Rational Theists and Rational Atheists of the World, Unite!

[twinc]

Sorry to keep correcting. But x is a variable that ranges over a domain of discourse, and by itself it is unbound–so it needs either a universal quantifier (Ax) or an existential quantifier (Ex). ** But that is not problematic at all. **So we don’t “need to know” what x “refers” to, because it just “refers” to a SET of objects, not any particular objects like names do.

On the other hand, “John” “Washington DC” “a” “b” “c” are constants, or names–and these DO refer to particular objects.

That’s correct.

Sure, no one disagrees here. Tautologies are propositions that are necessarily and trivially true.

Be careful though. Tautologies are not “things.” They are propositions. And it all depends on what you think exists. Do propositions exist? I say they do. But some people will differ. You just need to keep in mind that this is a question for metaphysics or *philosophy of language *to answer, not logic. It’s crucial that you understand that.

the crux or nub of the problem is that things can exist and yet not be real - twinc

 

[warpspeedpetey]

does anyone want to tell me how to make operators and statements in my posts?

 

[hatsoff]

Do propositions exist? I say they do. But some people will differ.

I don’t mind saying that propositions exist so long as we understand that they exist in a very different way than concrete objects.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I don’t mind saying that propositions exist so long as we understand that they exist in a very different way than concrete objects.

i have a problem with even applying the word “exist” to such things. i mean, if they have no “being” as would be demonstrated by physical qualities, or by logical necessity. then to me they simply are not. a bit of a nominalist position, i dont know a way around it that is any more palatable.

 

[Syntax]

the crux or nub of the problem is that things can exist and yet not be real - twinc

I’m aware so many of you will say this. But you need a **really **good defense if you want to make that claim. It clearly sounds false and wildly absurd to any logician.

I’m quite certain the burden of proof is on you. Read my posts in “Where did Aristotle Go Wrong”? thread where I decisively argue against this view. Start with post #78

 

[Oreoracle]

Sorry to keep correcting. But x is a variable that ranges over a domain of discourse, and by itself it is unbound

Certainly. What I meant was that it would be beneficial to know what “x” means in an argument that uses instantiation because some variable will be said to be a member of the class of x. It’s not necessary to do so, but it makes it easier for people like me. I misunderstood this at first, but a Wikipedia article presents it more clearly. Apparently, you can write “If all x have A, and all y have x, then all y have A” as “AxA(x)–>A(y/x).” If it’s written that way, it’s easier to see how x and y are related. Please correct me if I’m misunderstanding this.

You just need to keep in mind that this is a question for metaphysics or *philosophy of language *to answer, not logic. It’s crucial that you understand that.

Yes; logic is only concerned with inference rules, not the content of what is being inferred.

 

[Syntax]

I don’t mind saying that propositions exist so long as we understand that they exist in a very different way than concrete objects.

I agree that propositions are not physical objects. But I disagree that there is any such thing as a proposition “existing in a different way” than a physical object. Propositions and physical objects just either exist or don’t. PERIOD. There are not different “species” of existence.

I’d rather not discuss this here, though, since I’ve been defending this very position of mine at great length in the “Where did Aristotle go Wrong”? thread for the past two weeks. Check it out if you want. Start with post #78.

 

[Syntax]

i have a problem with even applying the word “exist” to such things. i mean, if they have no “being” as would be demonstrated by physical qualities, or by logical necessity. then to me they simply are not. a bit of a nominalist position, i dont know a way around it that is any more palatable.

If you’re a nominalist, I understand why you would think this. But I am not. Our ontologies are hence going to be different.

 

[Oreoracle]

does anyone want to tell me how to make operators and statements in my posts?

I don’t have a clue either.

 

[Astrochemist]

I have nothing more to add to this thread.

 

[Syntax]

Certainly. What I meant was that it would be beneficial to know what “x” means in an argument that uses instantiation because some -]variable/-][individual constants or objects] will be said to be a member of the class of x.

I think you’re just asking “how do we know which particular individual objects are members of the set {all cats}?” for instance. But that’s an epistemic question, not a logical one.

Notice, “x” ranges over things that exist. So if “all humans are animals” is true, why would we need to pick out any particular individual to make sense of the statement in logic?

It’s not necessary to do so, but it makes it easier for people like me. I misunderstood this at first, but a Wikipedia article presents it more clearly. Apparently, you can write “If all x have A, and all y have x, then all y have A” as “AxA(x)–>A(y/x).” If it’s written that way, it’s easier to see how x and y are related. Please correct me if I’m misunderstanding this.

I understand. But look, dealing with quantifiers, especially multiple quantifiers, is going to get complicated rather quickly. So be very careful what you try to say using them. I would **not **recommend working with them until you take a formal logic class where you have a teacher to walk you through it. I’ve been in the same situation before years ago, and it took me a lot of practice to get it down. I still have trouble sometimes.

The statement above in ordinary language just says:

If everything (x) has a feature A, and everything has what any (x) has, then everything has feature A. I’m pretty sure this would be a tautology because it is talking about everything.

 

[Syntax]

warpspeedpetey;6363190:

does anyone want to tell me how to make operators and statements in my posts?

I don’t have a clue either.

Nor me Good question!

 

[Syntax]

There is no problem except that created by pseudo philosopy and philosophers There just is not a physical world but only maya - btw God is no thing and everything comes from God or the void or from nothing - twinc

LOL!! I love this one!!!

It says nothing less absurd than,

“Error is created by pseudo philosophy and philosophers. The physical world doesn’t exist–but my own ILLUSIONS (maya) certainly exist.”



