Nihilism and Atheism

[Oreoracle]

Considering the extent to which you continue to falsely accuse people of being “ignorant,” “blind,” “unintelligent,” “close-minded,” and “condemning” without inquiring further, it’s difficult to see how o_mlly and I are not far from the truth about individuals like yourself.

I don’t believe I said “blind,” “condemning,” “unintelligent,” or even “closeminded” in this thread. Maybe you could show me some quotes? Otherwise, you’re putting words in my mouth.

Oh please… Considering I’ve read all of his books several times over, taken many courses in graduate profession as a philosopher, written several papers on him, discussed his views at great lengths with other philosophers for over 15 years, and being a personal fan for over 6 years–it is really difficult to see your point, Mr. Presumption.

That may be, but I don’t know how any of that serves as evidence for your hypothesis that Satan once grasped Nietschze by the genitals. Do you have footage of this intimate moment or something?

I get it. So when you find out o_mlly is much more intelligent than you thought…

Oh, I don’t doubt that o_mlly is intelligent. I never said he/she wasn’t. It’s just that so many intelligent people are very selective about which subjects they’ll use their intelligence for. You aren’t a dumb guy either, Syntax, but you’re more than willing to interpret my posts as though I’m putting forth some formal logical demonstration…and yet, when it comes to your cherished belief in God, you just throw your hands up in the air and say “Logic shouldn’t tread over this belief!” In other words, logic (along with inflated interpretations of what people are saying) is your savior in normal circumstances, but when it comes to religion, God is your savior. Which is it, Syntax? Exempting God from logic for no good reason is a fallacy called special pleading, as I’m sure you know.

 

[Syntax]

I don’t believe I said “blind,” “condemning,” “unintelligent,” or even “closeminded” in this thread. Maybe you could show me some quotes? Otherwise, you’re putting words in my mouth.

Here are some:

That sounds like an excuse for people to put on their blinders and believe whatever they fancy.

And o_mlly blackballed all of humanity, not to mention the fact that they spat in the face of reality.

My conclusion, then, is that o_mlly either **despises our complexity **or is **blissfully unaware **of it. I think the former is more likely.

The constant bleating of “simplicity good, complexity bad!” is just an excuse for people to remain **simpleminded **and ignorant. People do this because they don’t like the idea of being obligated to learn or to **understand **the positions of those they disagree with.

I would say that’s sufficient.

That may be, but I don’t know how any of that serves as evidence for your hypothesis that Satan once grasped Nietschze by the genitals. Do you have footage of this intimate moment or something?

It’s a metaphor.

Oh, I don’t doubt that o_mlly is intelligent. I never said he/she wasn’t. It’s just that so many intelligent people are very selective about which subjects they’ll use their intelligence for. You aren’t a dumb guy either, Syntax, but you’re more than willing to interpret my posts as though I’m putting forth some formal logical demonstration

That’s what you’ve been doing, Oreo. “Logical” demonstration or not, you continue to presume to know the inner-workings of someone’s psychology–and your accusations above are direct evidence of this!

and yet, when it comes to your cherished belief in God, you just throw your hands up in the air and say “Logic shouldn’t tread over this belief!” In other words, logic (along with inflated interpretations of what people are saying) is your savior in normal circumstances, but when it comes to religion, God is your savior. Which is it, Syntax? Exempting God from logic for no good reason is a fallacy called special pleading, as I’m sure you know.

NO! Belief in God is completely rational! You assume that we all believe in God because we abandon rationality. And this is precisely the source of your error. I wasn’t raised Christian at all. I found God after years of struggling most of my life with the God question, investigating philosophies, religions, psychology, human kind’s search for meaning, etc. And now I find the belief in God properly basic and just as rationally warranted as the belief that “I have two hands.” I am not about to go into listing all the reasons I have for believing in God, because I am not under any obligation to defend myself to you anymore than you are under obligation to defend your own beliefs. Just know that we have our reasons and they are perfectly rational, whether logical, evidential, personal, historical, etc.

