Lillehammer tries to find a (possible) cognitive common foundation of ethics and without any 'non-natural property of goodness'. You may be out of line here. Even Bloomfield, that you'll find in the thread, speaks of moral realism as (physical) health. I understand you very well if you absolutely have to include 'non-natural property of goodness', but I really think of it more as religious/agnostic than being a goal for ethics itself.

Posted Jan 28, 2010 - 8:41 AM: Rephrasing Ought - Ought-less language

The words should mean exactly the same in every respect.

[Edit:] "Rewriting of ought: An action is defined by a rule. This rule is in relation to a certain condition. This rule is followed so and so. This rule isn't necessarily fulfilled by the agent who is following this rule."

"You ought to brush your teeth"

becomes...

There is a rule that says brush your teeth. This rule is the condition of brushing one's teeth. I follow this rule by brushing my teeth. However, I don't always brush my teeth.

Posted Jan 28, 2010 - 8:32 AM: Rephrasing Ought - Ought-less language

The intention is to simply making the reduction of the convention (possibly) of "ought" by "is" statements, is what I want with this.

Posted Jan 28, 2010 - 7:20 AM: The Logic of Free Will

Perhaps it can be possible to write it like this:

P5: Physical events cannot cause prior physical events. I'm not certain how self/consciousness works in this picture. C3 (from P4 (and P1)): Causality is necessary for free will1 (at least with respect to the relationship between the will and the willed act).

Posted Jan 27, 2010 - 10:57 PM: Rephrasing Ought - Ought-less language

Like an action of doing school work? There's no domain like school work? Like in the legal sense or in whatever behaviouristic sense of doing something? No?

Posted Jan 27, 2010 - 3:58 PM: Rephrasing Ought - Ought-less language

I think "ought" says this: you have a duty to do, but you can refuse to carry it through. "Ought" doesn't imply necessity and it does include human weakness implicitly. That is, you are likely to do it (as you should), but at times we all break our rules. No? Dictionary.com: 1. (used to express duty or moral obligation): Every citizen ought to help. 2. (used to express justice, moral rightness, or the like): He ought to be punished. You ought to be ashamed. 3. (used to express propriety, appropriateness, etc.): You ought to be home early. We ought to bring her some flowers. 4. (used to express probability or natural consequence): That ought to be our train now.

Posted Jan 27, 2010 - 3:52 PM: The Ambiguity of Moral Language - A (possible) solution to (all) moral debates.

So ethics/morals has a foundation then and not this void you're arguing for? Ethics/morals has function and definitely so.

Posted Jan 27, 2010 - 2:33 PM: The Ambiguity of Moral Language - A (possible) solution to (all) moral debates.

Why is there a problem with making an acknowledgement that a totally ethical/moral society is the most effective society in every respect? Should this impose problems? Why can't any religious "fantasies" (of Heaven) or atheistic "dreams" (of interplanetary conquers) be just some side-effects?

Posted Jan 27, 2010 - 2:06 PM: Rephrasing Ought - Ought-less language

Rewriting of ought: An action is defined by a rule. This rule is in relation to a certain condition. This rule is followed so and so. This rule isn't necessarily fulfilled by the agent who is following this rule.

What do you think of this ought-less language? Awful? I've been inspired the feedback of my attack on indexicality.
But seriously, has it been the case that ought has been irreducible in the past?

Posted Jan 27, 2010 - 12:50 PM: My Answer to Is/Ought Problem

I'm thinking there might be a logic of ethics: instead of true and false, there are right and wrong.
It goes: it is wrong to commit (blind) violence, therefore one does not commit (blind) violence.
This can go on endlessly for every rule (they have to be rules in this) and such the logic of ethics should be clear and the "ought" is more a convention of saying something.

Posted Jan 27, 2010 - 11:21 AM: The minimum requirements to constitute "Godliness"

This being has to be the creator of this and all other universes if they exist. It needs to be perfect in nature and represent this perfection (because of the problem of evil). It needs to infinite (because of the causality against it). It needs to represent infinity also to intelligent beings if not to all matter and energy and "souls" in the universes. What more? Let me think.

[Edit:] It also needs to be coherent with all of science that proves true or is accepted as true today. So this being needs to fulfill criteria of truth to the full extent (not being a "psychological" entity).

