"Top 5" Intellectuals and Philosophers

[Conserative Morality]

And, again, stating that I do not find philosophy an intellectual exercise worthy of consideration in a thread about intellectual philosophers is no more trolling than going into abortion threads and saying that abortion is a sin is trolling just because I know that abortion threads also attract pro-choice people who would be bothered by my comment.

Actually, considering that the topic is not philosophy in general, it's Top Five Philosophers, it's like going into a thread about one's favorite guns and complaining about gun control laws not being strict enough. It's more Threadjacking than trolling.

[Neo Art]

Neo Art, I say this as someone who respects you.

You are being a whiny little bitch right now, and this kind of conduct really is beneath you. Grow a pair and bow out.

Boo hoo? What exactly am I supposed to take from this? That some stranger on the internet doesn't like what I have to say?

Let's back up a minute here. In the 7 pages of this thread, I've been called:

1) a cancer
2) incapable of forming a thought
3) ignorant

and now

4) "a whiny little bitch" who should "grow a pair"

and yet I am the one breaking the rules here?

[Neo Art]

And, again, stating that I do not find philosophy an intellectual exercise worthy of consideration in a thread about intellectual philosophers is no more trolling than going into abortion threads and saying that abortion is a sin is trolling just because I know that abortion threads also attract pro-choice people who would be bothered by my comment.

Actually, considering that the topic is not philosophy in general, it's Top Five Philosophers, it's like going into a thread about one's favorite guns and complaining about gun control laws not being strict enough. It's more Threadjacking than trolling.

actually it's about going into a thread about one's favorite guns and saying none, because I hate guns. If the discussion is "what's your favorite X" then saying "none, I hate X" is germain to the topic.

Unless we're of course restricting the thread so tightly that any post that says anything in any way other than a list of 5 names is "off topic", in which case this entire thread was dead in the water as "lists" threads have been considered spam since antiquity.

[Hydesland]

*sigh* and how in the world to we know if something is internally consistant or not unless it squares away with our observations?

You don't need to know if it 'squares away' with our observations, only if it squares away with our axioms, and axioms in turn do not have to be observed.

What those conditions and premises are is not relevant.

Indeed, they could be completely made up, which is my point.

Logical axioms are a formalized way of structuring what we observe to be true, or at least believe to be true, because without observation there's no way to understand whether the axioms as concepts are internally consistant or not.

Again you're making basic mistakes. In a logical process, an axiom is a premise which is given and not to be disputed, the purpose is not to find out whether an axiom is internally consistent, but a logical argument or operation is, given the axioms. For instance, if I said all space tigers are blue, space whales are blue, thus space whales are space tigers, I could evaluate this logically and show it to be illogical without observing anything. I could say that the fact that all space tigers are blue does not mean all blue things are space tigers, thus to conclude that all space whales are space tigers from those axioms is faulty. Logic is a formalised way of structuring reason, there is absolutely no need to add a - in fact there is absolutely no qualifier that adds "what we observe to be true" at the end of that.

We know things are consistant because we observe them to be consistent, and it doesn't matter what P and Q are here, or whether the underlying premise is true, false, or entirely fanciful.

We can also know things or logical arguments are inconsistent or consistent by using our 'structured reason' to analyse whether the arguments lead on from each other.

Whether the axioms are real or not is irrelevant.

Again that is my point.

edit: also what we are debating right now is philosophy. Why are you engaging in something you deem to be worthless?

[Conserative Morality]

actually it's about going into a thread about one's favorite guns and saying none, because I hate guns. If the discussion is "what's your favorite X" then saying "none, I hate X" is germain to the topic.

Actually, this is more like saying 'None, guns are useless', while the usefulness of guns in general is not the point of the thread, but rather the usefulness of specific guns.

[Trotskylvania]

Neo Art, I say this as someone who respects you.

You are being a whiny little bitch right now, and this kind of conduct really is beneath you. Grow a pair and bow out.

Boo hoo? What exactly am I supposed to take from this? That some stranger on the internet doesn't like what I have to say?