We have evidence for God in:

Various philosophical “proofs.”
The Big Bang
The fine-tuning of universal constants.
First-person experience.
The existence of morality
The Principle of Sufficient of Reason
Inferences to the best explanation concerning our own personal histories.
The existence of Human Intelligence
Historical documents
Eye-witness testimonies
The Beauty and Grandeur of Life and Experience
And in many other reasons

So quit presuming you know what you were talking about, Oreo. You are certainly one of the most uncharitable non-believers I’ve come across in this forum. So knock it off.

 

[Syntax]

And o_mlly blackballed all of humanity, not to mention the fact that they **spat in the face of reality. **The constant bleating of “simplicity good, complexity bad!” is just an excuse for people to remain simpleminded and ignorant. People do this because they don’t like the idea of being obligated to learn or to understand the positions of those they disagree with.

That sounds like an excuse for people to put on their blinders and believe whatever they fancy.

It’s really a matter of common sense, I’m afraid. If your religion makes “the devil” out to be the epitome of evil–the intial Hell-bound individual who was an affront to all that is good–then comparing another’s traits or actions to the devil’s is a bit rude, no?

I don’t believe I said “blind”…or even “closeminded” in this thread. Maybe you could show me some quotes? Otherwise, you’re putting words in my mouth.

As we can see above you said this or directly implied it, and you continue to do it in the post below.

All of your above claims with respect to o_mlly have either been shown to be false or serisouly suspect, but then you claim immunity and erect your own private “common sense” above others’ interpretations:

Oh Syntax, you continue to entertain me. You’re trying to make our exchange into some kind of logical battle, but that simply isn’t the case. Now **you can say that my accusation didn’t “logically follow” from the statement, but sometimes logic isn’t the way to break down peoples’ statements. **

you’re more than willing to interpret **my posts as though I’m putting forth some formal logical demonstration…**and yet, when it comes to your cherished belief in God, **you just throw your hands **up in the air and say **“Logic shouldn’t tread over this belief!” **In other words, logic (along with inflated interpretations of what people are saying) is your savior in normal circumstances, but when it comes to religion, God is your savior. Which is it, Syntax? Exempting God from logic for no good reason is a fallacy called special pleading, as I’m sure you know.

(1) You get to make all the accusations you want against someone else’s** inner psychological intentions** from very little or no evidence, but when you are criticized, you claim to be immune from rational criticism because your own accusations are presumably “not logical demonstrations” from the start.

(2) You get to make all the inferences you want about a person’s actual beliefs from their one-line assertions, but then you claim you are immune from logical criticism becasuse your own arguments are presumably not “logical demonstrations” EVEN WHEN your claims were shown to be demonstrably False.

(3) And when your own beliefs are shown to be false after all, you then give yourself the license to ad hominem attack people even more, subsequently making more unfounded claims, hence starting the cycle all over again.

This does NOT sound like a very rational person with which anyone would want to engage in any discussions at all:yawn:

 

[Syntax]

I don’t believe I said “blind”…or even “closeminded” in this thread. Maybe you could show me some quotes? Otherwise, you’re putting words in my mouth.

You claim innocence, but here’s the proof:

And o_mlly blackballed all of humanity, not to mention the fact that they **spat in the face of reality. **The constant bleating of “simplicity good, complexity bad!” is just an excuse for people to remain simpleminded and ignorant. People do this because they don’t like the idea of being obligated to learn or to understand the positions of those they disagree with.

That sounds like an excuse for people to put on their blinders and believe whatever they fancy.

If your religion makes “the devil” out to be the epitome of evil–the intial Hell-bound individual who was an affront to all that is good–then comparing another’s traits or actions to the devil’s is a bit rude, no?

All of your above claims with respect to o_mlly have either been shown to be false or serisouly suspect. Further, your own intepretation of o_mlly’s actual beliefs about the matter were shown to be false too. But then you go on to claim immunity and erect your own private “common sense” over others’ interpretations here:

Oh Syntax, you continue to entertain me. You’re trying to make our exchange into some kind of logical battle, but that simply isn’t the case. Now **you can say that my accusation didn’t “logically follow” from the statement, but sometimes logic isn’t the way to break down peoples’ statements. **

you’re more than willing to interpret **my posts as though I’m putting forth some formal logical demonstration…**and yet, when it comes to your cherished belief in God, **you just throw your hands **up in the air and say **“Logic shouldn’t tread over this belief!” **In other words, logic (along with inflated interpretations of what people are saying) is your savior in normal circumstances, but when it comes to religion, God is your savior. Which is it, Syntax? Exempting God from logic for no good reason is a fallacy called special pleading, as I’m sure you know.