“God doesn’t exist. But everything comes from God’s non-existence. Wait, or is it the void? Wait, or is it nothing?”

 

[twinc]

I agree that propositions are not physical objects. But I disagree that there is any such thing as a proposition “existing in a different way” than a physical object. Propositions and physical objects just either exist or don’t. PERIOD. There are not different “species” of existence.

I’d rather not discuss this here, though, since I’ve been defending this very position of mine at great length in the “Where did Aristotle go Wrong”? thread for the past two weeks. Check it out if you want. Start with post #78.

instead lets just end it here - for the story of philosophical exploration is a fascinating account of inconclusive adventures in futility.All history shows that the philosophers have no settled platform of knowledge upon which they can stand in agreement,and that they are still in the realm of conjecture when they attempt to interpret the meaning of the world.Countless pages of innocent paper have been deluged with black ink by eager thinkers, but still the face of truth remains unseen.The answers of philosophers to the questions they posed themselves have been as different and opposite to each other as are the North and South Poles.Is no escape possible then from this demon of self-contradiction.Is Herbert Spencer right in declaring that absolute truth is to be relegated to the domain of the unreachable and philosophical seekers journey along a path which is but a blind endless maze without discernible starting-point and without attainable goal ? The wonder is that men have not ceased to philosophize altogether.What is it that urges them to construct and reconstruct,to criticize and to destroy,the theories of their predecessors and the speculations of their contemporaries ? Why do they not abandon in irritation this vain pursuit and thus follow the gifted Persian Omar Khayyam who -“when young did eagerly frequent,doctor and saint,and heard great argument,about it and about,yet evermore but came out by the same door wherein I went” - so why not update to a real philosopher like Dr.Brunton as per this extract - more later - twinc

 

[Syntax]

instead lets just end it here - for the story of philosophical exploration is a fascinating account of inconclusive adventures in futility.All history shows that the philosophers have no settled platform of knowledge upon which they can stand in agreement,and that they are still in the realm of conjecture when they attempt to interpret the meaning of the world. Countless pages of innocent paper have been deluged with black ink by eager thinkers, but still the face of truth remains unseen.

I don’t sympathize with your **nihilism **whatsoever. You might as well believe you’re a Brain in a Vat if you think nothing can be known.

The answers of philosophers to the questions they posed themselves have been as different and opposite to each other as are the North and South Poles.

So you believe that the North and South Poles exist? I thought the North and South Poles were instances of maya, or “illusion.”

Is no escape possible then from this demon of self-contradiction.

Examples please.

Is Herbert Spencer right in declaring that absolute truth is to be relegated to the domain of the unreachable and philosophical seekers journey along a path which is but a blind endless maze without discernible starting-point and without attainable goal ?

But I thought you said physical objects are an illusion. Herbert Spencer presumably had a physical body. Therefore, Herbert Spencer is an illusion. So why are you talking about him as if he existed?

The wonder is that men have not ceased to philosophize altogether.What is it that urges them to construct and reconstruct,to criticize and to destroy,the theories of their predecessors and the speculations of their contemporaries ?

I thought philosophers don’t really exist. So why are you talking about them as if they did?

Why do they not abandon in irritation this vain pursuit and thus follow the gifted Persian Omar Khayyam who -“when young did eagerly frequent,doctor and saint,and heard great argument,about it and about,yet evermore but came out by the same door wherein I went” - so why not update to a real philosopher like Dr.Brunton as per this extract - more later - twinc

But isn’t Persian Omar Khayyam your own illusion? So why should I believe what your own fantasies are telling you?

 

[twinc]

I don’t sympathize with your **nihilism **whatsoever. You might as well believe you’re a Brain in a Vat if you think nothing can be known.

So you believe that the North and South Poles exist? I thought the North and South Poles were instances of maya, or “illusion.”

Examples please.

But I thought you said physical objects are an illusion. Herbert Spencer presumably had a physical body. Therefore, Herbert Spencer is an illusion. So why are you talking about him as if he existed?

I thought philosophers don’t really exist. So why are you talking about them as if they did?

But isn’t Persian Omar Khayyam your own illusion? So why should I believe what your own fantasies are telling you?

hang about and hopefully you and others who chuuse to mock and jeer will stay to pray - twinc

 

[Syntax]

hang about and hopefully you and others who chuuse to mock and jeer will stay to pray - twinc

I’m not mocking at all. Those are genuine questions because YOU claimed everything is an illusion. Maybe you would care to explain yourself?

 

[twinc]

hang about and hopefully you and others who chuuse to mock and jeer will stay to pray - twinc

What is it that the mind does when it searches for a meaning ? This question provides a philosophic task of the first magnitude and its answer is itself a mental triumph. When a man speaks or writes he reveals not only what he does know but also what he does not know.Only the sage can ever achieve an exact formulation of his knowledge,where others reveal the poverty of their thinking by the use of ambiguous,biased,inexact or empty linguistic constructions,for he alone has burrowed to the roots of his own ideas.Thus too only the sage can detect from the style of man’s speech,the character of his linguistic structures,the precise stage on the road to truth to which his intelligence and his knowledge have advanced[The worship of words by Dr.Brunton] - more later - twinc

 

[twinc]

I’m not mocking at all. Those are genuine questions because YOU claimed everything is an illusion. Maybe you would care to explain yourself?

did I say everything is an illusion - it takes time and it took me a long time and search to find the known but hidden answers provided by Dr.Brunton - more later - twinc

 

[twinc]

did I say everything is an illusion - it takes time and it took me a long time and search to find the known but hidden answers provided by Dr.Brunton - more later - twinc

Re; Dr.Brunton read as Dr.Paul Brunton