Let's back up a minute here. In the 7 pages of this thread, I've been called:

1) a cancer
2) incapable of forming a thought
3) ignorant

and now

4) "a whiny little bitch" who should "grow a pair"

and yet I am the one breaking the rules here?

No, I'm trying to tell you that you're embarassing yourself. You lost this argument five pages ago, and yet you keep on obfuscating and equivocating to vainly defend a position that no one can take seriously.

[Neo Art]

For instance, if I said all space tigers are blue, space whales are blue, thus space whales are space tigers, I could evaluate this logically and show it to be illogical without observing anything. I could say that the fact that all space tigers are blue does not mean are blue things are space tigers, thus to conclude that all space whales are space tigers is faulty from those axioms is faulty. Logic is a formalised way of structuring reason, there is absolutely no need add a - in fact there is absolutely no qualifier that adds "what we observe to be true" at the end of that.

The only way that you're able to evalute that logically is because of your own observation states that just because two things look alike doesn't mean they're the same. That's my point. "Logic" that extent doesn't exist in a vaccuum. You can't logically evaluate things without a basis in experience. The only way you can evaluate the statement "all apples are red, this is red, therefore it's an apple" as logically inconsistant is because of simple observation that just because two things share characteristics of some sort doesn't make them the same. The only way you KNOW it's an illogical thing is because you KNOW, through observation, that many things in the world are blue.

You can not logic things in a vaccuum. You can not intuit things without concept. If you grew up in a world where the only thing you've ever seen in the world to be blue were space tigers, and the only thing in your entire universe of observation, the only thing you've ever seen in the world that was the color blue were space tigers, and someone told you "space tigers are blue, space whales are blue, thus space whales are space tigers" would that be logical to you?

of course it would, because in your realm of observation, only space tigers are blue, and if this space whale is blue, then it must be a kind of space tiger, because only space tigers are blue. It's a perfectly logical assumption given your realm of observation.

If you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail, if the only things in the world you've ever seen that were blue are space tigers, then anything blue must be a space tiger. You have no other reason to believe otherwise.

Now, there may be other things in the unverse that are blue, and if you knew that things OTHER than space tigers that were blue than surely you can see why it's a faulty premise. But without that observation, if you lived in a world where the only thing you've ever seen that was blue was a space tiger, why would you assume that this blue thing was anything different other than some form of space tiger? You have no reason to assume otherwise, to you, if it's blue, it's a space tiger.

Because you've never observed anything different.

[Neo Art]

No, I'm trying to tell you that you're embarassing yourself. You lost this argument five pages ago, and yet you keep on obfuscating and equivocating to vainly defend a position that no one can take seriously.

And again, I'm expected to care about your opinion of me...why? You're once again assuming motives that I don't have.

But again, thank you for admitting that my statement that I find no intellectualism in philosophy has spawned an argument has basically been 5 pages of persistant thread jacking attempting to argue with me.

[Hydesland]

The only way that you're able to evalute that logically is because of your own observation states that just because two things look alike doesn't mean they're the same.

No, this isn't the case actually. How about you learn some set theory.

The only way you can evaluate the statement "all apples are red, this is red, therefore it's an apple" as logically inconsistant is because of simple observation that just because two things share characteristics of some sort doesn't make them the same.

That's not an observation in a scientific sense, as in, data collected from the real world, this is just a conceptual observation at best, and is not what I'm discussing.

The only way you KNOW it's an illogical thing is because you KNOW, through observation, that many things in the world are blue.

No, that's not true. Even if I never saw anything other than space tigers that were blue, I wouldn't conclude that only space tigers are blue. Likewise, I've never seen any good movies by Uwe Boll, that doesn't make it logical for me to conclude that Uwe Boll can never make a movie I enjoy.

You can not logic things in a vaccuum. You can not intuit things without concept. If you grew up in a world where the only thing you've ever seen in the world to be blue were space tigers, and the only thing in your entire universe of observation, the only thing you've ever seen in the world that was the color blue were space tigers, and someone told you "space tigers are blue, space whales are blue, thus space whales are space tigers" would that be logical to you?