Posted Jan 27, 2010 - 11:09 AM: The Principle of Identity

My Venus is from the paper of Gottlob Frege named "Sense and Nominatum" (1892) which can be found in The Philosophy of Language (because of its semantics, I suspect) by A. P. Martinich 5th ed.!

Posted Jan 27, 2010 - 10:11 AM: The Principle of Identity

It's just my impression that the very metaphysics itself is in great deal supporting itself on logics. It's funny if can make the case for logics and in the next turn make the case for logical contradictions in the logics/metaphysics. I find therefore logics to be complementary to metaphysics, rather than in its contradiction. I believe I've never read any metaphysics that has contained contradictory logics. Just a notice. While you present a general, bizarre case of your own, what about: Morning Star = Evening Star = Venus?

Posted Jan 27, 2010 - 6:15 AM: The Principle of Identity

Mikael Birket Brilner writes:
"Well, if we separate between logical identity and metaphysical identity, does that mean that reality is not one?"
No, reality is a combination of these and the rest coherent principles, laws, instances and objects.

[A better answer may this: Aren't they already belonging to separate disciplines, Logics and Metaphysics? Isn't reality one (entity) regardless of your own mindset, i.e., how you like to view this in your head? The answer must be "yes" to both of these questions!]

Jean Francoise writes:
"Gottfied Leibniz proposed a much stronger, and hence controversial claim of the identity of indiscernables, also refered to as qualitative identity since quality i.e. predicate satisfaction suffices to yield identity: if indiscernable, then identical (i.e. identical in the metaphysical sense as well as in the logical)."
Can you please tell me how identical in the logical sense isn't also identical in the metaphysical sense? I can't imagine that logics all of a sudden takes on a different sense once it's applied in metaphysics!

Then,
Logical Identity: Russell's Identity - Here: (existence,x)(Px conjunction (universal,y)(Py conditonal y = x)
and Leibniz' Law - Here: x = y conditional (Px ≡ Py)
Metaphysical Identity is about Personal Identity and has many variations in discussing the phenomenon of Identity.

Posted Jan 27, 2010 - 3:09 AM: Is there such a thing as objective morality? - New to philosophy...full of questions

Postmodern Beatnik writes:
"The problem with "companion in guilt" arguments, however, is that the moral skeptic might be willing to give up the companion as well. When Mackie formulated his arguments against moral realism, for example, he was perfectly happy to toss away whatever else fell with it."
This is absolutely no surprise. The skeptic hasn't been convinced and it perfectly falls with that position. It's on the moral realist to envision a shared belief in objective morals/ethics to the extent of possibly limiting this to only the moral realists themselves. Other people being subject to the winds of relativism and deviating morals of every other sort.

Posted Jan 27, 2010 - 2:31 AM: 36 Arguments for the Existence of God - A Work of Fiction

bjolly writes:
"May I suggest that it's a dependency?"
It's no more a dependency of mine than it's a dependency of yours to think of it as a dependency in me! To the extent it may be a dependency, it is such because I wish to take part in and believe in the best ideas and also being my devotion to truth.

bjolly writes:
"...efficient cause as evidence for god's existence..."
This is wrong! My belief in God is contentious (written 2nd time). Stop doing these mistakes!

Not necessarily comfort, my moral mistakes have a deeper impact just like moral virtues have the possibility of bliss to the same impact, one going down, the other going up.

I've outlined the foundation for my belief in God and in that foundation I've marked out two elements of a special ontological status. Alright?

jorndoe writes:
So, either you'll have to detail out exactly what the deal is here, or pick one of these two. Why can't time and God arise at the same time? Perhaps God is God and time and space and causality and the universes. I'm not sure how to definitely describe God, but it's certainly coherent with all of science in my belief.

Posted Jan 26, 2010 - 10:30 AM: The Principle of Identity

You should separate between logical identity and metaphysical identity. I have a suggestion to (personal) identity here: http://forums.philosophyforums.com...n-of-identity-36052-2.html.

Posted Jan 26, 2010 - 10:22 AM: Language and our ability to see the truth - Language is a lens, but what if there are fly specks on the lens?

If there is a need for a new word, languages come up with one... Any phenomena unexpressed? I can't think of any "fly specks on the lens?" Languages are just fine for descriptive uses and serve us perfectly! What deficiencies are there really? Because the deficiencies must be expressed!

