Philosophy Now Forum

It is. I defined Totality as containing all. There is no 'outside' and so even "false" things fit in it regardless. It is just separated from the rest. But regardless, the 'background' AS 'absolutely nothing' is behind all that is as well as all that is not. In set theory, they define all things as...

That you understand what I'm getting at. I presume 'time' as just a part of the whole. I just mentioned to Belinda that the concept Totality that I use refers to anything and all things true or not under this label. In order to make sense of ultimate 'origins' of concepts, we have to remove time an...

You are hooked with some bias: that you assume 'causation' and 'time' as required as a source. You are assuming that 'nothing cannot CAUSE anything'. But what of 'time' itself? You can't use the term 'cause' be cause we are stuck with justification as it relates to time. But then what CAN we use? O...

the US elections over yet? Who won the clown or the puppet?

To the stupid ignoramus, A survey from 2009 involving 3,226 respondents[5] found that 56% of philosophers accept or lean towards moral realism (28%: anti-realism; 16%: other). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism Those who lean towards moral realism accept there are moral facts. The above su...

1 In my discussion with Peter Holmes, et. al. they claim there are no moral facts - they're the moral-fact-deniers. 2 For them there are only 'facts' i.e. defined as, a fact is a feature of reality, something that is the case—that is, a state of affairs which is confined to the linguistic perspecti...

Don't want to diminish the importance and benefits of vaccines becoming available but according to some epidemiologists the Corona virus may be the less insidious introduction for many far more virulent ones to come. It makes sense. Among the worst are jungle viruses long sequestered being released...

Wasn't referring to you, one needs to have a somewhat functioning brain before one can be either a subjectivist or an objectivist. Weird. I haven't met any subjectivists with functioning brains. Don't worry, you'll realize that you have, once you'll buy a functioning brain on the black market. :)

Objectivists can be a bit slow, it can take them anywhere between 2 to 5 years of arguing to grasp that subjectivists really are subjectivists. Subjectivists are even slower. It can take them anywhere between 5 years and infinity to grasp that they aren't actually subjectivists. "Subjective" belief...

Yes, because that's all anyone has. Objectivists can be a bit slow, it can take them anywhere between 2 to 5 years of arguing to grasp that subjectivists really are subjectivists. not really...I understood pete is a * subjectivist the first time he declared it way back when...I just think he's wron...

I don't identify as a moral anti-realist. To reject moral realism as irrational is not to embrace moral anti-realism - just as, to be an atheist is not necessarily to be an anti-theist. But hey, it's the facts that count, not the labels. And moral realism and objectivism are irrational positions. I...

You are hooked with some bias: that you assume 'causation' and 'time' as required as a source. You are assuming that 'nothing cannot CAUSE anything'. But what of 'time' itself? You can't use the term 'cause' be cause we are stuck with justification as it relates to time. But then what CAN we use? O...

Instead, natural selection favors perceptions that hide the truth and guide useful action. Right there we have the fallacy. It's presented as binary. It is a false dichotomy. Look, just for a second, at the binary thinking and confusion in that sentence. False dichotomies are Veritas's superpower. ...

The definition of ALL propositions in ALL systems that I have studied is, "a statement that has the property of being either 'true' or 'false'." Thus, if "Absolutely nothing exists.", given as a proper proposition , it assures that it is either 'true' or 'false'. If is not able to be 'true' by mean...

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:27 am Since Nothing is assumed to be unable to exist absolutely, Absolute Nothing is identical to Absolute false (not true anywhere absolutely)

"nothing exists" is a proposition, "false" is a truth-value, how can you equate them? nothing is the lack of anything, including the lack of truth-values