I understand what’s going on:

(1) You get to make all the accusations you want against someone else’s** inner psychological intentions** from very little or no evidence, but when you are criticized, you claim to be immune from rational criticism because your own accusations are presumably “not logical demonstrations” from the start.

(2) You get to make all the inferences you want about a person’s actual beliefs from their one-line assertions, but then you claim you are immune from logical criticism becasuse your own arguments are presumably not “logical demonstrations” EVEN WHEN your claims were shown to be demonstrably False.

(3) And when your own beliefs are shown to be false after all, you then give yourself the license to ad hominem attack people even more, subsequently making more unwarranted assumptions that believers abandon reason in matters of their own beliefs, hence starting the cycle all over again.

This does NOT sound like a very rational person with which anyone would want to engage in any discussions at all. Sad, very sad–and boring too. ho hum…:yawn:

In fact, it is very clear we are dealing with a classic case of self-projection onto others here. The initial description fits YOU more than anyone else. We have arguments, you have not. We have obeyed logical principles, you have not. None of us have so far made any sweeping generalizations about any one particular person that turned out to be false, but you have…sounds like someone desperately needs a reality check!

 

[Darryl1958]

Leela:

People make decisions about the number of children to have or to have them at all for many different reasons. You seem to be concerned that the world will run out of people. That doesn’t appear to be the trend, does it? The question is more about how we can find ways to clothe, feed, and find water for the world population as it continues to grow

I am not at all concerned of the world running out of people!!!

And correct, people do make decisions of how many children for many different reasons.

And with that in mind, now you are getting closer to my contentions that 50 million abortions in a generation and the birth rate of 1.3 live births per woman in Greece, for example, speak of nihilism.

Are the children of Europe and the West running around naked, hungry and without water to drink? Is that really your contention? If so, honestly, my own pessimism pales in comparison. You are way, way more pessimistic about your future and the future of your children than I will ever be.
I may feel the darkness, but I will not live it. God’s reason triumpsh over mere human feelings. Life is a choice for all of us.

To me the rationalizations that lead to destruction on such a scale speak of nihilism, a lack of belief in life itself, a lack of belief in belief.

People certainly have their plethora of ‘reasons’ why. Can an atheistic world view provide any counter reasons as to why not. To repeat, I certainly haven’t seen that in this thread.

You seem to equate nihilism with psycopathic disorder. That may or may not be so, but to me wiping out a third of a generation through abortion, and halving each generation through low demographic birth rates unprecedented in the history of human choice speaks of nihilism of the highest order.

I am not of that order of pessimism personally. It is an order of darkness that I have ultimately rejected. To paraphrase Billy, I may have smoked it but I didn’t inhale.

No, I do not worry about the world running out of people at all. The values of life will live on in the children of the living!!!

And in his ultimate mercy, God will grant the nihilist their wishes too. Let the dead bury the dead with their own plethora of reasons.

 

[Oreoracle]

Well, I don’t think I missed the point; I just didn’t think we all had to go back to PH101. Any proposition with a subject and descriptive predicate can be restated as a conditional.

No, I don’t believe it’s that easy. A conditional contains one proposition that implies another proposition. Breaking one proposition into two can lead to some rather embarrassing consequences (dang, I’ve used that phrase twice in one thread). Let me give an example. I’ll try to be as civil as possible, but that may be difficult. I mean, I know that Syntax will just try to respond and provoke me after I post this.

We can start with a simple syllogism about my friend, Klyne:

1. A mad person is an angry person.
2. Klyne is a mad person.
   C. Therefore, Klyne is an angry person.

Nobody would disagree with this. However, it sounds noticably awkward when phrased as a series of conditionals:

1. If a person is mad, then it is angry.
2. If a person is Klyne, then it is mad.
   C. Therefore, if a person is Klyne, then it is angry.