Posted Jan 26, 2010 - 10:08 AM: Islamic Justice

It's a piss poor place with deprived people... We in the Western culture, with all our Islamic people and Islamic Justice, he-he-he, we are happy ever after on our fat asses! Let me also mention that a report on rapes throughout the world recently said that the Islamic Yemen and another/two country(ies) had the fewest cases of these, suggesting on the contrary that these places are indeed safe for women!

Posted Jan 26, 2010 - 9:30 AM: 36 Arguments for the Existence of God - A Work of Fiction

jorndoe
"There were other points (pending response) earlier in this thread as well." You will have to quote these for me. Also, remember, please, that I don't represent the OP. The opposition in this thread is in these 36 arguments therefore I don't sense responsibility for answering everything. Rather, I take out those relevant/best against my position of Deism. Yes, implicitly, they are nonetheless only fantasies because the way they are defined put them outside our reality. This is not the case with the (possibly modified) concept of God, which I happen to think, seriously speaking, is mostly coherent in God-believers, one evasive way or another until then. "Thus, in common terminology, causation is contextual to time; in other words, it is meaningless to speak of causation outside of temporality [infinite God creating the Universe]." This is in your head and not necessarily so! If God is infinite, God is not a-temporal! You make up assumptions! The stuff about timeless entities must be understood in terms of infinity, not that they are outside of time! Just more irrelevant mongering! The Kalam argument/Cosmological argument isn't relevant either as it's case fails. You speak, though (after my post in that thread), of multiple temporal dimensions, something I phrase as one God-entity/entities of (temporal) infinite, dimension [universe of only God] outside our own or a part of bigger multiverse. This God-dimension, universe may then have this ""interdimensional" causal structure", possibly.

Posted Jan 26, 2010 - 7:00 AM: Why do people make the choices they make? - I've asked myself this question for a loing time and come to many different you

Self-sacrifice is very admirable! Good for you! But trust me, the best you can do to the ones you love is to show dedication to your (school-)work and your activities. If not, I fear you're going to burn out and be left poor and shitty (although a rather loving person if those ideals are not lost in the process). I'd start with being healthily skeptical of who you can trust and get distant to those who you distrust/fail to connect with. By keeping the best closest, your sacrifice is at least not wasted! I'd also make sure I could keep up the duties (again schoolwork, somethings for your parents), even if this means not spending too much time with friends. I just hate to see good people getting f**ked for having good beliefs of others, so I recommend you keep a tidy and tight line, not making pleas/greetings to everyone. That's it, basically. Stay safe and secure!

Posted Jan 26, 2010 - 6:47 AM: Cant find a topic title :S

The topic title: Existential Problems. Cure: Camus, Sartre, Kierkegaard and others like Heidegger. I sense there are two kinds of people in this regard: religious and atheist (agnostics are in the existential problems cat.). If you're without a religion, you might want to check out various religious thought systems eg Buddhism or so. I can recommend Scientology, initially by just buying the basic books (paperback, 50-100$). Or you can search out other Atheists (Sartre being one of them) and what they write. There should be many to choose from. Religious people can rethink a more moderate approach to their religion, choose another, becoming Atheist, reading the various Existentialists and so on. Tell me more of who you are and I'll give some more thoughts to this thread! Look upward!

Posted Jan 25, 2010 - 10:37 PM: 36 Arguments for the Existence of God - A Work of Fiction

