Philosophy Now Forum

I'd like to start all over: P1 - For all we know, A may be the state of B; P2 - What C does is determined by the state of B; C - Therefore, for all we know, what C does may be determined by A. This is how I came to the conclusion that the argument is true: Example: C is the object (cube) that can d...

"State" is usually a concept used in all kinds of analysis, but what does it even mean when it comes to philosophy, ontology? ??? There is an argument, couched in clear, everyday English, and I'm definite there's nothing not to understand, either in the wording or in the phrasing. So, sin...

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:49 am perhaps the author intends to reveal that he thinks one of these false syllogisms is fundamental to something we all believe. So by dismissing them we discover that we don't really believe in science or rainbows or something.

Or the other way around.
EB

I didn't vote (yet), as I'm unsure what to vote. Take your time. These are formal arguments but couched in ordinary language. Most people are unfamiliar with those, I think. I'm essentially interested in intuitive replies. Either the argument seems obviously valid or invalid, in which case you can ...

This is a poll on the validity of the two following arguments. 1st argument P1 - For all we know, A may be the state of B; P2 - What C does is determined by the state of B; C - Therefore, for all we know, what C does may be determined by A. 2nd argument P1 - For all we know, A may be the state of so...

EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:44 pm I do not, you presume most incorrectly. Try again.

Excellent repartie! Most impressive!

And useful too as it definitely makes apparent to all that you either have no argument or possibly you don't even know you'd need to provide one.

Bye-bye.
EB

Thanks to all for your views here.

Please keep in mind, however, that I expect proper definitions.

And, a good definition is definitely a short definition.

I can't do a poll without good definitions.

Thanks again.
EB

Does wanting your arm to move and then moving it not count as free will? Then what would? 'Free will' is not usually understood as some disembodied force unattached to people. It is the will of an agent. I started a thread on free will to try and establish what most people think free will is as opp...

Geometry, as space, is one of the few things we are certain of as space cannot be analyzed past anything but itself. Geometry is not space. We know geometry whenever we think of geometry because geometry is an idea but the physical world is not supposed to be an idea so just thinking about it isn't...

"No, two. Count them: He, and his thought." "Again, no. " Ooookay. If you are so fucking stupid that you can't tell the difference between 1 (one) and 2 (two) then what the dickens are you prancing about on a philosophy forum for? Are you imagining your stupidity for the first t...

All realities are composed of <snip> geometric forms and in these respects contain points. Er, no. We certainly don't know that this would be the case. We're talking about 'certain knowledge' in this thread. Well, we don't have it as to reality being 'composed of geometric forms' or containing 'poi...

I take the usual terms of the debate on free will to make no sense in relation to our experience as humans. Yet, rather than try to flog my own definition of free will to unwilling PNF members, I'm mostly interested in the actual conception of free will most people have. So, first, I'd like to start...

EB, once I asked JohnDoe7 to explain his theories in laymen's terms, and he did, and he made sense. His claims don't make sense without an explanation, that much I grant. EB, you are free to ask JohnDoe7 to explain his point, and he will do a good job at it. JohnDoe, I think you would be much bette...

Accept what is self-evident. Free-will, other-minds, the first-person authority we have over our mental happenings, the existence of a Intelligent Designer, and so on. None of these can be denied without some sort of self-denial of what is obvious and necessarily follows from our existence. There i...

You seem to be stuck in a rut, EB. To you everything is "I". I think you are stuck in a rut, and you haven't noticed it yet. Yes, my thoughts, tautologies (if I were the only person in the world **) and tautologies exist, and they are not me, or part of me, but they are temporal, and they...