I think the contrapositive of (2) is perhaps the most awkward of all: “If a person is not mad, then it is not Klyne.”

I’ll let Klyne know that she is no longer herself when she isn’t mad!

Personally, I sometimes steer clear of using formal arguments, especially Aristotelian propositional arguments, because “is” and “are” are so easily manipulated. In the first premise, for example, I’m using “is” to equate mad people and angry people. In the second, I’m using “is” merely to attribute “mad” to Klyne. If the “is” is interpreted in different ways than we intend, we aren’t conveying the same idea. The problem becomes more obvious when we use conditionals, and we eventually end up with absurdities that state Klyne is no longer Klyne if she isn’t mad. Even propositional logic had flaws. Symbolizing language may not be such a hot idea after all.

 

[Syntax]

No, I don’t believe it’s that easy. A conditional contains one proposition that implies another proposition. Breaking one proposition into two can lead to some rather embarrassing consequences (dang, I’ve used that phrase twice in one thread). Let me give an example. I’ll try to be as civil as possible, but that may be difficult. I mean, I know that Syntax will just try to respond and provoke me after I post this.

We can start with a simple syllogism about my friend, Klyne:

1. A mad person is an angry person.
2. Klyne is a mad person.
   C. Therefore, Klyne is an angry person.

Nobody would disagree with this. However, it sounds noticably awkward when phrased as a series of conditionals:

1. If a person is mad, then it is angry.
2. If a person is Klyne, then it is mad.
   C. Therefore, if a person is Klyne, then it is angry.

I think the contrapositive of (2) is perhaps the most awkward of all: “If a person is not mad, then it is not Klyne.”

I’ll let Klyne know that she is no longer herself when she isn’t mad!

I agree o_mlly’s formulation sounds awkard. That’s why I told o_mlly to clarify what o_mlly meant by it. The logical form is still sound, though. We can just tighten it up to make more sense.

For any mental-state, proposition, or fact X, we can say,

(1) If something X is from the devil, then X is complicated and divided.

and its logical equivalent,

(2) If something X is not complicated and divided, then X is not from the devil.

FYI, I do not explicitly endorse this conditional. But the point is that there is nothing immediately counterintuitive or implausible about it right from the start.

In fact, the conditional seems very plausibly true if the devil exists, since the conditional says nothing about all those complicated and divided X’s which are NOT from the devil. So it really doesn’t inform us much at all of anything except all the complicated and divided cr** which comes from the devil, and all the non-complicated and non-divided “good stuff” which doesn’t come from the devil. The conditional merely seems to provide a necessary condition that everything the devil says or does or influences is, has been, or will lead to, something X that is complicated and divided.

So I am pretty sure o_mlly would NOT endorse your following rendering:

“1. If a person is mad, then it is angry.
2. If a person is Klyne, then it is mad.
C. Therefore, if a person is Klyne, then it is angry.”

 

[Oreoracle]

I agree o_mlly’s formulation sounds awkard. That’s why I told o_mlly to clarify what o_mlly meant by it. The logical form is still sound, though. We can just tighten it up to make more sense.

Yes, I agree that we should “tighten up” logical statements. Most of that process has to do with focusing our attention to meaning rather than phrasing. It’s a shame that people are putting so much stock into symbolizing arguments that meaning is considered irrelevant.

For any mental-state, proposition, or fact X, we can say,

(1) If something X is from the devil, then X is complicated and divided.

If I recall, o_mlly did not specify that a certain quality was from the devil. If I remember correctly, that pesky “is” was used.

For these statements, it would probably be better to use first-order logic to symbolize such things, don’t you think? If x represents the devil, D represents divisiveness, C represents complication, and the devil has the qualities of being divided and complicated, then D(x) & C(x); that is, x has D and C.

Anyway, this is far from the topic of atheism and nihilism; I only wished to point out the awkwardness that would result from being dependent on logic. Meaning is important, and I took o_mlly’s initial declaration to mean something insulting and (by some extension) incorrect. I will not apologize for my judgment, because I still believe I am correct. I’ve encountered too many shortsighted people who have made similar statements to doubt my judgment. I will apologize that I appeared to be making some formal argument against him/her. That was not my intention, nor did I ever state that it was.