bjolly wrote: So you support the contention that god exists [due] to meaning? In the sense that god is necessary for meaning? Could you expand on this? I think the entity of God supports meaning much better than Atheism, usually taking the view that Human Kind is doomed and has a limited time span. God gives meaning because God provides infinity to the world of Human Kind, speculatively. There may be a chance, with God, for rebirth in new universes or on other planets or on earth again on some other occasion or just reclining in God in some meaningful way. I don't know, but there is more strength with God in this sense than without. It's still speculation, though, I don't hide this fact. bjolly wrote: Would you be willing to expand on this? Please, look at it this way: you can believe in Atheism and risk accepting a death by illusion or you can, with God, try to perceive an after-life that may present a Pandora box to you. In a sense, by Atheism, you accept a kind of "Pessimism" that hasn't been proven yet. This may have consequences in your life when you make certain choices. The whole existence may be very nice with God, yet one often denies such because of "abstract nature". I just find Atheism very "pessimistic". bjolly wrote: ...efficient cause... I find nothing that definitely refutes that a grand idea of infinite God should be unable to create Universe(s). Why should this be impossible? I mean, an aspect of Cosmology suggests that our universe is just one dimension from other universes. Why can't God have a similar nature? Why should it be that this entity can't have a mechanism that effectuates Universe(s)? The incoherency of this denial is on the side of the Atheist. bjolly wrote: But since you're saying that the conscience is a real thing, which we all genuinely experience, then why the argument that morality supports the contention that god exists? I think that this deserves an explanation, as it originally appeared to be presented as evidence for god's existence? Is this the case? If so, how so? If it's not meant as proof, then what's the relevance in the intended context? This is something in line with meaning. Perhaps, we as humanity have all these possibilities because the Universe is "built" in this special way. In carrying out our special nature of intelligence, our status gives us the notion that each of us means something special in a moral view especially the evil way if we are unjustly destroyed/killed. The qualification of getting infinitely rewarded when doing the right moral acts reinforces this sense of Morality/Ethics in the Religious sense. bjolly wrote: It's also important to note when you brought the term into the conversation, as your original arguments made no such distinction. I've brought in theoretical after you've brought in practical. These are philosophical/theoretical views. I fail to see how I can point out the ontological status of meaning and morality in practice? How am I supposed to do that? I also sense that you wish to imply that my Religious view is based on psychological disposition, which is totally wrong! jorndoe wrote: ...this is incoherent. Can you explain, please? How is it incoherent to suggest that God is the cause of our Universe? I think you put a number of assumptions behind your claim of this incoherency that I don't support. F.x. if God is immaterial then God can't create an actual Universe of matter and energy. This is good, but I'd claim that God's being is real/consists of a kind of matter/energy, but being outside of our universe or being attached to it in a special way. jorndoe wrote: In short, anything goes? The usual slippery slope? You should take note of the fact that the concept of God plays a very different role, ontologically, than all or most of the faerie stories, of Santa Claus, of your idle speculation and your fantasies by the role God plays in being an extraordinary cause of the whole of existence, particularly intelligence. The particular role is easily defeated in other speculations/fantasies/Santa Claus and what have you. Clear?

Posted Jan 25, 2010 - 9:29 PM: Is there such a thing as objective morality? - New to philosophy...full of questions

You may want to check out the thread: Comment on Companions in Guilt - Arguments for Ethical Objectivity - By Hallvard Lillehammer here - http://forums.philosophyforums.com...anions-in-guilt-37784.html. This is based on "From the book review of (1)(2)Hallvard Lillehammer's Companions in Guilt: Arguments for Ethical Objectivity written by (3)(4)(5)Terence Cuneo in the journal Mind Volume 118, Number 470, April 2009, ISSN 0026-4423. It's also worth mentioning the book of Paul Bloomfield's Moral Reality, OUP, 2004 that the review mentions." (I've bought both of them.)

Posted Jan 25, 2010 - 6:45 PM: Against wishes for what is Right?

Yes, the power of example is very good. You can also wrap your good wishes and advice in jokes and playful tones. I very much understand your sentiment/care for your brother. See if you can put in your advice more "fluently". I don't think it's very useful to press the emotional buttons, you just end up quarrelling! Give the advice when they are wanted! Good Luck in being the "supporting rail" of your brother.

Posted Jan 25, 2010 - 6:35 PM: Physical Attraction, Mating instincts, and Genetics - Perhaps answerable by a Geneticist, but you may find this interesting.

I can say that one can do a lot to improve one's looks - weightlifting, running, staying fit, personal grooming... People who exercise do have a fine glow to them... I think that being physically attractive also implies good intelligence in most cases, yet the most beautiful people sometimes seem to waste their good quality of looks by not following up with good working discipline... Sure, I find, too, that people prefer to mate with/have sex with the Physically Attractive! Good health?!

Posted Jan 25, 2010 - 6:12 PM: 36 Arguments for the Existence of God - A Work of Fiction

I'm not arguing in the sense of Argument From Ignorance because I don't claim any proof of God. My claim of God is contentious, not certain. Otherwise, look to the notion of meaning mentioned earlier. "Do you find it practical, or necessary?" Neither, I find it possible (in the face of the absurd)! "Are we, and why?" Not knowing... The importance (or not) of this... "I had trouble understanding it." -> "bjolly, I suggest God is outside every causality..."