No. But logic is not subjective, even if I did find it logical, it would not in fact be logical.

of course it would, because in your realm of observation, only space tigers are blue, and if this space whale is blue, then it must be a kind of space tiger, because only space tigers are blue. It's a perfectly logical assumption given your realm of observation.

No, it's not a logical assumption, logic is not subjective. What you're stating here is some sort of neo-platonic philosophy about how we might conceptualise things, and how we could not conceptualise things we never experience (e.g. like in Plato's cave), but that is irrelevant to whether our propensity to do this is actually logical. There is no logical operator that allows you to deduce that, basic set theory says this.

If you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail, if the only things in the world you've ever seen that were blue are space tigers, then anything blue must be a space tiger. You have no other reason to believe otherwise.

But I have no reason to believe the former either.

[Neo Art]

In fact, let me take two premise:

"all space tigers are blue, space whales are blue, thus space whales are space tigers"

"this book contains the complete works of william shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet is a play by William Skakespeare, thus this book contains the play Romeo and Juliet"

Both sentences phrased in a logical construct, the first premise states a universal premise about a thing "space tigers are blue" or "this book is the complete works of William Shakespeare", the other defines a thing "space whales are blue" and "this is a play by William Shakespeare" and the third premise combines the first two.

Without knowing a thing about space whales, space tigers, willian shakespeare, romeo and juliet, or the color blue, which statement is logical, and which is illogical?

[Hydesland]

And I still find it amazing that you're arguing very deeply philosophical stuff, why would you do this if you think it's worthless?

[Rumbria]

And I still find it amazing that you're arguing very deeply philosophical stuff, why would you do this if you think it's worthless?

I think somebody got a poor mark in Jurisprudence at university and is rather pissed off at philosophy right about now

[Neo Art]

And I still find it amazing that you're arguing very deeply philosophical stuff, why would you do this if you think it's worthless?

Because logic is theoretical, and it's predictive, and far more worthwhile than mere philosophy. I explained that back on page 2.

[Rumbria]

And I still find it amazing that you're arguing very deeply philosophical stuff, why would you do this if you think it's worthless?

Because logic is theoretical, and it's predictive, and far more worthwhile than mere philosophy. I explained that back on page 2.

But logic was created by philosophical thought, logic is worthwhile, thus how can you claim philosophy has produced nothing worthwhile?

[Hydesland]

Both sentences phrased in a logical construct, the first premise states a universal premise about a thing "space tigers are blue" or "this book is the complete works of William Shakespeare", the other defines a thing "space whales are blue" and "this is a play by William Shakespeare" and the third premise combines the first two.

Without knowing a thing about space whales, space tigers, willian shakespeare, romeo and juliet, or the color blue, which statement is logical, and which is illogical?

The second is logical by tautology, or according to basic set theory, assuming 'complete works' is well defined. The other is not tautologically true, and is not true according to set theory.

[Hydesland]

And I still find it amazing that you're arguing very deeply philosophical stuff, why would you do this if you think it's worthless?

Because logic is theoretical, and it's predictive, and far more worthwhile than mere philosophy. I explained that back on page 2.

Logic is one of the major things philosophers talk about, what we're discussing is unambiguously, utterly utterly utterly utterly philosophy, right now, right here.

[Sdaeriji]

In fact, let me take two premise:

"all space tigers are blue, space whales are blue, thus space whales are space tigers"

"this book contains the complete works of william shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet is a play by William Skakespeare, thus this book contains the play Romeo and Juliet"

Both sentences phrased in a logical construct, the first premise states a universal premise about a thing "space tigers are blue" or "this book is the complete works of William Shakespeare", the other defines a thing "space whales are blue" and "this is a play by William Shakespeare" and the third premise combines the first two.

Without knowing a thing about space whales, space tigers, willian shakespeare, romeo and juliet, or the color blue, which statement is logical, and which is illogical?

Seriously?

Those aren't even remotely the same logical construct.