 

[Syntax]

1. A mad person is an angry person.
2. Klyne is a mad person.
   C. Therefore, Klyne is an angry person.

Nobody would disagree with this. However, it sounds noticably awkward when phrased as a series of conditionals:

1. If a person is mad, then it is angry.
2. If a person is Klyne, then it is mad.
   C. Therefore, if a person is Klyne, then it is angry.

I think the contrapositive of (2) is perhaps the most awkward of all: “If a person is not mad, then it is not Klyne.”

I’ll let Klyne know that she is no longer herself when she isn’t mad!

Personally, I sometimes steer clear of using formal arguments, especially Aristotelian propositional arguments, because “is” and “are” are so easily manipulated.

There is nothing “easily manipulatable” about the copulas “is” and “are” in formal logic or Aristotelian syllogistic Logic at all. They have rules of use. And further, all of the statements above are well-formed and truth-valuable, they are just highly ambiguous. (2) in the second argument merely sounds a little akward because it is actually ascribing a necessary (or essential) property to Klyne, namely, being mad. So just as

(2) If a person is Klyne, then it is mad,

is logically well-formed (but implausible),

(2) If a thing is God, then it is omniscient and omnipresent

is perfectly well-formed too, since (2) actually says,

(2) If there exists an X such that X=God, then X is omniscient and omnipresent.

Likwise (1) can actually be re-formulated to say,

(4) If there exists an X such that X=Klyne, then X is mad.

All these statements just sound weird, and (1) and (4) are just saying implausibly that Klyne is necessarily mad if Klyne exists. So there are better way to forumulate all these sentences. I just wouldn’t put any of them into conditional statements. I would put them into simple predicative statements instead such as:

Klyne is mad

and

God is necessarily omnipresent and omniscient.

In the first premise, for example, I’m using “is” -]to equate /-] -]mad people /-]-]and angry people/-]. [No. It is not a statement of identity. It is actually a universal categorical statement that affirms the class of all angry people as part of the class of all mad people.] ** -]In the second, I’m using “is” -]merely/-] to attribute “mad” to Klyne./-] [Albeit the conditional is weird, it is actually saying that being mad is a necessary condtion for Klyne to exist. If the “is” is interpreted in -]different ways/-] than we intend, we -]aren’t conveying the same idea./-] [No, the “is” performs the same truth-functional role in all statements, namely, predication] The problem becomes more obvious when we use conditionals [right, the conditionals are weird], and we eventually end up with -]absurdities/-] that state Klyne is no longer Klyne if she isn’t mad [it’s not a logical absurdity; it is just very implausible.] Even propositional logic had flaws [what??!! Never! The problem is not logic, the problem is located in bad use of natural languages and careless formulations]. ** Symbolizing language may not be such a hot idea after all.[NO, NO, NO! This is false!! The problem is the sloppy us of natural LANGUAGE not LOGIC!] **

 

[kenofken]

Atheists can get on your nerves in a militant academic sort of way. Nihlists, on the other hand, are the sort that would urinate on a man’s favorite rug, the one that really makes a room hang together. Fortunately, they have their weak spots. In a conflict, they’re all hat and no cattle, and the minute you bit off one of their ears and spit it skyward, they run like the jackals they are!

“They’re not Nazis, they’re nihlists. Don’t worry Donny, these men are cowards.”

 

[Syntax]

Yes, I agree that we should “tighten up” logical statements. Most of that process has to do with focusing our attention to meaning rather than phrasing. It’s a shame that people are putting so much stock into symbolizing arguments that meaning is considered irrelevant.

In case you haven’t noticed, logical syntax is a necessary condition for all natural languages to have grammar, meaning, and structure. It is the sloppy use of natural language that messes things up, not logic or language itself.

If I recall, o_mlly did not specify that a certain quality was from the devil.

huh?..The qualities were of being *complicated *and divided. So I am not sure what you’re talking about.

If I remember correctly, that pesky “is” was used.

