Philosophy (Part 2)

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Ramo
Math is building a system from a set of assumptions based on the logical rule of the invalidity of contradiction. So is philosophy. Philosophical assumptions are not substantially different from mathematical ones.

Not quite so. Philosophy can't be considered as an axiomatic system in the same way as mathematics. Proof as it is understood in mathematics doesn't exist in philosophy. The whole argument in philosophy is based on reasonableness, not just on pure logic.

BTW, the notion of contradiction may be part of a philosophical system. For example, one and the same thing can be good and bad simultaneously: good in one sense, and bad in another. This is not allowed in mathematics: the thing is either "good" or "bad".

It's just that a lot of philosophy ends up being logically dubious while math usually is very rigorous in maintaing logical validity.

Sure, it does, it is. They are simply different sciences, with different scopes.

[CyberGnu]

Asher, just realized that my previous post was redundant. Good job

[KrazyHorse]

That a woman's decision to have the child should bind the father into paying for it. You're arguing that we should bribe women away from having abortions, with the men's money.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
well if the father had to pay more, tha father would need more, and so receive more

I don't see why the process has to go through so many steps, when just one is needed



Jon Miller

The father would only need more if he weren't able to afford his part. If he's not able to pay the whole of his part he should have to pay as much as he can.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Frogger
That a woman's decision to have the child should bind the father into paying for it. You're arguing that we should bribe women away from having abortions, with the men's money.

What? The women is not getting anything from it. She is still responsible for her part. The fathers part goes to support the child. In addition to her financial responsibility, she will be doing all the work, unless the man agreed to do some. You want to make it seem that she will be better off financially from having the child.

[Asher]

If I wasn't worried about Ming's heavy hand I'd start a thread called "Ask the Philosophers" where we can ask the wise men like Agathon all of our questions about the values of things, since us puny mortals are incapable of figuring this out ourselves.

Really, wouldn't it be great to finally realize the value of computers? I know I'm dying to know the answer of what this doohickey does!

[KrazyHorse]

What? The women is not getting anything from it

Yes she is.

[Ramo]

How is math based on assumptions?

You assume what properties real numbers have, what the multiplaction means, and work from there. 5*6 doesn't mean anything by itself.

edit: can you explain invalidity of contradiction?

If I say A is B, and then I say A is not B, there's a contradiction. Contradiction is the definition of logical invalidity, and this principle is the foundation of all math.

Not quite so. Philosophy can't be considered as an axiomatic system in the same way as mathematics. Proof as it is understood in mathematics doesn't exist in philosophy. The whole argument in philosophy is based on reasonableness, not just on pure logic.

That's why I said a lot of philosophy is logically crap. Any philosophy based on faulty logic isn't relevant IMO.

BTW, the notion of contradiction may be part of a philosophical system. For example, one and the same thing can be good and bad simultaneously: good in one sense, and bad in another. This is not allowed in mathematics: the thing is either "good" or "bad".

For something to be good and bad simultaneously isn't a well-defined assertion. It is neither good, nor bad. That's the problem with English; it lets you get away with bad logic too easily.

But it's true that the validity of contradiction could be a premise behind a philosophical system. It's just that such a system wouldn't be particularly useful.

Sure, it does, it is. They are simply different sciences, with different scopes.

Actually, neither are sciences.

[DuncanK]

frogger,

You are also not considering the case where the man doesn't really want the abortion, but knows that the women will not want one. Then he claims to want the abortion to get out supporting his children.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Frogger

What? The women is not getting anything from it

Yes she is.

She is getting a child, but she is paying half to support that child. That's all she should pay, because there are two parents.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by DuncanK
frogger,

You are also not considering the case where the man doesn't really want the abortion, but knows that the women will not want one. Then he claims to want the abortion to get out supporting his children.

actually, this is a good counterargument

Jon Miller

[KrazyHorse]

So what? He wouldn't have any right to see his children. And if the mother wants to have the child of a man that doesn't love his own children enough to support them and in addition bear sole responsibility for their maintenance then she deserves what she gets.

The same situation is possible in reverse, you know. Too bad. The people involved agreed to it either explicitly or implicitly.

[Asher]

For the uninitiated, what we're witnessing here is that you don't need to be a philosopher to be a philosopher.

[KrazyHorse]

And currently you can have the situation where a woman uses the man as a sperm bank + line of credit...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DuncanK


She is getting a child, but she is paying half to support that child. That's all she should pay, because there are two parents.

The man doesn't want the child but she is forcing him to buy in.