[Neo Art]

Both sentences phrased in a logical construct, the first premise states a universal premise about a thing "space tigers are blue" or "this book is the complete works of William Shakespeare", the other defines a thing "space whales are blue" and "this is a play by William Shakespeare" and the third premise combines the first two.

Without knowing a thing about space whales, space tigers, willian shakespeare, romeo and juliet, or the color blue, which statement is logical, and which is illogical?

The second is logical by tautology, or according to basic set theory, assuming 'complete works' is well defined. The other is not tautologically true, and is not true according to set theory.

uh uh, remember, you only "know" that because you're ASSUMING that the color "blue" is not a restricted set to things that are only space tigers. If the universe was such that the only blue things by definition were space tigers, then the first would be equally tautology.

You only know that it's not logical by tautology because you know that the color "blue" is not a set restricted only to space tigers because, again, you've seen things that are blue that aren't space tigers.

Remember, in my example above: "without knowing a thing about space whales, space tigers, willian shakespeare, romeo and juliet, or the color blue, which statement is logical, and which is illogical?"

You only know it's not true according to set theory because you know that the set "blue things" is not restricted to "space tigers". How would you know that if you've never seen anything blue?

[Neo Art]

In fact, let me take two premise:

"all space tigers are blue, space whales are blue, thus space whales are space tigers"

"this book contains the complete works of william shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet is a play by William Skakespeare, thus this book contains the play Romeo and Juliet"

Both sentences phrased in a logical construct, the first premise states a universal premise about a thing "space tigers are blue" or "this book is the complete works of William Shakespeare", the other defines a thing "space whales are blue" and "this is a play by William Shakespeare" and the third premise combines the first two.

Without knowing a thing about space whales, space tigers, willian shakespeare, romeo and juliet, or the color blue, which statement is logical, and which is illogical?

Seriously?

Those aren't even remotely the same logical construct.

All X are Y
A is Y

Therefore X is A

X = space tigers/works by william shakespeare
Y = in this book/blue
A = space whales/romeo and juliet

substitute as you wish

[Hydesland]

uh uh, remember, you only "know" that because you're ASSUMING that the color "blue" is not a restricted set to things that are only space tigers.

Yes, but logically there is no reason to make that assumption. Where as the Shakespeare statement requires that the property "works of Shakespeare" is restricted to works in that book.

If the universe was such that the only blue things by definition were space tigers, then the first would be equally tautology.

Yes, but it isn't, thus the two statements are not equivalent.

You only know that it's not logical by tautology because you know that the color "blue" is not a set restricted only to space tigers because, again, you've seen things that are blue that aren't space tigers.

I know that it's not tautologically true because the axiom did not require such a restriction. For instance, the axiom could require such a restriction, thus the statement, given the axiom, is true, but then that would be completely counter to observation, which kind of demolishes your point.

How would you know that if you've never seen anything blue?

Again, I don't know that, but I don't know the inverse either.

[Sdaeriji]

Seriously?

Those aren't even remotely the same logical construct.

All X are Y
A is Y

Therefore X is A

X = space tigers/works by william shakespeare
Y = in this book/blue
A = space whales/romeo and juliet

substitute as you wish

Yeah, that's not what you wrote.

All x is y, all z is y, thus z equals x

X contains all y, z equals y, thus z is contained in x

Be accurate.

[Hydesland]

All X are Y
A is Y

No, the Shakespeare statement is:

All X are Y
A is X

That is the crucial difference.

Anyway, as much as I enjoy debating philosophy with someone who hates philosophy, I must go.

[Neo Art]

If the universe was such that the only blue things by definition were space tigers, then the first would be equally tautology.

Yes, but it isn't, thus the two statements are not equivalent.

And you know this.....how?

[Sdaeriji]

Did we just lose posts in this thread?

[Hydesland]

Yes, but it isn't, thus the two statements are not equivalent.

And you know this.....how?

I don't. Let me clarify, since you did not specify with your axioms that all blue things are space tigers, I cannot logically deduce this given the axioms you provide alone.