Philosophy (Part 2)

[Ramo]

It's not that logic is faulty. It's that philosophy is not based exclusively on logic.

Sure, but then math isn't based "exclusively" on logic either. In both cases, you start with assuming precepts not based on logic. But "good" philosophy and good math doesn't contradict itself after that, and doesn't make conclusions not following from the assumptions.

It's not the "problem" with English. In Russian this idea can be expressed too.
And what's your problem with one thing being good and bad simultaneously? It may be good in one sense, but bad in another sense.

I suppose it depends on what you mean being something being good or something being bad. If you say moderate alcohol is good for your heart but bad for your liver, there isn't a contradiction. If you say moderate alcohol is good for you and bad for you, you're being logically ambigous and that's a problem with human language.

This depends on what is meant by 'contradiction'. For example, the notion of contradiction is central to Gegel's system, and appears in the second law of dialectics.

1. Gegel? Who's he? Do you mean Hegel (honest question, not ribbing you )?
2. What's the second law of dialectics?

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Frogger


So what? You're claiming that men will ask the woman to get an abortion because they want to get out of paying the costs, but that women won't?

Come on. You assume the best of the fairer sex. I think they're both equally slimy.

The only thing that women are getting is the right to keep their child. That is much different from a man trying to get out of paying child support. One is a basic right, and the other is just greed.

[KrazyHorse]

She doesn't choose to bear sole responsibility. Women have never made that choice. Before there were child support laws men made those choices. Women never agreed to it.

She chooses to support the child alone when she chooses not to have an abortion with the knowledge that she will not be supported.

Abortion on demand means that she has exactly that choice, so don't give me the ever-suffering woman and evil man bit.

[KrazyHorse]

The only thing that women are getting is the right to keep their child. That is much different from a man trying to get out of paying child support. One is a basic right, and the other is just greed.

Holy ****.

The woman still has the basic right to have her child. She just has to pay for it. Or is it a "basic right" that the woman shouldn't have to pay for all of it too?

[KrazyHorse]

They both have a choice the choice to support the child or not. If neither wants to support the child then the woman has the responsibility to have an abortion. If only the man wants to have the child then she can choose to have an abortion, or not and give him the child. If only the woman wants to have the child, then she has the right to choose to have an abortion, or not and bear sole responsibility.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Frogger

She doesn't choose to bear sole responsibility. Women have never made that choice. Before there were child support laws men made those choices. Women never agreed to it.

She chooses to support the child alone when she chooses not to have an abortion with the knowledge that she will not be supported.

Abortion on demand means that she has exactly that choice, so don't give me the ever-suffering woman and evil man bit.

Well before they didn't have the option of having an abortion, but now that they do have that option so they should be forced to take that option since they know that they will not be able to support the child by themselves? Why should they be forced to do something they don't believe in just so that the man can get out of his responsibilities just like men did before child support laws.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Frogger

The only thing that women are getting is the right to keep their child. That is much different from a man trying to get out of paying child support. One is a basic right, and the other is just greed.

Holy ****.

The woman still has the basic right to have her child. She just has to pay for it. Or is it a "basic right" that the woman shouldn't have to pay for all of it too?

If you are saying that she should only be able to have the child if she takes on the financial responsibility of the father than you are putting conditions on her basic rights. That would be like saying that you have the right to free speech, but only for a fee.

[KrazyHorse]

Well before they didn't have the option of having an abortion, but now that they do have that option so they should be forced to take that option since they know that they will not be able to support the child by themselves?

Nobody's forcing anything. You keep trying to draw in images of the abortion police bursting down her door and diddling her with a coat hanger.

She has the choice to bear the child or not. If she chooses to carry to term without the father's support then she bears the financial responsibility for taking this course of action when the safe, legal, cheaper method was available. Just like the damn analogy of the cosmetic surgery. If the accident had happened 50 years ago then the person who hit her would be rightfully out the 200 000$. If the accident happened today then he's out 400$.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Frogger

What are "internal senses" by the way?

Memory or feelings related to how we think. There's no guarantee past the fact that there exists some sort of consciousness which is able to form the sentence "I am" and which has a certain set of memories and faculties at this precise instant. Everything else proceeds from assumption; that my memory has some sort of correspondence with reality, that my thought processes follow a certain order, that (proceeding to external senses) my vision somehow corresponds to reality, etc.

It's a long line of assumptions and belief to the idea that there are simple physical laws independant of the observer, the time, and the place are simply a bit further down. In between are things like "the rules of formal logic are self-consistent" and "human beings have a similar conscious existence to my own"...

I agree with you, but I posit that you will have to accept that your senses are necessarily reliable and correspondinf to the objective reality (I call it the primacy of senses, but I am not sure if that is the correct term), or you will be forever be stuck in Hume's extreme skepticism (brain in a vat and all that fun stuff). Proceed from the primacy of senses, you will end up with empiricism.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DuncanK


If you are saying that she should only be able to have the child if she takes on the financial responsibility of the father than you are putting conditions on her basic rights. That would be like saying that you have the right to free speech, but only for a fee.

This is wrong on so many points it's almost laughable.

You're saying that not only should the woman be able to exercise her fundamental right to procreate, but that she should be able to force others to subsidise her in carrying out that right.

[KrazyHorse]

I agree with you, but I posit that you will have to accept that your senses are necessarily reliable and correspondinf to the objective reality (I call it the primacy of senses, but I am not sure if that is the correct term), or you will be forever be stuck in Hume's extreme skepticism. Proceed from the primacy of senses, you will end up with empiricism.

And that's the point. It's like philosophers have come halfway back to the real world but have neglected to take the last step (the scientific method etc.)

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Frogger

Well before they didn't have the option of having an abortion, but now that they do have that option so they should be forced to take that option since they know that they will not be able to support the child by themselves?

Nobody's forcing anything.

Frogger,

With out the support of the father most women can not afford to support the child. If society doens't give support than she has no choice but to have the abortion. So if the father refuses to pay support and doesn't have to it's the same as forcing her to have an abortion.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Agathon
I can't believe you're saying this. One of the big moves in philosophy of mind in the 20th century was debunking this Cartesian-like view of the mind.

You can't debunk it with philosophy. It remains a fact that your brain acquires a knowledge of the outside world through the senses.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Frogger


This is wrong on so many points it's almost laughable.

You're saying that not only should the woman be able to exercise her fundamental right to procreate, but that she should be able to force others to subsidise her in carrying out that right.

You don't believe in welfare?

[KrazyHorse]

With out the support of the father most women can not afford to support the child. If society doens't give support than she has no choice but to have the abortion. So if the father refuses to pay support and doesn't have to it's the same as forcing her to have an abortion.

Now this my friend is philosophy at its finest. Bull****. You know how many single mothers are out there who aren't getting child support? A whole bunch.

Second of all, your argument sounds like the people who think all public speech should be subsidised to ensure freedom of speech. You know what? I agree with you. I also think that every child should be payed for by the State (say, up to a limit of 3 per parent). But I'm a socialist. And that's neither here nor there when it comes to this system in which everything has a price, and you pay for your own decisions.