There is nothing wrong with “is.” In logic it has the function of expressing identiy, predication, or subsumption of classes of objects. You just don’t have a very good familiarity with logic, which is fine. But don’t fault logic for your own misunderstandings.

For these statements, it would probably be better to use first-order logic to symbolize such things, don’t you think? If x represents the devil, D represents divisiveness, C represents complication, and the devil has the qualities of being divided and complicated, then D(x) & C(x); that is, x has D and C

.

Sure, absolutely. No one would disagree there. But it seemd o_mlly wanted to get something more across than just qualities about the devil. o_mlly wanted to say that everything that comes from the devil is divided and complicated, which is perfectly plausible to believe if the devil exists. And for this very reason we need to express the thought in a conditional statement.

Anyway, this is far from the topic of atheism and nihilism; I only wished to point out the awkwardness that would result from being dependent on logic.

Unfortunately, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Again, the problem is not with logic, but with bad use of language.

Meaning is important, and I took o_mlly’s initial declaration to mean something insulting and (by some extension) incorrect. I will not apologize for my judgment, because I still believe I am correct. I’ve encountered too many shortsighted people who have made similar statements to doubt my judgment.

You’re certainly entitled to your opinion. But from now on I would strongly suggest you stop profiling people’s psychology before you get to know them. Further, stop presuming you know what others think and believe without inquiring first. You’ve made these unfounded remarks toward me and o_mlly. You have jumped to more conclusions about people without evidence in one day than I’ve seen in two weeks on this forum. And just because we all have this tendency to get out of line sometimes because of our own weaknesses, just remember that that doesn’t give you the liberty to exploit this weakness in yourself, either, while putting your own insecurities off on others.

will apologize that I appeared to be making some formal argument against him/her. That was not my intention, nor did I ever state that it was.

It was our own mistaken presumptions that led you to draw these conclusions about o_mlly. And you did drew these conclusions whether you “intended to” or not. The evidence undoubtedly speaks for itself in your posts.

 

[Syntax]

Atheists can get on your nerves in a militant academic sort of way. Nihlists, on the other hand, are the sort that would urinate on a man’s favorite rug, the one that really makes a room hang together. Fortunately, they have their weak spots. In a conflict, they’re all hat and no cattle, and the minute you bit off one of their ears and spit it skyward, they run like the jackals they are!

“They’re not Nazis, they’re nihlists. Don’t worry Donny, these men are cowards.”

 

[o_mlly]

No, I don’t believe it’s that easy. A conditional contains one proposition that implies another proposition. Breaking one proposition into two can lead to some rather embarrassing consequences (dang, I’ve used that phrase twice in one thread). Let me give an example. I’ll try to be as civil as possible, but that may be difficult. I mean, I know that Syntax will just try to respond and provoke me after I post this.

We can start with a simple syllogism about my friend, Klyne:

1. A mad person is an angry person.
2. Klyne is a mad person.
   C. Therefore, Klyne is an angry person.

Nobody would disagree with this. However, it sounds noticably awkward when phrased as a series of conditionals:

1. If a person is mad, then it is angry.
2. If a person is Klyne, then it is mad.
   C. Therefore, if a person is Klyne, then it is angry.

I think the contrapositive of (2) is perhaps the most awkward of all: “If a person is not mad, then it is not Klyne.”

I’ll let Klyne know that she is no longer herself when she isn’t mad!

…

Good marks on civility; not so good on logic.

Premise 1 is not a universal statement (“All persons …”) rather it is an indefinite particiular (“A person …”) which may not include Klyne. Your conclusion is logicaly invalid.

The conditionals necessarily inherit the invalidity of the syllogism.

If, as I guess you might, correct the syllogism’s fault, then my condolences to your friend Klyne. However, she may fortunately argue with you regarding the truth you claim in Premise 2.

 

[o_mlly]

…

And Oreo’s “category error” involved further incorrectly interpreting you as saying,

(3) If a thing is divided and complicated, then it is evil.

But (3) is clearly false too. …

The confusion of categories as a logical error results from imputing properties ascribed to one category or essence (the devil being pure spirit) to another category (man being body and spirit).