Posted Jan 25, 2010 - 5:29 PM: 36 Arguments for the Existence of God - A Work of Fiction

Soylent, "By good do you mean valid, sound or both?" Given certain premises, I say both! bjolly, this is just like logics which is theoretical. You can't jump from a theoretically convincing argument to simply say they then are based on the practical. Logics has good practical appliance too, but that doesn't make logics practical in considering logics. It's necessarily theoretical! Besides, a practical appeal imply wavering (and not necessity or any good modality foundation) and this is not the case here! If your education is theoretical, then it's based on the practical? I think you're confused of the concept of theoretical. bjolly, to suggest "demonisation" is the actual failure to spread the message of God's miracle. There's no foundation for such a claim, inherently. bjolly, morality implies conscience, not the other way around. To have conscience makes for good considerations, but not for (deliberate) failure (of compliance) to such. bjolly, I suggest God is outside every causality argument, not being subject to that notion just like the notion of time. That is, God can create and is part of the causality of universe, but the being of God itself is outside of it. The classic Atheist trap: meaninglessness is supposed to represent meaning! This is absurd! What choice, really, does one have, but to choose the meaningful? Absurdity or possible illusion, tough choice! I only need to point to the possibility of God. There's certainly no absolute truth being argued here for the existence of God. I have indeed mentioned "leap of faith", yes? This possibility of God arises from (partly?) this "foundation" of questions that beg for the appropriate prediction (of God, or in your case(es) the absence or falsity of such). Still, we're forced to be staring into the mysteries and make those unfounded beliefs, not knowing what's on the other side. We're subject to leaps of faith, the lot of us!

Posted Jan 25, 2010 - 5:08 PM: Debating the Problem of Evil - A Different Solution

It strikes me as possible to argue that if all is to be good we would already be united with God in "Heaven", but life as it is, is to be in the fray, experience and be victorious (by God's miracle) or lose (fail to take part in God's perfection) to "evil". So, "evil" is more the necessary test of time in the tension of God and "the outside". Therefore, to be with God or make such an aim is to be guaranteed the absence of "evil" after death. Good luck with the debate!

Posted Jan 25, 2010 - 4:42 PM: Help With List

I wouldn't put too much emphasis on George Orwell: 1984, reinforcing paranoia rather than constructive approaches. I'd recommend very much the two tomes of Curd and Cover: Philosophy of Science - The Central Issues and Roger Penrose: The Road to Reality - A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe. I find your listing of Gilbert Harman & Judith Jarvis Thomson: Moral Relativism and Moral Objectivity very nice! It's one that I've failed to come across earlier. In this regard of ethics, I've recently bought Paul Bloomfield: Moral Reality and Hallvard Lillehammer: Companions in Guilt - Arguments for Ethical Objectivity. Also, if your enterprise is the whole of Philosophy, it's always nice to buy a good introduction to the various (7) disciplines. I guess you have this one under control.

Posted Jan 25, 2010 - 8:05 AM: The Curse of Social Mobility - I'd like to play the Devil's Advocate against social mobility.

I'm not sure if social mobility is necessary or desirable if the intellectual needs of everyone are taken care of. It seems that some people are subjected to only be working, others to only be reporting and yet others to be only thinking. It has been mentioned that some ideal society should allow everyone to take part in all aspects of life, not specialising into special modes of general living. So, if everyone knows their opportunities in life will emerge more or less predictably according to a common "justice" that's acknowledged and accepted, I think people will feel life being easier on them. Perhaps the future will prove this non-specialised presumably good society.

Posted Jan 25, 2010 - 7:52 AM: 36 Arguments for the Existence of God - A Work of Fiction

I don't need to describe what God is, but there are good logical grounds for assuming a God entity of perfection. The foundation for making this entity rise from this void has been mentioned. By this "answer/leap of faith" I sense a stronger grounding than having the prospect of reclining my "soul" and corpse with the soil. F.x. I'd say meaninglessness is "hell" or very undesired. Clearly, jorndoe, I share your view of facts (and probably the whole scientific picture), but not your shortcomings in (Anti-) Religious matters. The foundation I've given drives me to this "obscure"/"vague"/"mystical"/"fantastic" concept of God. I believe this is like predicting that particle (can't remember the name) in physics. There should be something there, I just can't say or describe exactly what it is. I don't subscribe to Creationism in the way it has been defined which is just bullocks, but I'm open for a different kind of "Creationism" behind this Big-Bang. Also, it's pretty clear that there are quite many anomalies in science today despite science being "progressive" or whatever.