 

[Syntax]

The confusion of categories as a logical error results from imputing properties ascribed to one category or essence (the devil being pure spirit) to another category (man being body and spirit).

Sure. I was referrring to the categor**ical **error of thinking if All P are Q, then All Q are P. This is why I suggested you tighten up what you are trying to say. So I made it explicit for you in that other post.

Good marks on civility; not so good on logic.

Premise 1 is not a universal statement (“All persons …”) rather it is an indefinite particiular (“A person …”) which may not include Klyne. Your conclusion is logicaly invalid…

Actually, it can go 3 ways. The context of statement makes it very ambiguous suggesting multiple interpretations. If a statement in regular language is ambiguous, Logic says that “a” can mean “any” which means “all,” it can mean “some,” or it can mean “there exists an X such that.” I interpeted it as a universal statement too. So the fault is in the sloppy language used to express the thought, not in Oreo’s failure to notice this. This was precisely Oreo’s point: Oreo was pointing out ambiguities. So Oreo is partly correct, and you are partly correct too.

 

[AntiTheist]

In order to you to refute that consequence isn’t something that in reality is our concern, you’re going to have to come up with a more convincing argument as to how you live in the now rather than for a future

No, you’re not following. I’m not claiming that “consequence isn’t somethign that in reality is our concern.” Obviously we take consequences of actions into account. I’m saying that the consequences we take into account are the ones that pertain to the span of our lives, or – when we think “big picture” – the span of the human race.

The fact that the universe will one day be a cold and desolate place with no trace of life and absolutely no sign that we have ever been here has nothing to do with the fact that I, at the moment, prefer to live in a nice comfortable society and want to do everything I can to work for it.

Perhaps this example will help: my car has a value to me now, but will one day be scrap metal, and then one day there will be absolutely nothing left of it, not even a trace that it existed. But that has nothing to do with the fact that I don’t want it to get dented while I own it!

When I think about my car, I take into account consequences that pertain to the span of its existence as a car.

It would be utterly ridiculous to say, “Well, one day my car is going to be gone, so I won’t bother to prevent it from getting dents right now.” It is equally ridiculous to say that “Well, one day the universe as we know it will be gone, so I won’t bother to work for the pleasant society that I want right now.”

Yes, killing someone isn’t neccesarily something you might want to do, although being based on personal inclination in general isn’t much of a reason not to,

It is if you’re not a loony killer. Having zero inclination to do something is a pretty good reason not to do it.

Or do you regularly go around doing things that you’re not inclined to do? (Note that I’m using “inclined” broadly here. You might not love your job, but you’re “inclined” to earn a living in one way or another. You might not want to pay your taxes, but you’re “inclined” to contribute like a good citizen, for one reason or another. Everything you do is a product of your inclinations, including the fact that you don’t go around killing people like a loony killer. All of this is totally unrelated to the question of whether there’s life after death or whether there’s a “meaning” to life)

despite our inclinations against it, would it matter whether the individual had died then or not? how would it matter whether we have had fulfilled lives or not, if when they end, so do we?

It doesn’t matter. The point is that we want to live “fulfilled” lives (whatever we consider that to be) and that we want to prevent people we care about from dying if we can prevent it. Whether it “matters” in some abstract, cosmic way has absolutely no effect on my desire to not kill people and live a fulfilled life. And if your only reason for not killing people and for trying to live a fulfilled life is that you have some cosmic notion of “purpose,” then I think you have a really lousy reason for wanting to do those things.

Seriously, let’s say, for the sake of argument, that I prove to you that there is no objective meaning to the universe. What exactly would you do differently from that day on?

I submit that your life would be entirely the same, and if that’s not the case, then that’s very sad for you.

to be quite honest, I generally find there are lots of nasty people …] who’ve expressed their only restraint from killing people is the fact there is a law against it…

So the laws are working, then. Good.

As to the specific people that you know, my only response is that you should probably try to hang out with better people. No wonder you have such a low opinion of people – the people you know sound like dummies.

But if there’s a regular form of experience which doesn’t even appear to be physical of nature

Can you give me an example of what you mean and how you know that it isn’t “physical of nature”?