Posted Jan 25, 2010 - 4:21 AM: String theory and quantum mechanics - The current scientific view on these two subjects

By Arkady, jsidelko and myself: NO! [Edit:] I also like to add this from Wikip.: "Smolin's thesis found support in one corner. In the same year as that in which The Trouble with Physics was published, Peter Woit also published a book for nonspecialists, whose conclusion was similar to Smolin's, namely that string theory was a fundamentally flawed research program. * Woit, Peter, 2006. Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory & the Continuing Challenge to Unify the Laws of Physics. ISBN 0-224-07605-1 (Jonathan Cape), ISBN 0-465-09275-6 (Basic Books)

Posted Jan 25, 2010 - 4:14 AM: 36 Arguments for the Existence of God - A Work of Fiction

By bjolly's request: jorndoe wrote: Otherwise you're arguing from ignorance, which does not obtain rationally. I don't think my/Deistic reasoning is of any ignorance at all. I wonder about all the options and God-belief comes out as the best and this is certainly not ignorance. I'm not willing to let go of or miss a single truth and God-belief meets this demand in the absence of anything else. QED? To bjolly, I can't see how the pondering of the serious ontological status of meaning and moral is "practical" at all, but theoretical. This strikes me as funny. Also, the causality presupposes a beginning of the Universe and not necessarily the infinity of God/God making God in connection with the Universe. I'm not suggesting that moral is exclusive to Religious people, but I do think Religious people view moral in a deeper ontological sense and plausibly/necessarily so.

Posted Jan 25, 2010 - 12:46 AM: 36 Arguments for the Existence of God - A Work of Fiction

jorndoe wrote: What "anomalies" are you referring to? The usual ones. Existence, emergence of life and consciousness, the true nature of all things, the rather strange nature of Pre-Big-Bang and it's reason for being just like that, the infinite expansion of universe. jorndoe wrote: The usual anthropomorphization, reification, and unwarranted predicate ontologization? The usual complaints that non/a-theists are basically immoral (because they have to think for themselves, without falling back on fear/hope of eternal punishment/bliss)? Unless you have something new to add? This doesn't address meaning! As for the morals, considering this issue may be more real, but this has already been discussed elsewhere. "...unwarranted..." is your word, not mine! That's it, rather quickly dealt with.

Posted Jan 24, 2010 - 4:29 PM: 36 Arguments for the Existence of God - A Work of Fiction

I've posted this on the PN forum: "Name a rational factor." by i_blame_blame "The fact that there are [(most certainly/probably)] truths outside of our current sphere of knowledge is one rational reason to believe in God. Another: the anomalies of science suggest a fantastic explanation to all of these. Another: a serious ontological consideration of meaning. Another: a serious consideration of ontological morals of Good and Evil. Are you satisfied?" by me! Now you can bang your heads against this as well.

Posted Jan 24, 2010 - 3:55 PM: The Fallibility of Knowledge

"The Fallibility of Knowledge" seems to be a contradiction. Knowledge in everyday use is just referring to science of today and isn't really knowledge in the true sense except, possibly, for a few cases. This however doesn't make Epistemology a futile enterprise. "Conceptual domain" or "descriptive domain" solve many of the worries of the Skeptic, if only in the mundane sense of very apparent notions, like those of social truths and of all artifacts/products (by humans).

Posted Jan 24, 2010 - 3:44 PM: Deep Ecology - Are we good or evil?

I'd say the core of "Deep" Ecology is really to reduce, reduce, reduce, reduce the world population to half of the 2005 numbers in a venture of about 200 years by naturally (use of contraceptives and all that) choosing to have fewer babies! It's bloody irritating that even the environmental organisations seem to avoid this issue! Why is that? Instead of "Global Warming", Greenpeace could have chosen "Reduce World Population!" as its banner! Morons, get a grip, realise! So the combination of 3 Billion people on planet earth and environmental science and technology makes tomorrow a brighter day! Cheers! Some slogans to start with: "Half the population of every nation now!" "Kids: one or two!"