If you think that the “actual state of things” is that “this experience isn’t 'physical of nature,” then you would need to verify that that is the case in order to say that it’s true. If you can’t verify it, on what grounds do you claim it’s the “actual state of things”?

 

[Oreoracle]

huh?..The qualities were of being *complicated *and divided. So I am not sure what you’re talking about.

I’m saying that “the devil is divided and complicated” does not imply that these qualities are from the devil or that he somehow produces things possessing these qualities. The qualities are merely of the devil.

There is nothing wrong with “is.” In logic it has the function of expressing identiy, predication, or subsumption of classes of objects.

Yes, and unless otherwise stated, it can be very difficult to tell which is being used at a given time. That’s one reason why I prefer to use first-order logic if I’m forced to formalize an argument (we can show each usage quite distinctively in first-order logic). Modal logic might also help my Klyne argument, because even though “Klyne is mad” does imply that “if a thing is not mad, then it is not Klyne,” we don’t mean to convey that mad-ness is a necessary quality (or an essential quality, as Aristotelians might call it) of Klyne-ness. That is, we know that a thing may be Klyne whether or not it is mad. I think you’ll agree that Aristotelian syllogisms work best with static qualities, not qualities that can simply come and go.

I admit that you have this point: I was wrong about saying that Aristotelian logic uses identity statements. That should have been an assertion about propositional logic in general.

Sure, absolutely. No one would disagree there. But it seemd o_mlly wanted to get something more across than just qualities about the devil. o_mlly wanted to say that everything that comes from the devil is divided and complicated, which is perfectly plausible to believe if the devil exists. And for this very reason we need to express the thought in a conditional statement.

Okay, but o_mlly’s formulation of his/her initial “argument” into conditional statements failed to show this. “The devil is divided and complicated” does not imply that all that originates from the devil is also divided and complicated any more than “the water appears blue” implies that all things originating from that water will appear blue.

Unfortunately, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Again, the problem is not with logic, but with bad use of language.

You don’t believe that logic suffers from the inherent ambiguity of language? Do you really want to commit yourself to that position?

 

[Oreoracle]

Good marks on civility; not so good on logic.

Premise 1 is not a universal statement (“All persons …”) rather it is an indefinite particiular (“A person …”) which may not include Klyne. Your conclusion is logicaly invalid.

It was intended to be taken as a universal, like the proposition “A triangle is a three-sided polygon.” As you know, all syllogisms are meant to begin with universal propositions. We can’t make an inference from two particulars. Have some more confidence in my ability, please.

 

[o_mlly]

It was intended to be taken as a universal, like the proposition “A triangle is a three-sided polygon.” As you know, all syllogisms are meant to begin with universal propositions. We can’t make an inference from two particulars. Have some more confidence in my ability, please.

Sorry, I took you, so to speak at your word.
indefinite article
n 1: a determiner (as a' or some’ in English) that indicates
nonspecific reference
I did, you must allow, continue my post with accepting your Premise 1 as a universal indicating that what follows is logical but, in deference to Klyne, indicated Premise 2 may be challenged. And if she succeeds to prove Premise 2 false, then necessarily its contrapositive is also false.

 

[Oreoracle]

Sorry, I took you, so to speak at your word.

That’s alright. I’ll be clearer next time.

I did, you must allow, continue my post with accepting your Premise 1 as a universal indicating that what follows is logical but, in deference to Klyne, indicated Premise 2 may be challenged. And if she succeeds to prove Premise 2 false, then necessarily its contrapositive is also false.

Granted, Klyne did tell me that she was mad, so if (2) is false, then either her honesty or her ability to decipher her own mood is also in question. (The latter would cause us to have a very obscure opinion of how emotions work, I imagine.) Nothing’s wrong with your logic, I just think that making the premise into a conditional gives us the false impression that being Klyne entails being mad. I’m sure we would agree that Klyne is Klyne whether or not she is mad, so “if a thing is not mad, it is not Klyne” is misleading. It holds true temporarily, but once Klyne ceases to be angry, she is still Klyne, mad or not. That’s why these syllogisms work better with static or “essential” properties rather than personality traits or moods.